I'd like to open the regular planning board meeting for today June 18th on Tuesday is 6:0 2 3 uh p.m. um we are being video broadcast recorded out live y going out live and being recorded um first up it is is Administrative items and apparently we have not not so next would be planner report yes first item on the planner report is an update on our Buzzards Bay National estories program cber replacement Grant this is for those CS at uh Cornell Road at Angeline Brook drift Road at Snow Creek and drift Road at Lions Brook and we're partnering with bu Bay coalition to administer this this SC um as I previously given update they have some of their own Brant funds that they're contributing to this project so they have contracted with Go's and Solan Engineers to begin studying and building the U base level data for developing designs um and so they're doing the data collection right now over the course of this month and then they'll eventually use the data to develop a conceptual design for Corell Road at Angeline Brook reason why we're not doing all three is just to the expense of developing those designs we have to um dial it back but at least there will be that Baseline data available to the town should we find funds for other for find funds for other further design I know that there are two branches of Engel across uh ad but are there two that cross Cornell or have they combined by that time I can't a all right an update on is this just for design of it says the contract end in November this year I'm looking at the notes of the C mhm so this is not doesn't involve the construction it does not involve construction it's just going to bring it Angel and Brook to a conceptual design model so be incumbent on on the town them to try to find um funds for a full design and then to go get permitted to funs for okay how big is do Grant these are relatively small I think Buzzard's Bay has about $90,000 to spend on this in the town may you were working on that I think it was maybe 50 or 60 and do we have any they're going to start from scratch tring to figure out what to do and then propose propose that okay yeah that they'll develop a concept that we can then use to go look for other Grant FS to build out a full fully engineered design that we would use to go secure our construct next is our short-term rental survey so if you recall in our May meeting the planning board voted to recommend that the short-term rental committee continues it work continues its work even though we vote for the proposed or the proposed bylaws fail at town meeting and so before we even have the short rental committee meet again I I wanted to develop some data to better inform where the B should go I think we really need to have that in place to get community preferen will have some some figures to put to community preferences so that way we do take something to town meeting again be more likely to succeed so I drafted this survey with Jim and um the chair of the zoning board of appeals Roger gard and we're going to leave this up until July beginning of July and then we summarize the data provide it to the planning board and I'll also provide it to I provide an option for survey respondents to get that summary data as well and so they'll they'll receive that and I think um we'll really be able to have a better indication of where things should head with the short tal committee at the time and finally I have a letter um in front of all of you uh which is a draft support letter to the town's application to the National Coastal resilience fund this is a program through the national Fish and Wildlife Foundation that we've been talking about over the past couple of months we made it through the pre-application round which was pretty competitive they had something like 700 applications and it was whittled down to 200 so we still have quite a bit of competition the grant fund but we at least made it through that initial round this is and again this is for developing a coastal resilience plan um in cooperation with Little Compton and dart so we receive funding for this we'll look we'll look at what we can do locally to improve resilience in areas that we haven't looked at in Prior planning documents so we you know like uh for example salt meres or the head of Westport um developing some concepts for improving resilience in and those types of areas um so like for the the planning board to uh endorse the the letter this letter and it's there for for your signature as well Michael have you seen or heard other U any feedback from the other towns Mainely little comp and dmouth is their support or lack their own soort for this so they're fully engaged with this process and they have been from the conception of the idea of doing it a regional Grand application um both Town managers and well the the assistant Town manager in Dartmouth is very supportive of this and so as the town manager and little so when if the town were to receive funding each minus pality would be responsible for doing their own sort of public engagement and doing the project management for their own Community the way it would work is that Westport would be the go between for you know the funds still need to work out how that would how we would um administer that with our finance office but um yeah we would be kind of doing the overarching project management of saying okay Will Compton dth we need to have these particular deliverable to sembled but when it actually comes to doing the work in that Community they would be working with whoever we end up Consulting with as well as you know their own people and their and you know their Conservation Commission they're planning for whatever and we're getting help from EA engineering that's that's correct EA engineering is assisting us with this Grant application um entirely with no cost to the towns just for full disclosure is my cousin Sam e has pushed this EA engineer doing without his but support he is not involved with this this process the two folks I'm directly same so is there a motion to approve sending this letter move second all those in favor that pretty cheeky of you to sign that before the motion okay and that's all I have for the the planner report but we have a couple of minutes left so we can do the minutes so let's do the minutes minutes of June 4th Mr J I've read the minutes of June 4th and I think they're complete and accurate so I will approval of the Amendments of June 4 second are there any other comments well I can approve them only up to 708 when I left the meeting okay so so noted uh all those in favor Mr ch I know we have a couple of minutes before uh 6:15 I would bring up something that I talked to Michael burs and communicated to you about it has uh some relationship to colberts and uh a lot of our other work certainly work that we thinking about under climate resilience committee and that is a Comm communication that I received and forwarded to Michael burs