##VIDEO ID:E6nUrx3rTuc## I would like to bring the Tuesday December 17th regular planning board meeting to order uh Peres General law uh it is being recorded uh and videotaped um recorded and going out live um so first up are administrative items uh first is 203 mous Mill Road file number 24-26 Spa A- major close the public hearing and release the consultant review balances and interest after all invoices are paid you want a motion please I move to close the public hearing for the proposed site plan at 203 M second any discussion all those in favor I I I Mr chairman I'm going to pass down the decision favor so we supposed to sign these now yes this is from Mouse millroad yes okay while we're doing that we have an anr approval not required for the Westport land conservation trust file number 24- 041a request by the applicant for endorsement of a two lot plan subject to conservation easement lot two to be conveyed to a butter zero Adamsville Road assessors map 79 lot one good evening Mr chairman members of the board I'm Donald maderas professional engineer professional land surveyor with able Engineering in Little Compton um we prepared this for a for the Westport land conservation trust um we've done a um in accordance with a with a proper survey we've done the research we've uh run the field survey um we we've set monuments and we've prepared this plan suitable for recording with the registry of deeds basically lot one is 232 Acres that's the Eastern majority of the property um that would that will be uh purchased by the Westport land conservation trust and lot two which is one point 9 Acres on the western side of the property which bounds up against the state line um is planned to be conveyed to the um abutter and tiberan um not a whole lot that I could say other than the plan is before you happy to entertain any questions okay just to be clear lot two has no Frontage anywhere right that is correct in lot one uh will be used for conservation has no Frontage anywhere that's correct okay Michael suggest the plan appropriately indicates that endorsement by the planning board does not constitute conformance to the Westport zoning bylaws nor ass sure that the lot is uh here in buildable and um I'd recommend endorsement okay does anybody have any questions or comments what is this area that's designated overlap can you just explain what you mean by that yes there's a there's a plan recorded in the registry of deeds of of an abutting parcel and we believe that that plan does in fact overlap the property we're surveying as shown so that is a survey that's on record it was done approximately four years years ago three or four years ago um we we've been in touch with that survey company that prepared that plan they're aware uh that we disagree with their findings and they're basically um standing by for us to provide them with this information with the expectation that they're going to put a corrective plan on record at the registry which would take that out of and uh no longer be under separate another ownership well it's not under it's just erroneous that there's no um that plan doesn't um doesn't convey or establish ownership it's just an it's an erroneous survey it's they basically got to have the property in the wrong place um so but it does exist it's a plan on record uh so we have to we're obligated to show it um and we clearly show that we didn't honor that plan and we don't believe it's correct and as I said we have um been in touch with that survey company and and you know in in terms of conversation between surveyor and surveyor they've acquiesced uh to the fact that that they um are going to put a corrective plan on record um we just did not want to well actually my client did not want to wait um and hold up their purchase of the property pending when this other company would get around to Preparing a corrective plan right okay thank you okay just for my curiosity when they do they come in for anr no no that the that was just a perimeter survey yeah um okay so they will just put a corrective plan on record at the registry they will not need planning board approval to do that or an our approval okay anybody else want motion please I move to approved the endorsement of the plan entitled approval not required subdivision prepared for Westport land conservation trust Inc map 79 lot One Westport Massachusetts because the plan complies with the provisions of Mass general laws chapter 41 section 81 b i second all those in favor I I opposed there's none thank you thank you and when do we sign that uh the Myer will be signed tonight so because I won't be here tomorrow so but it'll be available for pickup tomorrow okay thank you uh the next schedule thing is 6:15 which uh it is not 6:15 so um planners report it's quick last night Jim and I went to the the chairman went to the select board meeting to request that the planning board short-term rental and accessory dwelling unit bylaw amendments are um returned back to the planning board to open a public hearing on January 14th at 6:30 and they unanimously voted to return the uh or to allow the planning board to open the public hearing okay and that public hearing is January 14th 630 630 for both that's it that's all okay um minutes of November 19th uh exe executive session um I don't think that we can do that in open meeting yet uh November 19th uh regular session for for so do we have a motion for the minutes Mr chair I move we approved the uh minutes of the November uh 19th uh meeting um that does not include the executive session I second that moved and seconded all those in favor and one exstension okay we have a few minutes hold on second I I can't make that motion I wasn't here actually sorry I didn't see any errors because I wasn't here I I I move I shouldn't I shouldn't move it okay so we'll scratch that so I will move the adoption of the minutes of November 19th and Mark we you second that I do I second that all those in favor I I I abstain and two extensions and one and three approvals okay uh LED we have a couple of minutes if there's uh matters not reasonably anticipated within 48 hours they're not here not yet I don't I don't know if they're coming or not where's the public hearing by the way on the short-term rentals so that could be here it'll be here okay well we got about two minutes um are we still good to go on our system plan yep good starting January 2nd she's moved to the area and ready to go well that's that is super well I'll uh take up Time by saying I'm your the planning board's representative on the offshore wind committee and I will note that uh the chair of the offshore wind committee is in the audience here we had a Bo oous meeting last Thursday and he did an excellent job with standing room only in in the select's uh meeting room and uh it was uh uh he invited uh one or two members of state government but for some reason half of state government showed up I don't know whether that has anything to do with who our our state senator is or not but it was it was really useful actually to have them come and explain what the role of different state agencies is in uh reviewing uh uh offshore wind uh should uh there be a proposal to run a power line uh across Horseneck Beach under the river along Route 88 what they would do and what resources might be made available to the town of Westport to review such a project and I think it was a very good use of time and uh I'm certainly grateful to the to the state agencies that came down to inform us about that so maybe you could edify my ignorance here so if that were to happen I think conservation surely has a a Conservation Commission has has a a role in in approving whatever they do because it would have to go through some wetlands and stuff even though it's on state property but would the planning board because it's uh would the planning board have any any role uh Visa V site plan review well I think in uh uh jakay can talk about this uh I think it's uh mostly the state but uh on this but they did say they were very open to local uh input on what our view was uh the point I wanted to make was these are inherently large projects and inherently very