##VIDEO ID:SHUn1Kx95H0## okay there at being 6:30 I'm going to start the zoning Board of fields meeting with Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance in accordance with Mass General law 38 section 20f this meeting is being recorded first hearing tonight is Administrative appeal of Christopher d requesting a finding that to demolish the ex the existing residence and construct a new single family residence is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as mandated by zoning bylaw Article 5 section 2 5.2.3 Andor a variance from the front yard setback requirement is required by article 7 section 7.71 subject property is located at 96 masus Squatch Road Westport Mass and is shown at assessors map lot 58 Lots 167 to 168 so what the way this hearing works is I'll have the abutter mean the petitioner or the petition's representative come up and provide whatever information they think is uh is pertinent then the the board will ask questions of the petitioner after the board has uh has finished the questioning then I'll open up to the public and if you if you want to speak and can come to the microphone and just give us your name and your address address and then you know uh however you want to address the board so with that um thank you name and address good evening attorney Matthew Landry uh from the office of Kavanaugh 30 Exchange Street Providence Rhode Island um I represent the applicant Christopher Dyson I'm joined by Nathan Chau Principe engineering you want to just introduce yourself Nathan Chau project engineer uh prin company engineering division 27 scon Ridge Drive ton Red Island y uh Mr chairman uh thank you and good evening uh thank you for your time um uh I represent the applicant before before I do that I gu the voting members will be uh Jerry coutino uh Ray Eli myself Roger manard kensy and Cynthia ktz uh thank you um so represent the applicant that is the owner of the property at 96 um masach Road hopefully I didn't putcher that name um uh again I'm joined by Nathan Chau principi engineering who prepared uh the site plans the engineering plans that should be uh included in your submission I'm going to ask him uh in a few minutes to kind of go through the proposal um and some of the relief that we're requesting uh as well as the grounds for the relief and why we're here before you um I just wanted to provide a little bit of a background on how we got here and um some of the conversations that we've had with staff um in the letter from the building official office uh that we received that prompted uh the application that you have before you this evening um as I'm sure you're aware of the area this this property is a nonconforming lot of record it's um quite substantially uh deficient in lot area um roughly 12,000 Square ft uh which creates um an inherent hardship to development as you can imagine um primarily because of the existing setbacks on the property uh as well as the required setbacks from Title 5 uh well well setback restrictions and the leech field setbacks that are required particularly when you're upgrading system so the initial uh process that we followed was to go to the local Board of Health uh and ask for a number of waivers uh believe there were three waivers from the Board of Health that we received with respect to well setback distances um and that was primarily because no matter where you put it on this property you're within some setback um because of the uh close proximity to the other properties um that relief was granted um and I just wanted to make the board aware that there were a number of improvements to the setbacks that Nathan or Mr Chau can um testify to um but there will be an improved septic system in conjunction with um the alteration of the existing home it's an existing single family structure the intent is to knock it down build a much more modern um year round uh principal residence for the applicant this is not a rental this is not a part-time home they live in the home this is a principal residence um the existing septic on the property is actually approved for three bedrooms uh the proposed uh uh remodification of the home will be a two-bedroom so there's no increase in the bedrooms to the home it's it's going to be consistent in late kind from what exists uh today now the letter um following the Board of Health um approvals that we received we submitted an application for building permit uh to construct uh the home that resulted in a a response or a letter from the building official indicating um the need for um a finding from the board uh this board that uh there is no um increase in harm or that the proposed use is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists on the property uh and we agree with that and we're here uh respectfully asking for that finding uh the second um is a little bit more complicated in some respects uh under article 7even of your zoning ordinance there is a procedure by which non-conforming lots are not required to have a setback that exceeds the average setbacks of the Lots on either side of this property um at the time I don't believe the building official had those calculations but Mr Chau has included those on the pl excuse me they were included on the site plan um and he had calculated those setbacks for the average setback distance for the properties on either side of the property um per that section um and the proposed setback for the new home um is actually exceeds what that average setback is now we feel we meet the requirements of section 7 but out of an abundance of caution we've asked for relief from that section and out of respect to the building officials determination I think he was unclear as to whether or not a variance was required so again I've asked for it um but I'll have Mr Chau explain that and go through that analysis um uh to answer those questions that the board may have okay me interrup right there just a couple more administrative things and and I'm and I'm glad you did apply for both the finding and the variance because if you only