from uh that Mark rasm received from USGS about information from the tide gauge in Woods Hole that Noah operates their hydrological arm which we've relied on a lot in terms of sea level PRS and what it's shown in the past is you know a jagged line that goes up gradually but what was notable or alarming is a a 15 cm rise since 2022 and that's about 6 in in less than two years uh for about two years uh and when Mark asked the person at USGS he that person described it as a bump and um I know that you know we're about to have a heat wave for the next week uh some occurrences like heat waves can be described as bumps that is temperature goes up and then then goes down uh and uh but my understanding of sea level rise is while there are uh with tides and currents and other things like that things that make it go up and down uh it's harder to describe sea level rise with a word like bum uh it tends to go up um and I suggested uh to mark that um you know because I'm on the board of the Coalition that it would be really good to have someone from USGS or Noah tell us about um what's behind this information what's behind the word VA because the Coalition spends a lot of resources you know trying to protect salt mares and by the way we lost a giant in the field of salt marches John teal on Friday who wrote the seminal book on Sal Mar um and um with that with that kind of uh advancement and acceleration it uh really if that's what it is if it's not a bump that's going to come down for some reason a current change in the Gulf Stream or whatever then for example Bob daylor subcommittee on uh infrastructure you know it has impacts in the way we go about things thinking about culverts the way we go about thinking about Sal marches the islands in the Westport River uh Escape rout a lot of the work that the planning board does that uh committees uh involved in climate resilience so I think that uh the best the first thing to do is to get someone who knows about this stuffff which isn't uh to come and probably address the climate resilience committee and say what's behind these numbers what might be causing it and is this an aberration or is this a trend or what's it likely to lead to so that we can think about what that means for the all the things that we've been working on in this board uh and you know other parts of town govern yeah I I think that that's completely uh something that we should ask them to come and talk to us yeah because for instance when I put my my motorboat in the water that's been a rock two weeks ago whatever was getting back to my house on the West Branch I couldn't see a single March yeah they completely under water and that's what got Mark to think about he went and he couldn't see the March so anyway keep us informed okay it is now beyond the 6:15 time allotted for Cory Estates I'd like to open the public hearing the 6:15 public hearing for Cory brid States file number 23- 035c continued from November 14th 2024 January 23rd 2024 March 19th 2024 and May 21st 2024 request by the applicant to consider a definitive sub subdivision plan entitled definitive subdivision Cory rid Estates located at 265 Cornell Road good evening once again uh for the record strong Le Jo East Engineers representing B Giblin uh for Cory Rich States uh we're here tonight because there was one outstanding item on the comment letter from the previous hearing and that one uh item was in regards to the water table and the determination of the elevation of the water table based on the test p that were done and where the location of the detention ponds were uh I had sent the information off to Mr Pon W Cole who reviewed it and I think he issued a letter today or yesterday uh basally concurring with my findings that the groundwater was not in the pond and it was actually lower than the pond as I had previous calculated so he agreed and it took off the one comment that was outstanding on the previous letter okay we also have a letter uh GRE from the attorney from the butters is that something that we should read the I think the I'm here so I can sa eny of it if that's okay sure thank you uh so uh good evening Mr chairman members of the board staff uh my name is Adam cost I authored the letter that was provided to you uh late last week uh you can see from the I presume you have copies of the letter before you or if you had an opportunity to review it if not I have additional copies with me as the board memb has been able to review the letter I believe we have okay I appreciate that um so um just by way of background um uh my clients are identified in the letter I represent a couple that uh owns adjacent property and then another property a bit further away but still in relative close proximity to the the site that's it issue um but I I also want to provide a bit of context in terms of my involvement in the case so I I don't handle many cases of this sort I don't represent a Butters as a general manner of practice my firm uh primarily represents municipalities represent 36 municipalities across the state including towns the size of Westport uh occasionally we represent private clients developers we don't do much a butter or neighbor work um we certainly don't represent what um I'm sure your board knows are often referred to as nimes not in my backyard we just don't want it here and so what I want to tell you is I'm not here tonight to say that my clients are opposed to the proposal that's before you they're not opposed to the proposal that's before you they're not opposed to the development or or Redevelopment or subdivision of the site that's an issue but as you can see from my letter the concerns are with the design of the subdivision that's proposed and we've essentially set out I've set out um three components in the letter that I submitted to the board uh that address the concerns we have and they all relate to the storm water management that's proposed for the subdivision um the subdivision has been designed such that the proposed right of way and the actual roadway itself what's shown on the plan here is Thomas Cory Lane is immediately adjacent to the boundary with my client's property and in fact it's a it's a strip of land that provides access to the rear portion of my client's property and it's a sole means of access other than an additional easement they have for an existing uh driveway or pathway that provides them with access it's the sole means of access and the the point of Frontage for their property so their perspective on a proposal like this is what does it do to our property today and what does it do to our property in the future what do it what does it do in terms of potentially affecting our development potential if we ever had a desire to develop our property and the first thing that stood out to me is you've got a provision in your rules and regulations that indicates and most communities most planning boards have similar Provisions in their rules