complex projects M and uh we needed resources whether through the Conservation Commission or any other department to hire uh technical people accountable to us not to the developer uh not to the state uh to help us understand environmental impacts uh economic impacts you know social impacts all the impacts that you might imagine and uh under secretary judge said uh that they have uh a uh uh fund and what seems clear is that other than Barn we are one of the first communities to be looking at this and therefore one of the first communities that might be applying to this fund and while he said and correct me if I'm wrong on this Jaye uh that uh the cap on this fund might be $150,000 he said uh that uh the amount of the fund is considerably more than that and uh that uh a town could get more than $150,000 uh for uh use of uh for technical assistance so I think that as soon as there is an inclination that that is uh a possibility and we don't know that yet uh but as soon as there's an inclination that that's a possibility uh I would think uh that uh Chris theone Mike m burus Jim hartnet ought to be figuring out with our state senator support you know how do we uh lighten up that pot that under secretary judge has control over so that we can start to see how can we have in the town of Westport access to technical expertise that is helping us out uh in evaluating that do you want to comment any more on that J because the conserv clearly it's the Conservation Commission that's in the driver's seat I think in terms of the town of Westport thank you John thank you Vice chair um I know we're filling filling up some time here but um as a chair of the offsh show win committee uh John gave a pretty good synopsis of our meeting um I think the concern that not concerned first and foremost Westport is one of the first communities local communities to actually develop what you would call an offshore wind advisory committee that we've seen almost Nationwide so I think we're kind of ahead of the head of the game with respect to that because I think the goal of it from the select board and from everyone else involved was to make sure that the town has a voice in this you know from the get-go as opposed to seeing other towns realizing whether they didn't like the community host agreement and then after the fact trying to to make changes to that so um that I think is is very important to the town to have that um in place the one concern that I did see out of that is Governor Healey on I think it was November 21st signed a new piece of legislation that made its way through um the legislature that essentially streamlines and makes more efficient the process with respect to permitting and Licensing of these projects um throughout the Commonwealth uh the concern you see there is it does take away a little bit of of local control uh over that and seeing as if there is a proposal on the table for State you know State Property landing and going up essentially a state easement that does take away some of the uh concerns with that so what they were what they're trying to do with the piece of legislation is avoid stonewalling and making it a years you you know they've seen some projects take two to 5 years so the legislation essentially said that a lot of this permitting and Licensing process Falls within a 15-month window um the concern I have is they have basically 15 months from now to draft regulations so it'll be a public comment period and regulations as to how they're going to implement this piece of legislation that the governor signed so the question is if there is a project does it happen prior to this 15th month window because that's where the funding would sit um that that was in that green clean green energy act uh that the governor signed so long story short there's a lot of moving pieces and and whether that permitting process is and where we can get access to those funds is even in place before something comes before us that you know that would be the concern um we're going to continue to go down the path uh like I said the John said the first step was to bring the state in um you know with Senator rodri's help we had obviously a great turnout um of of State officials and really they don't have anything in front of them right now so there was nothing for them to comment on with respect to uh Westport and a project in Westport um that obviously can change at any point uh in the future so that's essentially kind of where we're at uh we have another meeting schedule for January 16th we're going to try to see if we can get representatives of Vineyard wind uh to attend to give us even a more specific if they can um you know what they're looking at uh with respect to the project that has had uh you know public hearings at the high school uh and has gone through the federal bone process um up to this point so that's kind of where we're at we're going to continue on and uh hopefully we can get a little more clarity as if there is a project where it goes and you know the other concern that I think a lot of people have voiced is assuming Vineyard wind goes forward with their licensing and permitting for this project let's assume they don't use Westport do they have the ability to or opportunity to sell that off or give that to you know another company I mean there's so many out there um you know out there there's seven right different companies that are out there so we need to be careful as to you know protecting westport's interests even if Vineyard wind says they may not but they continue down that road can that be something that can be used for someone else so a lot of moving Parts um um we got a great committee got to kind of keep everyone uh you know on task but I think uh the charter that we have in place will be helpful uh for Westport and to hopefully formulate an opinion that protects both Westport and um the residents here so so is there any way to to preemptively get some of this money and do some of the research on what the impacts would be which could be um transferable to other places uh but you know if they use Westport is a is a what if uh wouldn't it be better to have that information for everybody beforehand so we know what we're talking about I agree with respect to that that the question is I'm not entirely sure Vineyard win has looked specifically at the project per se as to how much work would go into it I mean in my rational mind I mean you're running up 13 miles essentially 11 to 13 miles of 88 uh they haven't done soil samples they haven't done an analysis you know there was really nothing with respect to that mine is getting under or over or whatever their plan is at the Westport River so my fear is that we don't have project specifics right they they essentially have two Landing points New London and Westport and they drew it with a sharpie in my opinion and haven't put a lot of engineering or um foresight into how that's going to occur uh so the concern is are we we we would be would we be wasting money either from the state or from the town to look at something that we're not sure what we're looking at I mean you know amongst the Conservation Commission we look and say okay you you go up 88 you probably have three to four at the least uh perennial streams that you're either going to have to go under uh that would fall into you would hope that would fall into the Conservation Commission ignoring the issue with the with the with the river so um we're thinking you know if this project is becomes further down and comes to some sort of fruition we could always use as the Conservation Commission does wetlands funds to do at least maybe some engineering some studying on behalf of at least conservation um you know I pretty confident I'm sure the town obviously through chairman Rodricks with Ways and Means could probably help with respect to uh getting something to at least protect our you know interest with respect of that so but what I would more think about is the landing from the ocean to Westport and going underneath the river or on the bottom of the River to cross the river those kind of things are not so sight specific that you're not talking about in with