did the finding and we decided that you needed a variance you'd have to start all over again because variance is a much more stringent uh petition than a finding um the other uh just to make clear for a finding in order to be granted you just need a majority of the five voting members for the variant you need four out of five um also um just for the sake that everybody understands what it means when we say not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or according to our lawyer what that really means is that it doesn't affect the safety or the tra you know the you know something substantial it it does not relate to the architecture uh we're not in the business of telling the petition how to build a house that's up to the as long as it meets the code then you know whether they put shingles on it or whatever that that's you know that's that that's a building inspector you're going to have to obviously once you get past this assuming you get past this then there's a lot of other steps you need to do you need to get a building permit you need to get you know there's you know you need to go through the whole process just like somebody with a um you know was building a new house so this is just one step in the process I'd also like to read I mean the reason reason why we're here is you got a letter from Ralph Souza the zoning enforcement officer and the building inspector so I'll read it into the record uh this is from uh Ralph Souza uh Dear Mr Bradshaw uh I have not yet received the engineer average setback which I guess you just you just gave them which is needed in order to determine to make the determination of a variance will be required or a simple finding for the Westport zoning by laws article section section 7.7.1 front yards everything every building or structure shall be built or placed on a lot so that there shall be a front yard of at least 25 feet clear depth from the street line or lines to be part of such building or structure closest to the street line provided that no building or structure need be setback more than the average of the setbacks of the building next there to within 250 ft on both sides of lot in question this must be done by a licensed engineer the second issue as per the the Westbard zoning uh bylaws Article 5 Section 523 alteration pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be altered providing there is a finding from the board of appeals that such alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use of the of to the neighborhood therefore until all information is submitted no further action will be taken to this time so this is the reason that uh why you're here and and like I said I'm glad that you're going to uh uh discuss both the finding aspect and and the variance aspect of it so uh uh with that I'll let you I'll let you continue all right great thank you uh Mr chairman I um appreciate that um the background material and and again I I like to be allinclusive and make sure the board has all the information um it needs to render a decision so um again that's we feel based on the work that prini engineering did we satisfy article 7 but obviously it's up to this board to make that determination but we want to provide you with all the information you need um and I think U Mr Chau at this time I'll ask him uh I'm not sure what your procedure is Mr chairman if you'd like Mr Chau to be sworn in uh to testify or if he can no he just he announced who he was and who he represents so okay thank you um Mr Chau U could you just please U provide the board with a brief um summary of your background and your credentials yep um so I've done plenty of septic designs uh in Island Massachusetts uh I also work a lot on drainage designs and you're licensed for what uh I I'm actually um a project engineer I'm under training you're what under under training I work under uh Tom princey he's he's licensed engineer okay uh and Mr chauffer the the plans that were submitted were signed and stamped by um Tom princee is that correct that's correct okay and um are you familiar with the title 5 regulations applicable to the slot correct okay and uh Mr princey presumably is also familiar with these regulations correct okay and the project was designed in accordance with Title 5 and other yep that is correct okay um uh could you just describe for the board um what the um existing setbacks are for the existing structure uh so uh in the front setback taken by our survey team um it currently measures to be 7.6 um to the front setback okay and um can you identify what the side yard setback is there to the uh is that East uh to the east is 15.4 okay um and is it the intent of the applicant to relocate the home to the central portion of the lot that's correct and um in connection with this submission were you required to seek relief from the Westport Board of Health uh we that is correct we uh we went through um a septic design process with the Board of Health to seek relief from uh the three Wells within the area as well as a property line uh variants to help increase the separation from the wells okay um can you just um summarize uh what the setbacks are with respect to the wall radiuses and how they've improved yep so present day as you talked about there's a three-bedroom uh conventional uh septic on site with no pre-treatment um the well uh distance present day um for the existing lot uh to the leach field separation is 58.8 Ft uh to the well to the east is 64.3 to the leech field today and to the lot to the West is 81.1 Ft now in our design we are proposing a two-bedroom bottomless s filter which is a modern design with pre-treatment uh it's a smaller in size than the existing system um and the current placement of the proposed bottomless s filter is maxing out the separation of uh the distances from each three Wells that I mentioned previously and those separations now uh pres uh as proposed for the lot today the separation proposed would be 77.9 ft that's an increase in about 20 feet separation from present day uh the lot to the east will