and regulations governing subdivisions that say no subdivider can make use of an adjacent property a property that's not under common ownership a property over which they don't have control by way of a fee interest or an easement interest without the permission of that property owner and what I see when I reviewed the plans and it's not doesn't show on this plan but it shows on some of the other sheets that have been supplied to the board is that the storm water management system is going to change the flow of storm water and essentially uh this this is the plan that CHS it in a much better form is going to um and I'm no engineer by any means but I've I've cited to some of this in my letter it's going to um result in point discharges that mean a a higher volume of flow and a rate of flow um that is different than what exists on the site today and that's going to place water onto my client's property in a manner that it's not being placed onto the property today um the second point I made and it's a related point and it was one that was made initially by your own peer review consultant who pointed out in his initial letter and then in his subsequent letter that this property owner had no easement right or other interest in my client's property to give them the right to be able to do that um and the response initially from the applicant was was we don't need any such right because we have the ability to effectively reasonably use our property I don't agree with I don't disagree with that the the doctrine in massachusett Massachusetts called the reasonable use Doctrine says that you can adjust and develop a property in such a way that you can alter reasonably the flow of storm water you're entitled to reasonably use your property but even your own engineer when faced with that response said well that's not exactly what they're doing here they're result they're they're proposing these Point discharges this is the area that's most notable here you can see the spread of uh that's resulting in storm water being funneled to these specific locations on the adjacent property that it's not being placed today and the the obvious solution to that again I'm not an engineer so I'm not going to redesign The Proposal that's before you but the obvious solution is to adjust the design of the subdivision so that some of these some of the storm water flows are not directed onto my client's property now I understand that's not necessarily a thing that can be done without some challenges the Topography is such that it does flow in the direction of my client's property naturally but there are storm water mechanis isms that can be employed that would avoid this this sort of an issue and that is the third point that I made in my letter which is that the law is very clear in Massachusetts even in the context of the reasonable use doctrine that property cannot be developed in a manner as is being proposed here so I'm not just saying it your own peerreview consultant is saying it so uh my clients indicated that they had made this known in some form or fashion to the board previously at an earlier meeting uh they were aware and we had u a back and forth correspondence with your town staff that um this was near incompletion in the eyes of the board but we wanted to appear and again my clients asked me to come down from Newber Port today um to say to you that you know please not not so fast um we think that there needs to be a redesign of this property so that it won't result uh in flooding of my client's property today and and what could result in future development limitations on my client's property in the future they have no plans as I stand here today they're not coming before you with the subdivision proposal they have no vision as to how they might use their property tomorrow or next year or in five years U but they they don't want to be told if they come before you in five years to subdivide it that they can't construct a roadway and this is a point actually made by your own engineer because in constructing a roadway and elevating that roadway they're going to then be blocking the flow of storm water from this property causing it to flow back onto this property and flooding the roadway that you're going to be permitting um as part of the subdivision that's before you tonight so we would like you to take a closer look at this we'd like you to heed the advice of your own peer revieww consultant uh and ask the applicant to look at some Alternatives that would result in a better storm water design so there wouldn't be effects on the neighboring properties um we're aware and I've talked to my clients about their pellet rights but it's always my perspective that rather than wait for a permit like this to issue and then rush off the court and cost the town money cost the applicant money it seemed to make sense to have me attend tonight attempt to to make these points known to the board and hopefully engage in a dialogue and um hopefully persuade the applicant to make some adjustments so that we don't uh we don't realize our worst fears you know be it in six months or in 5 years thank you thank you very much I I I do have some questions but I'm going toer to the arrest of the board first uh I think there's well unless somebody's ready to go I I would suggest that they are reducing the storm water from the site that flows naturally onto your uh client sites by 20% and I know that it is uh directed more to a 20t level spreader um and but I'm not sure that the total amount of water that's going to come from from this narrow strip is going to cause something that would trigger um denying this application so anyway if anybody else wants to go or Mr Le if I may uh just for for the information for the board so uh I appreciate Mr C remarks on this uh particular project I think we discussed at the previous meeting so I just I don't want to rehash it and hold everybody up here tonight so uh just to reiterate uh the 20% reduction uh the calculations run and submitted to the and the final plans for this that didn't take in account the infiltration because the consultant thought the groundwater was in the bottom of the pond so we're not even considering the infiltration that will take place on the 2year Storm we're reducing it by 51% on the 100-year Storm we're reducing it by 32% flow coming off now the concern is you know you need an easan cross well if the butters were to develop their property they would run into the same problem that their water would have to go from here across someone else's problem if the theory of you can't C you know direct storm water because you're on the top of the Watershed you'd never be able to develop any any property on top of the Watershed every development would have to be at at the bottom of the Watershed at next to the wetlands so it would be an impossible it's not good engineering to direct water away from one Watershed into another watered that's not