regard to going up 88 they told me that they would dig up 88 and and place it down the middle no just put it on one side where up along the edge uh and rip it up and repave it um instead of trying to go through the woods correct and that that you know with we're thinking logically here from a construction standpoint you have points where you could get down with Main Road and drift Road you close down 88 you rip it up you and you're all set I think the concern that we voiced uh not only John myself um Rick Smith who's shellfish uh commissioner is the concern of Crossing Westport River what does that do with respect to species um impact on that because they can talk talk about having data and we pointed that out they say well we have data about fish movement and fish migration but that's in a situation where where it's in the ocean and they have other opportunities to go around it right you create essentially a fence on that Westport River and if there's very little data telling us what could happen north of north of that bridge that that really has to be a concern because of what Westport depends on both economically from fishing as well as tourism and recreational fishing so in in essentially and John can correct me on this they don't really have data on that they were going to look to see if they could find data on that but I think that is probably first and foremost the biggest issue um that would face Westport is how would that cable whether we're dealing with electromagnetic whether we're dealing with the heating there are discussions and data out there that says that those cables do heat um and that's a concern from a conservation standpoint you put that under a perennial you know stream and it gives off heat uh you drying up the you know obviously the water table um so I think my concern is that I don't I don't believe that the data that would support a project that we're looking at in Westport exists currently um and I and that would be a situation where we would probably need an expert to provide of course information with respect to that okay thank you thank you chair thank you okay uh it is now passed 6:15 so next up is Burks v twin or five twin v v uh file number 24-17 SBA Maj continued from July 16th 2024 August 13th September 10th and October 15th the applicant is Seeking a major modification for an approved site plan to construct a garage for motorcycle restoration shop Mr chairman the applicant is not present he has requested a continuance to January 28th at 6:45 we did submit revised plans and an existing conditions plan on Monday we haven't had the opportunity to review those nor send it out to the Consulting engineer the applicant is also considering withdrawing this application and scaling it down due to the expense of installing a stormw system when you want the Contin January 28th at 6:45 that 6:45 is open 6:30 okay you want Mo yes I do uh Mr chair I move that we uh continue the public hearing on uh Burks v twin uh 24 017a D MJ to 12 12825 at 6:30 second all those in favor I I uh next up is the 6:30 public hearing for Rosewood Lane the applicant uh file number 23-39 c-mod the applicant is requesting a waiver from the rules and regulations to wave the as built plan requirements to show the location of gas installation for two lots all right good evening board members uh my name is Emanuel Pico Jr I'm here today representing Emanuel Pico senior of 26 Andrea Court in Westport in regards to the definitive subdivision plan that was approved in uh by the planning board in February 20th of 2024 um as part of our subdivision we had initially designed the project to include the installation of underground utilities along the shoulder of the railroad as required by our project plans we then made contact with Liberty Utilities to arranged for the installation of the gas main along the railroad however at the time and after much back and forth the gas company had informed us that they will only install the gas lines for the Lots through two separate laterals and only when the homes are constructed um I tried many times to explain our situation of them and the need to install the gas main along the road before we could build anything but was still denied I then reached out to the town planner to have him discuss the issue with Liberty Utilities but Michael Michael was also told that the homes would need to be constructed first there due to the circumstances beyond our control and at further expense to us we're here tonight uh before the board to request a waiver to eliminate the requirement of installing the gas main or gas lines as part of the subdivision process in order to move forward with the project we believe that a waiver is Justified for the project due to the circumstances and for the reasons outlined in our submitted narrative in addition the subdivision rules and regulations also state that the plan the planning board May wave this requirement for twoot subdivision and further mentions that underground utilities are not required required for two lots or less uh we hope that granting this waiver will allow us to move forward with our project and to allow the two future homes the flexibility of selecting alternative heating options without requiring requiring the additional expense or Mandate of installing a gas line as part of this project thank you for your time let me know if there's any questions so the gas line is in the street right gas man is right along Gord Road correct right and but there's no connection for your stub there's no stub for you uh I'm not sure if there's a stub available yet I don't think there's a I'm not sure if there's a stub Michael so the requested W waivers from subdivision by law section 3G 3G to wave the requirement that installed gas utility line is shown on the as built plan um I'd recommend approval of it provided the planning board finds and I also I myself find that that the waiver request is not inconsistent with the subdivision control law also the the board has to find that allowing the gas line to be added to the as belt following final um gas line inspection is not detrimental to the public interest I do have some sample conditions of approval but um I think the board should at least consider these these two aspects so it if they do install it are they going to come back with an as built that shows where they are if gas is installed I I would recommend that the ASV Bel is updated when they receive a final inspection um gas line inspection from the building department anybody have any comments questions Jim that the Main's on that side of the road and they they won't tap it until the houses are up and we did just pave it but it's off the pavement so and I think Mr P would prefer to have it done now but they won't do it so exactly kind of I would you know certainly think we should make a motion to do this okay with the requirement that if they do install it they redo the as built would would would there also be an option of maybe not updating the as built if they decided to go with electric heat for the homes rather than using gas well it's hard to put an as built with a gas line when you don't have one well exactly yeah so I just I was wondering about the requirement of having upate the as built if there's no gas line in the future I think the as buil is supposed to show the utilities so if you don't have that utility then it doesn't have to be there I mean they could have oil heat or electric heat or another source right so are you having underground electric or not yeah we're still following through with that so that's they were actually able to install it so that's good that's installed and that'll be that that's going to be the next thing installed that should be in the coming weeks that'll be installed the pole has already been changed okay so that's going to be on the asilt that'll definitely be on the asil yes all right so I'd entertain a motion Mr chairman I'm not sure that this even needs a waer but I move that we Grant the waiver to not to show the gas lines that don't exist second all those in favor I I thank you thank you well we've got 10 minutes to use up [Music] so can we get a motion to