be increased to 72.1 feet separation that's an increase of 7.8 ft and then the lot to the West is uh being proposed outside the 100t radius of the well uh no septic tank proposed is within 50 ft of any well mentioned above and as Matt has mentioned this design has been approved by the Board of Health okay um so Mr Chau in your um opinion have has there been a significant Improvement um in the proposed design compared to what exists today absolutely uh and that's with respect to um Title Five in health concerns absolutely there's no pre-treatment in the septic design and as I just spelled out um the leechfield has uh increased its separation from all three Wells okay I think this is all really good information but we don't do we don't do septics and Wells yeah understood the only reason I mean no I I'm saying it seriously this is this is good information so that we get a feel for how the house is going to be situated with the well but that's a health department issue it has nothing to do with the finding of R variance again this is good information for us because uh even though we don't that's not part of our deliberation because because you know the we we don't it's the health department that that gives you approval for the for the well and in the septic but it does it will give us an idea of how it changed from uh from the current configuration I think it's also relevant for the detrimental effect of building because um because we're they they're this the setbacks for the house are modified in order to increase the sanitary of the lot which I think isn't I think something that we should we don't care I don't think no when we we' already discussed another other meetings when they're upgrading a septic we've put that as a condition of saying that that is actually the benefit for the property so I think we should for a finding we we don't do that necessarily for findings but there there are other there are other types of petitions that that we certainly do that for I do have a question that I'd like to ask about this though uh when was that approved by the Board of Health uh I mean very recent within the last two or three months correct okay uh are they requiring you to do a uh uh nitrate uh that's what that's what the pre-treatment yeah corre all new construction now is is correct absolutely I want so so all these measurements you're talking about are based on that type of because you keep talking about title five but but this is goes beyond that correct so that's vantex is exactly correct present day is a conventional system there's no pre-treatment and that is one of the components that we are uh proposing are you going to talk about the front setbacks yes of course and you know acoss the neighborhood yep because that that was one of the things that uh Ralph sus had mentioned is that he didn't have that information so he didn't know if a variance was required or not yeah and and I appreciate the reason we're going through this dialogue I think the public health and safety aspect of this is is a critical component of it um and what Mr Chau could testify to and which I will ask him is that with respect to a variance um there are a number the soil conditions the topography all of those aspects that are relevant to a variance um are what have created inherent hardship in locating these systems that are uh being proposed in conjunction with the construction uh and that construction and those locations also affected the setback distances and where the house could be cited um so I do think it is a very critical part of at least the variance discussion in why we ended up with the design that we did so I just again wanted to make sure we're all inclusive and uh the board understanding everything behind the submission and the reasons for why the house was placed where it is but um I I guess Switching gears um Mr Chau um did uh you analyze the average setback distances in accordance with article 7 as correct I was provided these two measurements from the abuts on the East and the west of the lot and took the average and that is the front setback reflected on this plan okay and those both of those lots are located within 250 ft of this property correct correct okay and can you just identify um what sheet uh on the plans just for the board's um understanding where those average setback distances can be found yeah so it's on sheet two um off to the right of the page and the the lots that were identified within that radius are also highlighted in red as correct um and can you um tell me what the average setback distances were um so lot 169 I don't have dwelling to front setback uh sorry dwelling to front property line is hold on was I just want to make sure everybody is following just so we have my second sheet is just um SE yeah and there's a zoning comp portion on the right of the okay little boock Engineers love big paper my old eyes like it too um so Mr Chau just just to clarify the the zoning criteria located on that second sheet of your plan set that's with respect to article 7 is that correct correct okay and again can you just uh start from the beginning and describe what the average setback distances work could I ask a question TR because it's sort of basic to while when you're measuring this are you going from property line to property line are you are you talking directly from from the structure to to a property line or structure so these measurements are provided from our surveying team from neighboring structure to property line not to the street to the property line to the property line correct yes yep and what was the average setac distance the average is 15.8 okay what's the proposed front yard setback for this property we're proposing 16.9 to the covered porch so you've exceeded the average setep back distance that you calculated that's correct and what the existing um setback just for the record uh 7.6 7. so there's roughly a 9 9 foot increase from the existing setback that's correct okay in in your opinion would that be a substantial Improvement to existing