a standard practice that's not what you usually do you take the water that's going where it's going and you send it in each Direction in this case the ridge goes through here this water B comes through here this water goes through here like we discussed before if they were to build a roadway or a driveway or whatever to get access property in the back they would still have deal with that storm water regardless if this development was taken into account or not and they again they would have the same problem they would need easement because the water wants to go this way it's what it does naturally what it does and what it's going to continue to do albeit at a 30 to 50% less than what it is now there isn't much you can do to alleviate that problem because you're sitting on the ridge there isn't a heck of a lot you can do that you can't you know you're on top of the wed you're at the bridge point of the Watershed there's very little water coming off this Ridge it's a sea type soils you heard the other buttered last tell you how great the drainage was here uh so in a combination of all these things the best engineering practice to design it does not affect the ability for this property to develop should they want to do that they would have to command if they were to develop this property the same thing we're doing tonight they would have to direct water onto another property because they're not against the we it's just a matter of you know all this water comes right down through here it's going to go right down to here before going to go after but I just want to reiterate that we've reduced it significantly above the 20% that's required in storm water RS Mass storm water regulations usually don't require a lot of storm water controls for Lots less than FL in fact they don't require any uh the town of Westbard is very strict in their storm water regulations of what they require the applicants to do and we not only met but exceeded and tried to make this the best we can we Tred to accommodate all the neighbors with the tree and making it so development is away from the property not touching the trees which that run along the property line that provide an existing screen I don't know what else we can do at this point we can't you can't take the water from here and direct it all the way down to there it's not a good engineering practice that's my argument I I don't [Music] know I particularly at this because of the the issues raised by the the neighbors and and and I agree with you know this is the road is just off of the ridge line Ridge line is running right along parallel with the roadway and uh in very upper part of the roadway s of so of the bridges is actually draining Direction and I and I looked at not only the reduction and and and I I I don't see any real practical way of making the water run in another Direction um all all we can try to do is manage the the piece that we have here and and looking at at you know the the design Stones there's only in a in a 10year storm there's only 5 in of water in these basins this this is not this is not a flood this this is a relatively small amount of water which we're capturing even the 100e storm um there's in Basin number one there's only 8 in of water and we're now the 100 years s is about 9 in of rainfall and essentially it's you the Basin of its peak is is capturing what falls out of the sky so it there really is very little that one could do to direct the water in another Direction um and and the volum is are small and the reduction is great so that is significant and and I think it's it it meets the goals that we set up in our regulations else uh Jim excuse me I um like Bob I uh I read the attorney's letter and um and it caused me to go back and look more closely at our consultant's letter and uh I'm not an engineer but there are two very good Engineers here um I'm not a lawyer either and uh I guess but our consultant is an engineer right so what troubles me a little bit is what everything that I hear sounds makes seems to make sense but I I just wonder so what is it why does our engineer why is he said in here several times that he feels there's a need for this flow eement as the solution to the problem and that that's what trouble me and I I don't know that but excuse me to the chair I'm sorry uh just okay um yeah the concern is and concern me from the first review was he's he's formulating an opinion of what is needed on this particular uh subdivision not a regulatory opinion I agree with Mr Costa that the the there is a requirement in the regulations obviously that if we need an eement if we need if we were discharging the pipe and needed to run a sale down the road to to something else absolutely but where you're just recreating a natural flow and reducing it you don't need to do that we don't need an easement now if we put a driveway in here now we wouldn't need an easement just to have water flow across someone else's property again the argument is they would the they would have do the same thing here cuz they obviously water from this site will flow to the next one that's what happens water goes from one property to another to another it's just the way it is it's just on this particular one hence the name Cory rid is sitting right on top of the wed it stles to subwatersheds uh and there isn't you know directing it around is not a good idea uh it changes the whole hydrology this way of the web winds which a land trust would have an interest in but also it it takes care of everything going in the other direction I I mean there isn't much you can do here and again we didn't as uh Mr dor pointed out we didn't consider the infiltration of these basins right now these basins are 2 ft above the water table they would infiltrate so the reduction would be even less than what we've calculated but we used warst case scenario uh the fact that the Mr pong keeps asking for an easement I think he's mistaken and it's an opinion on his point that we need it our opinion is we don't need it I'm sure Mr cost's opinion is we do need it it's an opinion as to do we need to discharge a pipe across this property to get to some whatever some Basin or something over here we don't need to do that we don't need to have an EAS where water is already flowing down but part part of his observations are that uh currently the storm water flows I think you said uni L across the site and it is um he says that the current vegetation the existing vegetation is sufficient to prevent erosion and in this plan that you have the discharge is concentrated on these three or four points and I'm not sure if he's is he also voicing the concern that by concentrating the yards even though it's you say you've reduced your the drainage by 20% there's 80% that is being okay so I'm on jaky ground here when I say but if there if that indeed is being funneled through these three points four points is there an erosion control issue being created