close that public hear I on Rosewood yeah is that a public I move that we close the public hearing on Rosewood Lane second all those in favor I I [Applause] so while we're using up 10 minutes uh are there any other matters not reasonably anticipated within the 48 hours I guess not can you um to short-term rental um we have the public hearing you say on the 16th mhm what's the step what what goes on after that Michel after that the planning board would make a recommendation for well you'll have the public hearing you'll determine what kind of language you would like to to be in the zoning Amendment if the board is satisfied with what is been presented at the meeting then they'll forward it back to the select board and for consideration to be place on the warrant for town meeting in 2025 um otherwise we you know we can have several continuances um so the public hearing everyone says you guys did a great job and there no changes then we'd report that to the select board and it would go on the uh town meeting door that's if some people say why don't you make these changes then we take that up at the next planning board meeting consider whether to make those changes and then uh take those that amended uh short-term rental to the select board saying we've had a public hearing we've made the changes based on the public hearing here's what we uh suggest you take the town meeting and that completes that process and then the select board decides whether they want to take that amended part to uh town meeting yeah and the planning board can amend the ball language in in the same meeting you know so they have to continue it so you mean at the uh at the end of the at your public hearing at the public we don't have to you know that can be the same meeting so it's really just two steps the public uh hearing and then the select board and then uh to three steps and then the town meeting but then there's also the town bylaw part of this which is uh allowing the select board to um regulate this business so that they would accept uh permit applications and Grant permits mostly on on mass and I think Roger manard has spoken with you Jeff yes yes um there's been some concern at the Town Administrator level the the select board doesn't have the authority to do this but I think that it should be the same as regulating used car lots or they well use car lots they have statutory Authority but here I think under 4.1 they have the authority to to regulate things like this in fact most often we recommend that there be two there be a general bylaw enforced by the select board and then of course a zoning bylaw for the short-term R right this isn't something that that Westport is is doing um alone it's not unique to you there's there are awful lot of them out there that are regulating it just like this okay and as because our zoning bylaw is pretty short and sweet I mean it's and are are the communities going that route or are they putting all kinds of I I I've seen it run again I I've seen where it's been very short and sweet and I've seen it where it's been three four five days okay so in just for the public uh the selectman's choice to whether or not to put the town bylaw on the town meeting warrant uh does not have a public hearing of course they could have a open meeting anyway but they're not required to have a public hearing um but I think it'll be discussed in our public hearing I would think but not not to the same extent [Applause] for two minutes uh Jim Jim the back of our binder there's this Kayla's way mhm is that I don't see that on the agenda is that something that's uh Michael put that in just because it's not on our agenda but they might show up uh with a 48h hour deal uh because they have a uh problem with selling their lot on this uh subdivision uh and apparently uh when whoever made the subdivision did it um Jan and nany repos a um they put the lot uh what do you call it it's under a restrictive covenant it's a it's a covenant so that they can't sell it until the road is done okay but they sold it and the people who bought it built a house and now years later they want to sell the house but the opposing attorney says wait a minute there's a covenant on this lot and the road hasn't been built to spec they they paved it as a driveway it's supposed to be a roll residential land and and there's been no as built there's been no concept and so we have a a a problem that is hard to remedy tonight today it is an Engineers report that says their opinion is that it's adequate adequate access but well it's adequate access but it's not is it an adequate Road I mean it's supposed to be a subdivision Road right um we don't have a was this the buyer or the sell's uh Ser engineer that was hired to do this report yes so the the not the seller but the the owner yeah of that lot not the not the one who did the subdivision Mr chairman we can start the public hearing for 6:45 um Council blakee would you like to sit at the table or you can you can stay there if you want to but wherever you I think it' be good [Music] I'm not going to share my candy yeah there go but you did right they I need the code 856 856 okay all right um okay I would uh like to open the public hearing uh for markart drive file number 23-31 c the planning board is to consider a recision of the nine lot definitive subdivision plan plat 52 lot 20a uh this marad drive uh n lot subdivision was approved uh because um what do you call it constructive appr constructive it was constructively approved uh based on the plan of record in February of this year uh and it is because uh the planning board Department uh did not register with the town clerk the uh the continuance of this Beyond 120 days or 90 days and so uh if you all recall uh the planning board denied the application of the nine lot subdivision uh Way Beyond February and it is uh they appealed it but then their attorney uh came and filed a constructive approval it has been certified by our town clerk um and uh but the the applicant uh is uh been in touch with our attorney Mr Blake uh and has um proposed a uh a way to to get a seven lot uh approval with uh 25 ft uh between the boundary and the subdivision road so it wouldn't have a Perimeter Road uh and would comply with all the other waivers that they had been asking for in February except for the um uh radius on the uh where this new road would connect to drift road so do I have that right or is this y so I think the the planning board has has uh well let me just continue subsequently to our notification that we're going to have this recision hearing uh the applicants have uh filed uh with the regist of Deeds a copy of a mortgage that they got yesterday from uh I can't remember who but uh which what that means is that if we were to um resend uh we would have to get approval from the mortgage lender as well so we have a uh have to decide um what to do I am inclined to uh to really take a close look at their proposal for the seven lot subdivision uh with the road off of the perimeter which was causing a a big problem uh it would also comply with the the I hope would comply with the storm water uh uh implementation that they agreed to for the8 and nine lot subdivision plans or the nine lot uh they had gotten that down to just one waiver so uh I'd open it up to uh I I guess I'd ask Mr Blake if he could further explain the legal legalities sure I'm happy to tonight we're here do you want me to go up to please cuz so it has a thank you Mr chairman members of the board as you know I'm I'm Jeff Blake your Town Council so we're here for a recision here and as as the chairman correctly pointed out he laid out what happened there was a constructive approval well first of all there you did a denial back in July that was appealed During the period when we it's in Lan court right now Council for the reviewed the the timeline and found that there was a constructive approval he filed a request for the cert uh certification of a constructive approval town clerk did the math and said yes it was constructively approved um also though under the under the rules and regulations or strike that under the subdivision control law a planning board