conditions correct and how many structures are are within that 250 ft um just one well so we measured the two immediate within both sides both sides that's correct the rule yeah art article 7 makes a reference to the the parcels on either side of the lot so that's um is that correct Mr that's correct and that's the radius that you used correct okay um so you've exceeded the average that um was provided under your calculation that is correct in your professional opinion does the proposed design satisfy article 7 correct okay now why does it need a variance if it if it meets the bylaw that's a good if you read if you read Ralph say who didn't know no no what the time Ralph did that he didn't he was waiting for these calculations now that you have this why are you why are you needing a variant so I I don't want to speak for the zoning of so these are the plans that were submitted with the building permit application I'm not sure if it was clear and we take responsibility for that if it wasn't clear um so we we believe we do satisfy the criteria but based on that response it sounds like it was probably unclear uh and the testimony that we're trying to provide to you here is that the average step fact distes are on the plans and they've been I mean his first sentence say I have not yet received the engineer's average setback which is needed in order to to make the determination if you know whether you got it or not what you're what you're saying is that now you you have it all documented that in fact it it does meet the the average setback of the houses on either side did did he have this plan uh before he wrote that determination does he have the house building plan yes did he have this plan that has these numbers before he uh wrote that because I don't understand why he would wasn't supposed to he said he was here I did if I might be able to goad address okay um when the application was filed I didn't have a letter from Ralph so when I talked with him he said that he did not have the information that he had asked for so the application was filed before the letter okay at which time I emailed uh attorney Landry and I said you know this is what Ralph thinks now after the letter came out and um I think the original application did not ask for a Vance actually or a finding so attorney Landry and I did hash that out where he then changed it to um finding an a variance which which which is actually that's a belt and suspenders and that's fine because what you don't want is to come in with the belt and when you found that you really needed suspenders yeah so uh you can always apply for more than you need and then not need it but you can't you know you can't we can't we could not have done this if a variant was required we would have had to have refused this and I appreciate that's that was a conversation that we did have and it was a suggestion that the board wouldn't be able to act on it and I completely agree I'd rather it be before you you can make the determination we believe we satisfy that standard we do not need a variance based on that testimony um I leave that to the board's discretion um but again I wanted to make sure you had all the information understood what the calculations were uh in order to make that informed um decision so it's possible that Ralph may have had this and didn't understand this it's possible no he didn't read that that carefully or whatever yeah I mean I had we we all had a hard time finding it on plans yeah so when it's in the septic design yeah I guess my my point of of this questioning is uh that U if we if he satisfies the bylaw of the 250 foot average um we should not have to give a variance no what we can say is a variance is not required right or if you want to get some suspenders with your belt then maybe we could just go ahead as though it really were needed and we could approve it but I don't know if that's even legal yeah I yeah I I don't think I'd be wanting to approve a variance that's not necessary yeah that's what I'm kind because that that's like saying we think you were wrong and we're going to fix it when if you're not wrong that's not really the right way to go yeah it puts a little president on the record too so and I certainly wouldn't presume to make the board make a decision it wasn't comfortable making again we want wanted to make sure you had all of it that based on the building officials determination uh we thought it was prudent to include that as a request respectfully we don't think we need the the variants based on the professionals testimony is the petitioner living in it now uh yeah the petitioner is here I'm happy to have come up can I just uh repeat what the setback is going to be the setback what it's going to be with this plan the propos 16 something 16.9 okay and the other zoning setbacks are actually met we're not asking for relief from many of the other setbacks those are all satisfied so it's just with respect to that front yard setb back so the new septic system and again we're not in that septic system but I drove by the property it's going to be up against the stone wall uh 5 ft off 5T off the Stow wall okay um so I have nothing further from uh Mr Chau based on that um testimony the applicant is here uh as well as the Builder I'm happy to have um Mr and speak as to the intended use of the property that may be helpful to the board or any other questions that you may have we we'll do that after we finish questioning is there any reason you don't give instructions on how to fold these it is tricky I can teach you after J it's either that or rolling or rolling yes if I can ask just one final um question of Mr CH just to clarify for the record in your professional opinion um would the proposed design result in any condition that's more detrimental uh than what currently exists today uh no correct and it would result in actually an improved condition correct improved condition thank you um I welcome any questions at the board yeah I mean like I said um our main focus for um detrimental to the neighborhood is