entially again to the chair uh I understand the concern and I'll try to explain hydrology in a very simple manner he's assuming that all the water is Flowing like a sheep coming off here and that would be true if it was pay far but it's not it's a hummocky field with some you can see through here where walls have been removed and water gets erected in all kinds of different directions most of this coming from here each two area comes right through this little scalloped area that you see right here we're sitting on top of a flat area on top of a ridge we're not pointing it downhill we're not you know so when this level spreader when it comes out get this level spreader and we're not talking of fire hose here we're talking trickling out at a level spreader it's just going to meander around just like it does now through the grasses and everything it's not coming out at a velocity that's I I said fire HSE type thing and I know it's a kind of a t duration but it's not coming out you know an 8 in depth flowing across thing it's trickling out just like it does now hence the the concrete level spreader and the stone before cust the velocity it's sitting if you look at the Contour right on top of the level where just slightly starts TR yeah but if those two Basin fill up with water not really you're saying that's not possible well can they fill up with water if you get 20 in of rain absolutely but we all have a big problem problem the last the last problem you're going to have is the water coming out of this Pond we know that there's no Norm any but if 8 in of rain falls from the sky or the the Cornell extreme weather events fall from the sky there'll be some water in this Pond but it's not going to come gushing out 8 in that's the that's why you have detention ponds it slows everything down you have storage ability you have infiltration ability and the outlet just provides an outlet so it trickles out we quit design a complete Pond here but I don't think anybody's going to like that when it comes to Mosquito Seas I'm just TR I I want to understand the concern sure that you know that both parties are are you know can can live with this design and uh I mean you're you're a great good engineer you're a great you know Civic minded man in town here and I know you don't want to be uh associated with a design that has caused some problems and friction between we're not trying to we're not we're not trying to force the development in here you know shoehorn the development where it can't be done I guess it's you know we're with you know there there's three lots three New Lots here all of them well over 60,000 s ft all of them you won't see the houses all of them very pictures settings I know that's a problem to some of the issues anybody over here like to see these houses it's you know I've lived in Westport for a few years and you know my I've always seen houses go up and then the issue is you know what's going on here what's you know what's causing problems what and for years subdivision has caused problems I don't think in the last 25 years I'll say the planning board's gotten the grip on all these subdivisions and there hasn't been the problems that there was years ago and in this particular case we have try to minimize all infrastructure as possible except the ponds so Prov as little impact on the property as possible 16t Gravel Drive uh pulling it away from the property line over to one side like I said trying the tree was a concern we we got extra money to send send under the road uh so we wouldn't affect the tree you know there's only so much you can do uh there's alternatives to this and I hate to tell you what they are there is an alternative to this but I don't think the board's going to like the Alternatives either where you overd develop this particular piece of parcel uh through different ways this I think is the best other than nobody wants to have anything uh these three lots which are nice Square lots and nice wide lots are not pork chop Lots they're not oddly shaped they're not you know ridiculous in any shape and form uh they're you know very nice sighted Lots they'll be right on top of the ridge again not visible from the road not visible from anybody they'll be down the ridge I think it's a it's a nice development uh you know it's a large piece of land we're not overbuilding we're not overdeveloping I don't believe I think this is a good design I mean it wouldn't be stamped what if it didn't meet all the requirements that you will require and the state requires I understand there's an argument the other way and but there's only so much you can possibly do Mr chairman just one second I just want to say I I see somebody in the back that wants to speak uh we'll get to you in a moment okay Mr chairman the the actual development of these Lots is actually over the bridge line that is whatever the roofs and Pavements and yards and all of that for the houses is not flowing um in in the direction of the the water it's it's flowing if you will back on their own property so the development of the Lots isn't adding water and and just you know if forget that it's a subdivis suppose the owner of this decided you know I'd like to live in the back i' I'd like to build my house in the back and I'm going to build a gravel driveway like this gravel driveway he doesn't need to te turn around at the end but he builds the same gravel driveway and he puts his house over the ridge his new house over the ridge where that is this this would that that gravel driveway would not be before us it's as of right use if he decided to build his home there he has an absolute right to do that it wouldn't come before us you would go to the building inspector now would such a gravel driveway and it wouldn't have any St water basins or wouldn't have any controls would that alter the natural sheep flow drainage um but it would be essentially the the equivalent that if you could do and as of right activity that we will not be able to regulate and now there's a subdivision proposal which actually has more protection than if you could do his own driveway I I I think I I think there's a there's there's a concern about funding that is is understandable and I agree with the concern and I'm I'm not I'm not I'm not this this is not being made up yes there will be some alteration here but um they're taking the petitioner is taking great protections and to think he he could he could have an as a right use that actually has greater impacts in what sub again through the chair we could do three flexible fronty slots here with the same thing and a shorter Road and again no control no it's a bu right thing this is the best for safety public access the whole thing and again we're providing easement to the ceter and doing things that the town desires we try and work with the town thank you and one I from here so please identify yourself thank you I'm Linda Nanny uh I own the property two properties