on its own initiative has the ability to resend H or modify resend or amend and and approval um so that's what this board is doing here tonight is in the process of at least we're going to debate on whether or not to resend the modific uh the approval the constructive approval um in the meantime as you know as part of the legal case we have been going back and forth with Council for the other side and the a for the applicant and they have come up with a couple of different iterations U but the latest one is as the uh as the the chairman just said is a seven law subdivision that I believe has every has only one waiver am I correct the the council's attorney attorney Silverstein is here but I I believe the seven law sub only has one waiver and that's the the 25 radius that's correct so um just so that you know I believe the nine LW subdivision plane that was constructively approved has a number of waivers um so what we are we're in a position here where um we have a a constructive approval of a nine lot subdivision plan with a number of waivers um the chairman correctly points out that the uh applicant has recently mortgage the property under the statute 81w there is a provision in there that says that um a board's recision would be nullified if there was a good faith uh lending if you will financing of the project now of course we would take a position that after having been notified of the recision hearing going out and and getting lending was not good faith but that's something that we'll have to argue about and that's something that will be before a court and uh may may or may not come out in the board's favor but in any event so we've got a a An approved constructively approved nine law subdivision plan with I think it was six waivers I am I correct uh yeah I think it was I think it was six waivers they have they have offered uh tonight and then they offer still on the table to do a seven lot subdivision plan pulling this road away from the boundary um and coming up and and reducing it to to one waiver and that one waiver would be right here this radius um this is the layout so it looks straight but the road itself will have a 25 ft radius the only thing it won't have a 25 ft radius is the layout so the road will do this it's just a layout they won't have the ability to clear here where I think there there may be an issue so um I I think you got a couple of options here tonight you you can move forward with the recision hearing and make a determination as to whether or not the plan is constructively approved um uh protects the health safety and Welfare of the of the public um based on some of the concerns that you have U and the fact that it needs needs six waivers so therefore it's not in compliance by definition with your subdivision control or um you could continue this hearing to a time and date certain um if you're so inclined to to to talk about the sub seven law subdivision plan we would then um we continue this hearing to a time and date certain I think what we would do is Ren notice the uh next hearing together with the recision for a modification um or Amendment to the constructive approval and at that point um we would work back and forth the planner and I and and Council and and his client would work um back and forth to get a a a a more def definitive plan than you see here um and uh a a a a description of the way of that one waiver and um I believe you had some storm water issues in the other one but we would we would work to straighten those out you would hold the hearing and then you could do you could do your modification um recision and or Amendment thank you um so this is a public hearing um so I'm going to ask the board members for their import then open it up to the public and then back to the board so yes John uh I've uh negotiated a lot of agreements I have never in my life negotiated an agreement greement where everyone was happy as a matter of fact all the agreements I've negotiated everyone was unhappy um I think this this will be one of those um and I've read the correspondence back and forth between the lawyers um and I am not a lawyer uh what I the way I look at this I think you've kind of summed it up Mr chair is um there is U uh a risk here uh on the one hand of um our getting what we tried to avoid of the nine lot as I called it spaghetti machine uh subdivision um with this six waivers that is certainly a possibility uh and uh we tried to avoid that but um that is a uh a reality and uh and uh there is on the table um uh seven Lots um with one waiver now I think in uh uh the testimony we heard uh especially the testimony up in the library the the the most people came at it from lots of different Avenues but the most compelling testimony I heard was around safety you know this the speed on drift Road and uh what happens when uh someone tries to to leave that driveway that that's what really struck me and uh that is somewhat related to the number of lots but actually what I think of is that it's not so much related to the number of lots as it is a single car a single car car in the driveway trying to get on to drift Road that's what's the unsafe situation it's not about 10 cars it's about one car trying to get on the drift Road and the ability or inability of that one car to look around the corner at a car driving north on drift Road at a high rate of speed uh and that's what that 25 foot radius is about that's what the location of the driveway is about is that one car and the ability to see oncoming traffic and um it's just whether you multiply that times 4 S N it's a one car who's it you know is there kid in the back seat you know that's that's the danger there the design of that intersection and how visible is it that's what I think about when I think of this issue can the driver see around that corner and um and so to the lawyer uh for the applicant and to the applicant what I'm saying is in my mind that's what this is about can the driver in that car see around that corner and what can you do uh so that that is a safe situation and to me that matters a hell of a lot more than whether it's four Lots seven Lots nine Lots is can that single driver see around that corner you know with the baby in the back seat or is someone driving up r road at 40 m an hour going to get the surprise of a lifetime so I think um you know I'm inclined to to go with the negotiated settlement because I know what I'm getting and uh you know as as the lawyer has said what's on the table is uh the risk of of nine Lots with uh those those six waivers and I want to avoid that at all costs thank you Mr chair thank you chair um I I take my colleagues point and I would uh uh move to continue so that we have an opportunity to explore exactly that safety issue again I also with agree with my colleagues and agree with Bob right now move for continues um well I I would agree with that as well I the only comment I was going to add was that uh the the issue has been from day one this this intersection and whether um you know whether we achieve the 25 ft radius on the southern end of of the road or or not but it's really I think as uh as John described it's uh it's not where I think it's no longer a question of how important is that radius on the S on the southern end it's really the uh the point at which these two roads intersect when you we're just looking at a plat plan here but when you go out there as many of you you are all very familiar with it I've heard you say that you walk it you uh ride bikes and so forth on it constantly and uh uh you're very aware of the potential uh public safety issues and the question has come up several times in relation to this and I perhaps I don't know if it's appropriate now I know whether there's a motion here on the table but I'd just like to hear one more time from the applicant as to the reason that it's so difficult I mean so why is it difficult to move this this narrow neck of the property North and I realize that's requiring uh acquiring a a piece of additional property and uh I know that their attorney answered it in some correspondence which we have seen uh so I'm not I'm not going to quote from any of that because