uh things like safety and and you know traffic and stuff like that you know and I drove like I said I I drove um there it's cozy down there it's it's cozy out there yes um it's um it's still just going to be for one single family there one or two cars whatever the you know a typical uh family situation right and they are living in the residence now but I'm happy to have him um speak to yeah we can ask that of the I mean there's a garage and a driveway so it's at least enough room for two cars right can you testify do you know the room for how many cars uh yeah at least two I mean I don't I guess I don't have the exact measurement but typical parking space is 18 by9 so MH feet unless you had my truck and you get for three of them yeah yeah uh and and to the extent it's um worth mentioning I don't believe there's any objections um from the neighbors that we know of I don't want to speak for them I haven't received any letters of off since we're at that point I will read into the record we did get an email from uh Deborah Minkin and Kilpatrick and Daniel Kilpatrick and it says uh uh good afternoon Miss Franco who's our zoning administrator we recently received an AB butter notification regarding the demolition of the existing residents and construction of a new single family Residence at 96 Massa Squatch Road by the way I know that just because we had so many hearings about the tower I know how to pronounce that road now it took me a while since we will not be at the public hearing on October 9 2024 we want to let you know that my husband and I do not have any objections to this petition that's the only official we uh I will open it the public once we finish our discussion I got a question so right now you have 16.9 to the lot line it looks like the existing driveway is not actually on their property it says existing dirt drive exting drive ADC and lo right so uh there's a smaller portion that does extend onto oh yeah I have the same thing the little piece that out of the property that extends out to the to the road yeah thir Drive yeah so actually from here it's actually more than 16.9 then to the are you talking to the road or to the property line so this is the is this the property line here the dark the solid black correct right so then the existing Drive is south of that or whatever Direction it is below it it says dirt Drive existing Drive ADB seated looned and seated correct it says to to me that that existing Drive isn't even on the applicant's property there's a small portion that does go over I can get up and point out if needed well to the yeah it goes into here right yeah between the property line and the line of M but there is a okay oh so yeah there's always a transition from Road right away to property line with the driveway okay so when you're looking at over here even that's the property line like it's you've got a you got this extra land in here now that isn't a driveway just that makes it further from the road that's all it's further from the road propop line right any questions okay I'll I'll open it up to the public anybody want to come and uh talk about this um microphone um it would be good if the petition to came up and it can describe uh you know if you're living in it what uh what your plans are my current plan is obviously name and address Chris Dyson 96 masat Road uh the plan for the is to be a single family myself my fiance building the house for the two of us we have no children so the cause will be minimal two cause mhm you know with the garage and other I mean that house now we just sitting is on Center blocks right correct that's the reason for the new property right new only do would do anymore correct was that you know if that originally I see most of those house weren't they mostly just like summer cottages they were yeah very the builders were all very similar to it different styles but different sizes mhm but that's our intended use for just a single family home and the two of us mhm that's it okay thank you I just got one question though there got nothing that that that is a private road all of Massa Squatch is a private road correct right so between all of you you decide you you all chip in to like have it plowed and taken care of there like an ho Fe for the neighborhood there's an ho Fe for the neighborhood you trim the wires time yeah okay I was just curious because we get we we get this from from other from other petitions how do you manage a road that's private no is that a formal legal association yes it's actually called stat Association and you must get really good AT&T service you it's great before we couldn't even get [Laughter] a my signal is not much better I'm I'm up the road but mine's worse anybody else not no okay I don't need a micophone I don't think but I'm no no you have to because it's recorded oh okay yeah my name is Tom Flynn I live at 90 mask which I throw was the property to the west of the applicant's property I uh generally I have no objections to to the uh motion you have here tonight just clarifying see I've I've I've owned my property since 1985 and I'm a former Trustee of the road trust um we don't the the the the benefactors of the butters on mascarat road only owned from 81 masat road which is 38 of a mile in from drift Road oh yeah uh that other property is owned by Lee trip and uh we have her permission to maintain it but our property is controlled by a trust and so up to 81 I mean up to the up to the when 81 Begins the property that's Road uh trust development oh okay so I just wanted to clarify that thank you you're welcome anyone else any other questions from the board no I'll accept a motion to close a hearing I'll make a motion to close the hearing we have a second second second all in favor say I I I I'll oppose no is unanimous all that means is that now we will deliberate we won't take any more information unless we ask it if we have a question we're allowed to ask but you can't offer more information um I'd like to tack about the various part of this first gets out the way from what I see