away from this property um and I'm also represented by um m Costa um I have two points for the record I would just like to confirm that Mr leech is an engineer yes sir okay because it wasn't clear to me that you were um and then secondly I would like to make the point that there is already erosion on the existing road that is called Angeline Lane uh and we see it in large storms and when you speak of a 100 year storms uh you know there's data to show that that's now a 10 to 20e storm um not 100e storm um and we see it whenever there's a large rain there's this erosion path that happens and it comes from that particular area right there so we already see it and we believe that this point source um discharge of water is going to just make it worse could you point where the point is where you see it right here is that correct down right I mean CLM could speak more more directly to that but it it goes into the driveway of the garage at the B up at the front there's a there's a this one there's a c that goes underneath the underneath the driveway going have to point it out because okay let's have one at a time yeah that's all I wanted to say yeah there another point [Music] source down here it's hard to see on here but it's coming you please identify yourself first cor sh brunwick we own the property adjacent to this so I just want to point out that there's oh I think it's this one here comes through and this right here is the other is the end line laying anybody else again for the record Adam cost I I'll be brief I appreciate you providing me another opportunity to speak um and what I don't want to do is I don't want to go sort of tit fortat you know I appreciate I'm not an engineer you're not an attorney right so um but I think we got a little off course when we start talking about other options as of right options versus overdevelopment options right again to go back to and there's a reason why I started my presentation earlier the way that I did my clients aren't opposed to development of the site they're not opposed to a three lot subdivision the issue is the manner in which the driveway is being proposed and whether the storm management system that's been designed and proposed to accompany it is going to alleviate their concerns with respect to storm water I hear these generic statements made and I I wrote one of them down as I heard it that we're just recreating a natural flow I think what your engineer is telling you is that that's not what's being done here they're not recreating a natural flow they're creating a new artificial flow through these point source discharges and the result is that the water is going to end up in different locations on my client's property so I I appreciate the difficult position the is in you're hearing one thing from the applicant the applicant's representatives you're hearing something different from the neighbors and the neighbors representative again I represent boards like yours I always advise the board view whatever you hear from the applicant with with with with a a bit of caution and do the same thing with everything you hear from from the neighbors and from their Council what you should be deferring to however respectfully is what your own engineer is saying to you because that's the only person that you're paying to review this proposal and to give you advice that's beholden to you they're not prejudice by providing you with a perspective that is going to benefit the applicant they're not prejudiced by giving you a perspective that's going to benefit the neighbors they're reviewing this and they're making recommendations and what do I see when I read the neighbors letters and there's two of them I see this statement that drainage easements adequately sized for these discharge points crossing the two neighboring properties to the Wetland area need to be procured it was definitive it didn't say should be or we'd recommend need to be procured then he reviewed the revisions to the design what did he say prec construction surface flows are spread out over 700 ft however flows are now still concentrated and then he talks about some risks that could accompany that so these are not my words I'm not telling you this I would say the same thing it benefits my client I'm not saying these things I'm pointing you to letters from your own engineer that you're paying to advise you on what you should do in a circumstance like this and your engineer is effectively advising you against it in the absence of an easement and to be clear I know that there were were statements my clients made to me they thought there might be a perception by the board or by board members that we were trying to this was a money grab we want to we want to require the applicant to get an easement that we're going to put a $100,000 price tag on it my clients don't want to Grant an easement my clients are concerned about development potential for their property and what this could mean they have no interest in granting an easement they're not offering an easement what they're asking is that a solution be devised so that the storm water is not being isolated to these point source discharges such that the natural flow is being altered in such a significant way that it's going to be causing flooding in different locations on the property I don't dispute that the overall all volume of water is going to be decreased I saw those numbers in the filings that were made as well I saw the 20% reference I'm hearing now the numbers could be as high as 30 to 50% that's great news that there's going to be less water coming off the site I'm not surprised by that again I sit with boards that represent developers I know what Engineers can do and very often post-development volumes are reduced from pre-development volumes but what I'm hearing is that the nature of the flow off the site is going to be meaningfully different and that's a concern thank you uh I think that uh from my perspective I pointed out the same issue that was turning into more of a point source then spread out in the beginning before we even got to the engineers letter but I've been convinced that there's not that much water coming off of this and secondly I know that your clients would not give an easement I don't think that we have done any subdivisions that require easements here if somebody could fact check me and I don't think it's something that we are in the in the business of of Grant or requiring easements off of other people's property because the water normally goes that way and yes it's altered but water from any site that we deal with the water was altered wouldn't you agree with that I mean you do this all the time I'm sure that the water the water is always different when there's a development Upstream than previous to the development and from my own perspective I would defer to the planners and let them tell me what they know about easements like this is there is is there a