that's I don't know if that's a public record or not but um uh so I that's what because that would in fact help this situation is if that road could as it exits the new subdivision and as you're heading toward uh drift road if it could Bend to the north and uh and then uh enter on the drift road further north I believe that might have um improve the the uh the the question of visibility of cars coming north on drift Road and and a car trying to exit but uh uh I just would like to know one more time why that would be so difficult from the applicant's point of view to achieve Mr chairman I I will admit that the council had indicated that he could try to get his engineer here um I had indicated to him that I thought that that might be premature because we're not really sure what's going to happen tonight so um I don't think we've got an engineer here uh but attorney Silverstein may be able to comment on that I'm happy too if you like Mr chair please come up thank you for the record Jonathan Silverstein for the applicant um so the question is why can't we straighten out the roadway and um have it come in further north and have um the full fillet radius that's required under the rules and regulations so the issue of course is that um we don't own that land so we would have to acquire more land and from I don't want to not be on record can I uh we'd have to acquire additional Land from the abing property owner who has not indicated she's interested in selling us additional land there was a reason why this was as much land as we could acquire initially um that's what she was willing to sell us if we move the road further north if we were to straighten it out we'd be bicep her land rendering the remainders on either side essentially useless um if it's just a matter of acquiring another 25 ft so that we have that radius um again we still have to see if she's willing to sell us that land or conceivably sell us an easement to so that we can add it to the layout of the road were happy to you know pursue that again but again if we were had been able to avoid that waiver it would have made our lives a lot easier I would also note if we're able to avoid that waiver we no longer require any waivers and we could increase the number of lots again to recoup some of the costs that we've incurred so you know there's a trade-off with everything I will say that field engineering explicitly told the board that the proposed roadway would provide safe and adequate access we've done the site distance measurements it complies with all ashto requirements when you pull up to that to the paved surface of drift Road there are no obstructions the obstructions are behind you um so the radius that is missing from the layout does not impact the safety of the roadway or how it whether it complies with any ashto requirements as your own peer reviewer has has told you um so so I um in your email can I quote the email here sure so you said it would require to redesign the roadway uh I you're redesigning the roadway to do the seven Lots anyway and I don't think that's done yet right this is just just a a look I think if this is just a picture right and I guess I would like to be careful because those were you know settlement Communications between Council but I can tell you that this has been a process that's dragged down a long time it's you know their carrying costs their engineering cost their legal costs you know everything to you know they're now reducing the density of what we think they have by right by over 20% um two building Lots is a significant um cost with no resultant reduction in infrastructure it's not like we have a shorter road so I think we're willing to work with the board um we can look into the viability of getting additional land um for that radius but again there there's no there's no objective or um engineering evidence before the board that that's going to increase the safety of the road we can't control the speeds on drift Road um and the road itself is designed and will be constructed in full conformance with all of your rules and regulations um we even agreed to build a sidewalk to Nowhere um which again is another pretty significant cost uh to avoid having to have that ask for that waiver Where will willing to work with you if you know the town wants to look to see if that vegetation that some board members have expressed concerned about is within the layout of the Town Road and you want us to pay to remove the tree we'll remove the tree you we'll we'll do what we can but we can't force a neighbor to sell us land and certainly not at a reasonable price given all of the other cost implications of the process to date um so I can commit to the board that between now and the next hearing we'll explore that well um uh you know I I don't think redesigning the road is the primary issue with eliminating that radius the primary issue is can we get is what is can we get the rights to do so um okay so anybody else so then I'd open it up to the public so uh for full disclosure I'm David L Lima and I am an retired attorney and I live on drift Road and um I think it's a little bit disingenuous we had a clerical mistake that created a problem prior to that you made an informed decision that one of the six waivers was imperative to the safety of the whole project which would be jeopardized by allowing this project to go through you voted on it you said it was right a clerical issue arises and we have all these iterations of compromise and settlement but it does not anyway ever changed the initial reason why you rejected it in the First Place 95 6 2 1 when you get to the as John has said when you get I live there I live down the road not far I know how cars drive on drift Road and it's faster and faster and more dangerous every day we're negotiating that with the with the bridge that we're still negotiating about and we know how much traffic is there we know know it's almost impossible to see on the winding road that we have and with all due respect to all the changes that are proposed nothing mitigates the existence of that problem nothing all you're trying to do is make a settlement you're still going to have a dangerous corner so if one person dies it'll be all on you for a compromise that's all I I mean I understand I'm lawyer I negotiate we try to find common ways to solve problems but this isn't the the solution here from 9 to 7 doesn't any way address the problem that started this problem it doesn't do it anything to it it's a terrible intersection there shouldn't be any houses there it's a terrible intersection so the the issue here in front of us is whether we resend or not so if we resend um um you're in negotiations and and litigation I understand I I understand I mean I'm it's our town money I understand okay but but but if if you're going to it's hard to understand when the safety issue is still a safety issue the safety issue is not changing whether you have seven nine or three it's not changing so you're accepting the fact now from a decision you made before to but I I think the the the question is if we can negotiate a better entrance to this oh if you can negotiate if you can accomplish a better negotiation to the intersection itself I'm awful I mean I'm not crazy about more houses down there the traffic on drift road is already perilously dangerous right now okay and so uh the speed is people are not going 35 miles an hour they're going 40 50 m hour it's terrible there and they big TR it's just terrible okay we're just adding to the problem so I'm just saying that at some point in time something's going to happen and decision makers are going to be have to deal with the that you had a chance to not let that happen and I hope it doesn't but I think that corner is dangerous just by just by living on that road walking and driving and bicycling you see how dangerous it is and this negotiation doesn't change that if you can get more distance on North and and mitigate it I think it it's a wonder to me that's the option that's the option to make that happen but going from 9 to 7 is that's a false sense if we can go from the risk of that intersection to a better intersection