we don't need a variance it it uh it's covered under under our bylaw it's nice that they uh they presented it for us just to cover but um know I don't think we actually need a variance for this and we don't need to even vote on that it's just a u well actually we should uh I will I'll make a motion that the variance is not required okay for this petition I will second it all in favor I I I'll oppose no okay so that out of the way then we can we can move on to the finding part and the finding part requires just a Maj a majority uh vote of the voting members uh I'll start off I said uh again we're we're not in the position of identifying architecture or the septic or whatever that's that's the health department that's some we're are finding is is solely how does it uh uh is it more detriment our neighborhood from a safety standpoint from a from a from a traffic standpoint from you know something tangible um and to me it's just a single family house that's being replaced by a single family house it meets all the requirements and I don't see any issue with it I mean and they meet all the setbacks but for the front yeah as a matter of fact they're going to actually improve most of it yeah they're going to be better the house is going to be further from the road and actually even further further because is they're taking it from the porch and that's protection for additional protection to the house from the road right I I think that uh because he presented the the plans for the septic system and everything else it makes it less detrimental M because of the because of the septic plans that are impr improving everything so I I I think that's that should be said about you know just just that part of it anyway and we've done enough of this at C next so that's right that's detrimental to the neighborhood as well as well as the river cuz it's pretty low down there okay any other discussion then uh I will make a motion to Grant the administrative appeal of Christopher Dyson requesting a finding that demolish the existing residence and instruct a new single family re residence is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as mandated by zoning bylaw Article 5 section 5. 2 three but did you read in that into the record yet excuse me did you read the email into the record from the other I read the email okay into the record it was yes guess I was looking at the plans yes uh with the only condition um based on the plan submitted so if you change the plan you know you make significant ples to CH to the plans then you know all bets are off I I'll second that motion any discussion before we vote all in favor say I I I oppose no let the record show is unanimous uh there is 20-day grace period so don't go knocking the house down quite yet um good luck and I you know and I hope this all works out for you thank you very much for your time I appreciate it thank you okay next order of business uh we got do this okay actually wanted to get his card because I have to get my onty okay next order business is um meeting agenda for September 25th 2024 Maria has uh provided us with the meeting minutes uh provided comments and she's included them in the meeting minutes so I'll make a motion to accept the meeting minutes for September 25th 2024 we have a second all in favor say I I I I'll oppose no let me sign this before I forget about it um the last um here uh while I'm doing that you want you want to take care of that do I want to no Jerry oh what is it let me part you pin for a second yeah this is one that just has to do with um byways whether whether we should cut here oh the the the uh old harboro project sorry that the plan the the project for the drive the driveway for the off of hold Harbor Road is that what he's looking at no I don't think so well get back I don't think so um this is the definitive subdivision plan right of way Crossing for uh 86 old Harbor Road yeah yeah right yeah old Harbor Road right but this um so what are you saying that I was just asking that's it's a proposed use of an existing 50 foot wide right of way Crossing for access to Little Compton land for a four lot single family housing which is similar to what we just did with the idant thing yeah yes this but this is actually making this is the opposite this is the opposite we're actually making a um uh driveway yeah essentially right away right away and so this is not something that we mean we generally comment on yeah it's not really our we don't really act on it we're just they're asking for comments making comments right we don't usually act on it yeah I did have a question that um that's the property that was part of it was put into trust and then this was is that cor so what it was was it was a larger parel of land that Dennis talbet and the land trust little comp the land trust bought together and then they separated it and Dennis talber owns the smaller piece where the four horable housing is going on so there's a there's another piece of prop another portion of that that's is conservation land now according to Little Compton right and but it's it's off of um John DIY or it's more because I I could never figure out where that property was located um because it runs from John Dyer right over to Old Harbor if I see I can old Harbor can I see the plans I can tell you old Harbor yeah but I yeah I couldn't tell from this oh you can look at the focus is off there's old har oh okay it's right the line the Little Compton line okay John D okay so there is no access except the only access the shortest is because there's no roads nearby right off of okay okay so it does go to John dire no it doesn't no but but I think I think the property does made the land trust property the land trust yeah okay I just but I think there's like I think there's uh wetlands and things like that so they can't Traverse all of that now did you say the tala's going to make a affordable it's all affordable housing yes for affordable housing units affordable in Westport no it's it's property in L comp so the okay the property is actually