requirement to do an easement in a case like this from your perspective from my perspective is that what we're trying to do with the the subdivision regulations is ensure that the the controls of the storm water runoff are located on the the um applicant's parcel and all of the controls of the storm water are located on that parcel there may be you know runoff just due to you know as as the applicants consult was saying that you know that the storm water will continue to drain through the Basin as it would through any other tust but all of the storm water controls are on applicat parcel and they're also meeting the subdivision standards for having a 20% reduction um of those storm water flows from the preconstruction calculations and so if all the storm water controls are located on that that property I would not say that they would be required to have an East because typically you would have that easement in order to service those stor and water controls on a different property which we don't have we don't have a pipe running across like the applicants engineer say we don't have it running somewhere else it's just the storm water is red although quite a bit red anyway anybody else chairman also I I think we we are we tending to use the point source designation I won't say incorrectly it is changed but but this this drawing we have here is a little confusing the leader from the the note that says with the invert elevation is pointing to a point these the pipes coming out of these Basin are not directed onto the abundance property the pipes coming out of these basins are directed into sails or level spreaders of some attempt to uh diffuse the the concentration so it isn't is not the equivalent of a point source in which there is a pipe running into the abundance property um is it completely equivalent to sheep flow no it's not completely equivalent to sheet flow but does it meet our regulations I believe it does meet our regulations man um I would agree with my colleague and also looking at the existing Contours um when the water is coming out there there is an actual it's going to go where it was always going when it comes out to and then the abutter when when he he made mention of the point source on the bend of the road the water that the developer is dealing with is his water coming out of his property which would be the same kind of situation if they were going to build on the other side exactly so they're actually you know correcting that I mean I I think it's an excellent point and and I don't think anybody's going to have any issues I'm I'm pretty confident I've seen a lot of Sean's work and I really think they're going to they're going to be happy I think that the whole idea of making this fit into into the neighborhood which when they first came here they were trying to do it's been achieved I really think I really think it's an excellent I'm I'm only still at the microphone Mr chairman because you asked a question which I'm sure you thought was rhetorical but I I was here to sort of answer it where to sort of pose an additional question so the your question was uh to your staff whether your board had previously required easements and circumstances like these and my question I think I know the answer to it because I've discussed it with my clients and they've done a bit of due diligence but my question to the board is is there precedent for what is being proposed here so has the board approved subdivisions similar to what's designed here where you have these point source discharges whether they be whatever diffusing devices use whether it's a level spreader or otherwise where the discharge point is an immediate proximity to and aim toward it and I realize it's not physically on the adjacent property but it's immediately adjacent to the property whether it's what we see here where this is a bit deceiving because you do have that detention Bas in area but if you were to scroll up and you look in the area of the level the level spreader in that instance it's immediately adjacent to the property boundary so I don't know we weren't able to find the similar instance maybe you're aware of them certainly I don't practice enough before your board to be able to pull out of my hat examples if you hav't done it or not done it but it seemed to me and it seemed to my clients based upon their due diligence like this is not something that's been done in my sport before um yeah so again we have a situation where you know ideally you like dump your storm into into a a weapon so there's no weapon in here so we did have this situation when I first got on the board with one of the one of the clients on 177 and M road that whole site discharges into West on the town I would say it's pretty much a similar situation I agree John uh I've uh listened to the concerns uh expressed by the abutters uh previous owner of this land owned it for a long time now seeing it develop and uh also listen to the attorney um and U I also uh see and try and keep in mind that that the way I look at it we're looking at uh the drainage of a driveway not house Lots cuz the house lots are on the other side of the ridge this is a driveway built of a permeable surface um and uh I think uh you know that's going with the retention basins reducing the flow of water and I where all the tools being used to deal with the runoff are on the property of the developer and I think according to the planner this meets our rules I I I understand the various concerns but I I think um this is not going to be uh a problem but that's my take thank you um planers what can you say recommendation recommendation uh we recommend that approve subdivision um since it meets the standards of our subdivision regulations on a motion Mr please i' like the motion to close the hearing I move we close the public hearing for uh C Ridge Estates second any discussion all those in favor I want another motion yes please uh I move to approve the definitive uh subdivision plan entitled definitive subdivision Cory Ridge Estate subject to uh we have findings that have been well we have conditions the basic mons for the homers Association and we also have the four waivers that that read the wa y we from the caring we from standard crosssection waiver from the required paved surface and a waiver from the street line intersection on one side for the radius of 25 ft that's my motion second any discussion all those in favor next up is the 6 City public hearing for 720 726 Old County Road file number 24-3 sp- CD continue from April 2nd in May 21st of this year the applicant has requested a modification to the special firment common PR the applicant is is requesting a continuance to August 13th 20 4 at time at 615 65 motion I move to continue the public hearing for 720 726 Old County Road to August 13 at 615 second all those in favor uh do we have any more of the plan I don't lot more updates next month but I think uh Westport St sand