David I I agree with that that's what we're talking about I would I agree that that that worthy of worthy that's what we're trying to do is to achieve a better intersection because without that we have a real problem yeah well that's what we're trying to achieve thank you thank you anybody else I'm David dorski um I'm I'm in a butter uh this is where I live and I I want I want to uh underline the previous speakers comments um we're here because of a clerical error uh the planning board made a ruling and I think that they should stand by it um I think that the intersection of um drift road with the with the cart path as it exists is already a dangerous intersection let me remind you um in my previous uh testimony I showed you videos that are on record of what the traffic looks like going past this this entrance and as the previous speaker said um cars travel usually usually at 40 m an hour even though it's posted 30 mph Road uh I walk that path almost every day I walk along here and I want to know uh it's not obvious from the map but this part of the road is well below the grade of drift road so that when you're coming up this path you're going up hill so that diminishes the visibility of a driver that is going along the road to enter drift road so uh that's going to be a very dangerous intersection and as a as the previous speaker said um whether it's 7 or 9 is not going to change it very much keep in mind that the town uses uh this area down here which we call the town pit and it's accessed by trucks uh quite frequently and if you notice on drift road that there are postings north and south of this intersection with the car path that it's a dangerous intersection there with trucks turning into the road so it's already marked as a dangerous intersection so I want to keep I want you to keep that in mind that you've already decided that and I think that you should should um seriously consider sticking with your decision and curing attempting to cure the clerical error that was made by your Committee in not posting the decision in a timely fashion um whether or not you prevail in L court is is is an open question but I know that you turned down the original proposal for good reason and you stated your reason and I don't think that the judge in the land court is going to overrule your decision so I I believe that you have a good chance of prevailing if you stick by your decision and resend this constructive approval which you have the power to do now so I I don't think that you should um cow toow to the applicant was taking advantage of a clerical error that you made furthermore I do believe that the strategy that the applicant took of taking out a mortgage in order to cement their or to increase their chances of prevailing legally I think that wasn't done in in good faith and it's obvious that they were taking advantage of the situation uh and if you have a reasonable chance of prevailing which I believe you do then I think you should stick with it and I think that the community would suffer tremendously if uh this road is built in such a way that uh this uh southernly Southeastern Corner does not have a proper turning R so thank you for your time thank you anybody else good evening everyone I owned the house on the court 312 and a couple weeks ago my tenant tried to get out of the driveway somebody came and smashed the car my concern is just about the safety because that road is so narrow I drove there fits only one car and um that's my concern about the safety because there's not much room maybe we can sell some land or maybe barara because the way it is is impossible and uh who's going to suffer will be the people who's going to buy the house there and the neighbors okay could you uh for the record give your name to I'm sorry Sonia can son what would you ask coni c n n o l l y thank you and dress 312 drift Road okay thank you so what you're saying is that you got hit driving out of your driveway my neighbor uh my tenant he's tried to get out of the driveway and the car is passing so fast so they they smashed his car and I imagine like that street I drove that street and street is so narrow the way he says this is a hill so and uh be so narrow for the people come in and out so if they can fix the road but if they don't fix it the RO to be it'll be very dangerous okay thank you anybody else Jake McAn 397 drift Road uh just to follow up on that I was actually present for that accident driving by so I was going to bring that up it was pretty recent um pretty pretty uh bad accident actually for for a drift Road situation um but more importantly obviously you as a board uh face a very difficult decisions and you fa a very difficult decision um you know when you voted down the proposal or originally uh you listen to the opposition you listen to the public there were probably over 100 people in attendance that uh that evening for the last hearing and you voted it down basically 5 nothing um you know as elected officials I think you did the right thing you listen to the your constituents you listen to your residents there on drift Road um I would Echo I'm sure the sentiments is still the same whether it's seven or nine house Lots originally we there were discussions to do a small three or four house Lots again that does not change the safety um of that situation and you can't force that obviously on that developer but I would just ask that you probably uh stand by your original decision uh it was not even a close decision and allow this thing to play out in the court of law and see where that takes you especially since you basically did listen to the will of the people and the people within that neighborhood so thank you for your time thank you anybody else okay so sorry real quickly Mr chair than um I just want to make a couple points um one is that the road that's there now is not the road that would serve the subdivision we had originally requested a waiver from the 25t leveling strip Acro approaching the intersection we eliminated that waiver request meaning that the geography the vertical geometry of that road is going to change so it's going to be safer and level approaching the intersection it's also going to be wider it's going to meet all of your subdivision Road requirements and I'll just look note that looking at the abing property the driveway is completely screened from any view of oncoming traffic due to vegetation and Shu that would not be the case with this um sub thank you yes sir Mike Bernie 24 a away I was just wondering is there any regulation on putting a road into another road on how how much Clear View you need each way is there any footage that you know is it 10 ft that you can put a road into you know we have a lot of properties like this in Westport and and we have a lot of crooked roads we all know that and it kind of concerned to me if this gets approved we're going to have more problems with the board everybody's going to want to just jump on the bandwagon that's all thank you so to answer your question question uh you need uh either a 40t or a 50t road right away it comes to the other Road plus you need when you get to the road you need 25 ft radius beyond that but how far do you need a straight player view on a you know that can you put it right on you know on the curve I I don't think that it is uh itemized in the regulation but just say there's got to be adequate sight line is what it there's got to be some kind of formula for that okay so I I would just like to reiterate what Mr Silverman said is that when the road comes to drift Road in the previous plans anyway they had a 25 ft level area so you're not coming up to the road like that that you're coming at it uh at the same level as the road but um but anyway I think back to the board um I agree with many of the uh uh people in the audience uh that it still is the same problem the question is I think with the recision in my opinion we should continue the the recision hearing until our first meeting in February and uh allow the applicant to try to as best they can fix this sight line thing and and demonstrate to us that it is safe it it isn't sufficient for our field engineer company