in little the actual housing is going to be that's something Dennis has wanted to do for about 30 years tell them to move the four into Westport he's tried to do that in Westport and they wouldn't let him yeah he tried to do the the old um the now the Westport Town farm right next to the that he tried to develop that into affordable housing and the town wouldn't let him no and that was like maybe 30 years 25 years ago that's okay never mind I'm going saying he wanted he just wanted more affordable hous recommend we just send this back with no comment because it's not it's not really our well that was was confusing to me because I thought maybe we were uh mixing it up with the uh educational facility no that's up the bit no so next door of business wasn't I think just a an update uh uh cynthy and I both attended the first meeting of the short-term rental uh subcommittee or whatever it is yeah subcommittee for uh a new bylaw for short-term rentals so we just had our our initial meeting this past week we have another one scheduled two weeks from now uh anyway uh you know made some progress uh it's you know we'll see how it all works out like ask and and we're also going to have to work and and this is something that I uh I'm going to sit down with uh uh with the planning board on is is the update based on the new the new Adu law yes so that's going to be mostly a cut when I mean you just take paragraphs out that we say we don't have to rush into that what's that the webinar that I went to for for that m uh said legally you don't really have to rush into it to changing the the town right but you can they said let the dust settle and then yeah well it's February to right I mean it doesn't some of some of it doesn't take effect till February but our town meeting is in until May so and this is a pretty straightforward one it's just going to be deleting paragraphs for the most part yeah and a little bit of wmh but uh and then a provision for if we want to have more than one Adu in the special that's one thing we have to discuss yeah a little stick anyway we just started that process last week you know hopefully you know I don't expect it to be a lot of meetings like the last time because we starting with a with a draft that we're just um I wouldn't say tweaking but uh you know we did take into consideration the um uh you know you know the work that has done by the town they had that U ref that referendum they had the the um uh the the online survey uh that was we took that into consideration uh we also looked at what the subcommittee that we worked on last year did and what the planning board had to adjust it because the health department you know sort of backed out of what they were going to do so anyway U you know the idea was to come up with something that uh allows short-term rentals but provides at least some kind of protection for for neighborhoods without without burdening the short-term rental and that's a that's a little tricky but I think we can get there hopefully we get this one pass this year I like to just ask a couple question about the meeting itself um are you are you chairing no I am not I refuse to be chair who's who's chairing it uh uh Jim and I'm I'm I'm the coair vi okay uh now the meeting you spoke about was Monday night yes yes okay yes now is the next one going to be on it's going to be a Monday nights yeah because that crosses over the selectman so I wanted to be oh okay and I couldn't because I try to stay on top of the selectman meetings so anyway I'm just passing out comment because uh it's a matter of when everybody was available for well there's another aspect to it uh are these T because it wasn't no the're recording it was recorded U on video no no just on because you met in the planning board office yes so just did audio so they don't have facilities no so who audio recording so how about the next one same thing uh well it was because the historical commission was meeting in the in the other room Mike burs will get us a room so who knows you know we may to change the the I me we might have to get a room right what I'm getting at is that uh the general public me or anybody else can't have access to what you guys did yes it's it's it's audio recorded audio recorded so they can still listen to it well right which is where I it's not part of the the the it's it's not on TV it's not on TV no it's not on the TV thing at all we'd have to actually come in hopefully I mean hopefully we'll do like what we did last year and we did have them recorded uh this one didn't because at the last minut wasn't you know we they didn't realize there was a conflict with the uh the meeting space right the meeting space yeah and the only reason we did it again on Monday night it's still going to be in the in the sync for the select board meeting because next Monday is a holiday and we didn't want to wait three weeks to have another meeting so but we'll we'll we'll maybe next when we look at the calendar we'll make sure that we're either on the other yeah can't do it every yeah yeah do it between the just asking if there was could be some consideration for that especially not being able to be uh videoed so people could have showed up what's that place I mean people could have you could have shown up for could have I mean not you interested because you were doing something else because I would make three right yes and we and we decided to to do it in the evening because last year we did it in the afternoon and then all the people at work couldn't be there because they were all working so they lot people complain posted meeting excuse me that's a posted meeting yes yeah it is a um I um I I did find out that I could be there as long as I shut my mouth okay uh I could sit there and observe but and listen because else it be a of take part in it uh but like I say I have a conflict with the selectman's meeting which I think is a little higher priority so y anyway okay so that's uh any any other business oh I motion to adjourn the meeting I second all in favor I I oppos no