has contacted me to get the final inspection for that solar project so that should be coming up the boat soon good have you been anybody out there to see it no no I just put the as builts today from the developer so I sent them over tow Co so I think he should if not this week probably next week they'll get out to Ral it could I ask you had a nice table that summarized the solar um large scale solar systems that have been come before the board it showed whether they were you know approved and whether they had been completed or whe they were still not started or whatever Reon I mean could have gave a status report and it would be nice to have that updated till we just see I think there's like an active there's an active table in one of the D that's a very good idea because it seems like they they take forever to get the connection I mean that one that one was from 2018 so they they take they take years to get from well there's both um urce and National Grid are going through a big process uh to upgrade their whole systems to have enough capacity to number one receive uh electricity from from the ocean uh and to provide enough power when everybody gets a electric car and everybody switches over to uh what do you call it hydrogen no no electric electric heat in the form of Heats Heats and uh so I've sat in on one of these two of these things at serpent commission meetings and they're really really involved um and they're spending millions and millions of dollars doing it and I think we're doing that right now on of all places on Old Harbor Road they replacing all the telephone poles and putting big sets of wires up high all the way they've been doing it for two months on W Harbor Road now they're coming down Crossroad I don't know why the harbor and it seems like other places would that more requirement for that but I guess there Services were so old could do it but anyway it it certainly is employing a lot of Westport cops detail and I also got uh an email fromon asking us to support uh this new bill that that Senator Rodricks has uh for the new energy SL wind SL solar and this is the bill 96 pages and I said jeez I got to read it I mean and you can't even understand it because it keeps on referring back to the existing laws and it's changing this paragraph and this word and is is this a solar panel not in un yeah so this is sounds good because it says don't do it uh in force save the trees and do it in developed areas you know like new veteran and stuff but as you know as we've all done a lot of the ones in Forest that come from farmers who want extra money for farms and so it's it's not as obvious I mean on one level oh yeah well we don't want to take down trees but those requests are from Farmers and so when I looked at it I said well this isn't as obvious as it you know yeah sure you want to put them over the parking at Le or the pz neck parking that would all be great but where else place in Westport yeah maybe the high school parking lot yeah um but so I'm not going to send any letter of support to anybody like understand what and I've sent copies to these two and hopefully they're going to tell me what it's all about and Mark and I went out because there's all kinds of stories now about dual use you know about I don't know where the last one the globe about uh sheet Tre going under you know cows too yeah cows and people are growing stuff that isn't so Sun yeah one of the suggestions I made to Michael Amy was that we might consider tweaking again our own solar bog I mean we did it recently to reduce the number of Acres but uh should we consider um an adjustment that might give an incentive to in fact develop more Acres if it's on already you know if it's not taking down forest if you are Tak if you are destroying if you are using Forest then it would be what is it now our minimum is our maximum is 12 yeah so 12 acres with for us but if they wanted to do 16 Acres or something and their their uh their installing these panels on already Disturbed property they would be incentive Mark I think our bylaw says that we can add the AC add up to 50% of the acreage if we find that it isn't detrimental okay I think is look at soil types too to see what kinds of soil types are on site and incentivized or disincentivized development of like Prime Prime multure versus just standard sort of so some of the farmers in the Acton have turned a little bit and said you know these leases to the solar companies are only 20 years if we have the solar forum and then they decide to go away we have we have cleared land if possibly f one of the uh I think it was you John who suggested I think it's the greatest site available but it's not be a bit difficult uh lift because it's state property is to put big insulate solar array over the parking lot oh yeah Beach and a natural oh my God there's there's Acres of parking there and by the way you know they're repaving the whole thing yeah and uh my wife said oh that's great just before the hurricane season but one of the things that that about that is that uh these enormous 18 wheelers filled with uh binder course or something whatever stage they're in now are coming down Route 88 and then turning left on hibridge road instead of continuing straight down 88 and going to the goose uh horse neck Beach par because of the Bri apparently I mean I drove in there yesterday and I asked for a supervisor there wasn't one available there trucks standing around but nobody in them and uh but all these big 18 wheelers were pulling in one after another but one fellow came over in a big loader he was very nice and I asked him that question I said you're coming that why are they all being diverted down foreneck road which for those size Vehicles is a narrow road there are Walkers there are joggers there are bikers uh when you've got a strap shot and it's it probably would cut the time in half his answer was apparently that he he understood that it's the uh the bridge the Fontan Bridge has a ma maximum load capacity and these trucks exceed that I find that what Hicks bridge is stronger than Hicks bridge is stronger than yeah kind hard to so and and then they have to go across East speach road yeah yeah wow yeah well they're flattening it out now but and I I believe and I hope that on the return trip you know they're later now you can go back over the bridge but coming down over horses all the way down Horse Road he's enormous that is that is n across East be F East be they well that's what I thought these when I followed in his truck I turned around because I I where are they going so I follow him I thought he gets down toward Bayside and I thought oh maybe they're actually repairing East Beach Road but no he kept going past the trailers and around the corner and uh all the way back up toward uh the entrance to the parking lot to for for that be par it's aming Mr chair you want a motion to ader yes please move to a j second all those in favor