to um just give it off the cuff it's it's it's good access uh they are just giving us their opinion they are not the planning board uh and I would like to see if there's vegetation in the town right away that could be cleared that would give you the sight line that you're looking for uh as well as move the road as far to the North in the RightWay that you own as possible so that you can get maybe even a bigger radius on the on the south side to provide a better clearer view looking south from this road so I don't know what anybody else thinks I I don't think that we should be sended toight tonight but I think we should give the applicant time to see if he can fix this problem yeah and just just to add to that if they if your if the applicant's engineer could show a little more accurate uh context of drift Road I mean it's depicted here just two short straight lines I want I'd like to see how that road extended North and South actually looks whether this any curvature to it and uh and give us an accurate sense of the vegetation bordering the uh the two uh intersections uh north and south of the of the existing Road just because this is not to me it's not an adequate uh depiction of of the of some of the existing conditions which we're all talking about having such an effect on whether this is safe or not so I think would just help that our deliberations if we saw a little more context to the uh existing Road drift Road North and South so the shape of the road the and some of the uh natural features like the the tree that's on that southwest corner um and any other significant vegetation that's along either side of uh drift Road would also help Mr chair I think I'm supporting the motion to continue uh the recis hearing until when was it February the February meeting to give the African time to Define uh this plan and uh I think what we've uh done in this discussion is to say that there are a whole lot of issues you know in the plans that we discuss drainage and sight lines and boundaries and everything and we've really narrowed this down to one very specific thing we're not talking about drainage we're not talking about the the boundary line we're talking about how this driveway intersects drift Road that's it it's a it's a safety issue and and um and I I understand uh people's uh view that when we made our initial ruling uh to deny we should just stick with it I get the emotions on that but um I don't agree uh because uh that opens up the possibility that uh what we end up with is the original uh nine Lots the driveway is slammed up against that lot line and that uh intersection is what we get right there and to me I don't want to take that risk if we can achieve uh a safer intersection uh and I think we can I think we can and uh and so uh but I I want the applicant to understand that that is what the focus is on is as the chairman said we want to see uh how you uh come back to us with a safer intersection if you come back to us with this same intersection uh then uh I I would suggest hearing aids I don't know uh something because that is what we are saying matters to us this the that improving that intersection from what you were saying uh and figuring out how you were going to do that and we applaud that you have gone back and forth through our attorney uh in terms of of modifying things uh that you are uh trying to work this process and we applaud that uh it it has taken time it has taken thought it has taken a lot of back and forth uh but uh that intersection still needs uh more work uh but the the stakes are uh you know required and that's why you know February because it's going to take some time to figure this out right and if they come up with some you know even if we agree to in concept this we still need to see the plan we still need to see the engineering we still need to see the storm water uh all those things that we need uh some of which you already have but some of which you have to develop because you moved the road over um so I think that perhaps what we ought to do is continue this till thing and also if if if you're confident have an amendment public hearing for the subdivision that is uh block the name but constructively approved uh so we would need to amend that that that uh approved constructively approved plan uh and I think we could do that on the same day uh but we'd have to know now whether you want to do that so that we can notice it um in sufficient time thank you Mr chair yes we're we're open to uh continuing to discuss a modification um as a way of resolving this I want to be really clear we will reach out to the abing property owners I think one is here if we can get the additional radius to comply with the rules and regulations we will you know on reasonable terms we'll do it right now what you see is what we own so there was a ref someone made to moving it within our right of way that is what we own we don't have room to move anything I suppose we could move the actual constructed road to the edge of the layout usually in my experience planning boards don't want that because then there's no room for snow storage and things like that but you know we we could look into doing that I really don't again and and one thing I'll commit to doing is coming back and giving the board the actual site distance measurements um and some visuals so you can see that tree does not impede sight distance of a car trying to turn left onto drift Road it it's behind the driver and the stone wall is this high so that also doesn't so none of those um items in any way impede sight distance so again I'm hearing the board we will look into it I want to be really clear though there's nothing about adding a line on a paper that shows that 25 ft layout radius that's going to make the road any safer um because there's there's nothing in the way the road is where it is if we could come in up here we do it we have a nice straight road but we don't own it and that's not what the property owner wanted to sell us so I just I don't I don't want to overpromise I don't want the board to if I come back and say we don't we can't change the intersection I don't want the board to think that I misrepresented the state of things we will do what we can do within what we own and what we can acquire um and I'm happy to reach out maybe uh Michael and I can see if that tree is owned by the town if it's in the town layout if it is we'll cut it if the ab budding property owner is willing to have us cut it we'll cut it um if that would make the board feel safer so sorry for answering more than you asked but I wanted to be really transparent with the board but yes we would welcome a continuance so that we can explore modification of the constructive approval so so would you want to have the public hearing for the amendment to this constructively approved plan at the same time or later date um I don't want to step on Mr Blake's toes in my view you could have a single hearing to consider modification Amendment or recision it doesn't have to be two separate hearings it seems to make more sense to just have one hearing and at the end of it make your decision but I don't want to you know um advise the board but uh I think that February do you know the date would it be the 7th February 11th 11 11th um my hope is that by that date we'll be able to um have enough information so that the board can can make a decision and we you know I think you you want to have things in is it one week or two weeks in advance we like two weeks two weeks we'll do our best it is obviously a tough time period um but we'll you know work with the engineers to see what we can put together okay and you don't have to wait until then to tell us what you're doing you could be in touch with Michael oh of course no we you know so I would entertain a motion to continue the recision hearing we need Bob made a motion so we need a second to February it's got be a time and dat serice February 11 at 6:15 so move Mr chair second all those in favor all all right thank you then I think if we're done with that do we need to we just contined we don't need to close so we need to adjourn move to adjourn second all those in favor