##VIDEO ID:a4ZkHapCAbw## okay yeah that's okay since it's 6:30 on November 7th I'm going to start the zoning board of appeals meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge Allegiance to flag the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all in accordance with maass General La chapter 38 section uh section 20f this meeting is being recorded um we're going to adjust the the agenda we're going to start off with the request from the planning board commenting on 1180 American Legion Highway site plan approval consider whether the applicant macade LLC requires a new application for a special permit from the zoning board because the changes made to original plans a letter from attorney McKenzie long has been submitted uh this was a uh uh we had a hearing a month or so ago for ACA for protection uh special permit uh and then it went to the site plan it went to the planning board for site plan approval and changes were made so can the applicant come up uh and discuss whether or not this is a signifant a change that requires coming back to the uh zoning board good evening to the board nice to see you all again I'm not so short not as much time as fast as we would have expected but um as uh the chair mentioned we did do a slight change of the plan and that prompted the US you know my letter to the board would you like me to read the letter into the record have you done that oh yeah go ahead yes okay to whom it may concern I am writing this letter in response to correspondents received from the zoning board of appeals regarding a change in the plan that was approved by the zba on September 25th 2024 for a special permit to construct three additional storage buildings on the premise known as 1180 American Legion Highway after the zba's approval of the special permit the engineers prepared a final plan set which included a comprehensive drainage plan to be submitted to the Westport planning board for site plan approval the plan that was submitted to the planning board is a slight deviation from that of the plan that was approved by the zba on September 25th the change between the two plans includes the removal of the second drainage pond in the northeast corner of the site the engineers concluded after performing their calculations that there was no need for a second drainage Pond and so the decision was made to remove the second Pond it is the opinion of Shawn leech of Northeast engineers and Consultants Ed peshi of peshi engineering and Associates and myself that the removal of the second Pond is a minor design change which provides for a net reduction in the disturbance on site and therefore should not require the applicant to reapply for a new special permit this change was a result of the plan being fin finalized and reduces the overall disturbance from the project within the aquafer Protection District all other aspects of the chain plan remain unchanged the plan presented to the zba on September 25th was an accurate representation of the applicant's intent however the drainage calculations were not fully completed prior to applying for the special permit it was not until after the meeting that the discovery was made that the second Pond would not be necessary and therefore should be removed to reduce the effect that the work required for this project would have on the aquifer in furtherance of the zba's intent and review of the proposed plans it is for these reasons set forth above that we respectfully request that the board find that this minor change in the proposed plan does not require a reapplication and reissuance of a new special permit we thank you for your consideration okay I got I got three questions and these are all yes no answers okay attorney he only knows we had the uh the meeting uh the hearing for the aqua for protections did we advise you to go to the site plan first yes okay when we granted the the uh the Acer protection permit did we as part of the decision did we say any changes that the site plan Pro uh required you to do would require you to come back to the zoning board of appeals yes yes did you when when you went to the site plan we haven't gone did you did you have any effect on the aquifer we haven't we haven't gone to the uh planning for we just submitted but I get what you're saying the your plans whether it's better or worse affects the aquifer yes in my opinion whether this is because it affects the aquifer you have to come back to to the zoning board of appeals to demonstrate that in fact your new plan is does not have a negative effect on the aquafer that's my opinion that's my opinion too okay he shouldn't have been here beforehand we we told you beforehand you should have gone to the site plan first but you thought it was cheaper to do it this way well maybe it's not so cheap I mean yeah I understand where you're coming from and I respect that I mean I did I think my letter addresses the issue as Sean pointed out when he was here before the board any change would be a reduction in anything I know that we discussed it it wasn't Crystal clear that if the plan changed that was the case my my opinion stands as does the engineers and we have already received comments back from the third party consultant for the planning board they're they're in support of everything for the most part minor changes they don't do aquifer no what you came to us specifically for aquifer protection and the effect that we would have on the aquer right now you have to come back and say the changes that you made do not have a negative that do or do not have have all you have is a piece of paper and as far as I'm concerned that in my opinion again I'm only one of the board and by the way voting on this are going to be are going to be Jerry coutino Ry life myself kin ski and Cynthia kazet so uh in my opinion you change the aquifer how you're going to protect the aquifer so we need to review that that's my opinion I you were all submitted the change in plan correct right when when the planning board asks for comment you all receive copies of the plan from of the new plan the new plan this yeah we did okay right the full size and so my my yes it as long as let me see is it yes not showing the that was one of question so the the main thing that we talked about and again and I reference this referenced this in my letter what we changed is a reduction in anything that we're doing which is in further because I realistically we could have left this Pond there as it was approved by the board and instead we chose to remove the pond for two reasons one to limit what we're doing within the aquifer in furtherance of the board's intent and and process here these are all good things that you can say when you come back to us CU we have a chance to understand if the one if the one fond is sufficient right because because we are responsible for Acer protection that is our zoning bylaw the the bo not if the use of the proposed use is detrimental I know we went through this the last time we were here saying is we approved the plan you modified the plan that affect if you if you modified something that had no effect on the aquifer we would probably say minor this is an obvious effect whether it's better or worse you're going to have to come and prove to us right in my opinion my but my thing with that is is you guys don't have like we don't send out the third party consultant to do drainage calculations and handle all of the hydraulic loads and all of the things that planning board does through site that's why we wanted you to come second not first to begin with but the the whole purpose of this and we talked about this before even I I believe this is Town Council here when we discussed this the the purview of the board was is the use that we're proposing within the aquifer Protection District detrimental or not and the plan that we proposed whether we changed one Pond I my my opinion would be if we added another Pond I think there is a no question I wouldn't even be standing here I would have already reapplied and done it but instead we've reduced the overall effect that we are going to have within the aquifer well I I I kind of look at it the other way you eliminated a retention Pond yeah to me that has more of an impact not less or at least you got to prove that it's that it's not more of an impact through all of the drainage calculations I have a 200 Page drainage report that bring us you would come to us like you did before and say I'm going to prove to you that we are not having a negative impact on the aqua with this modified plan right again my opinion my opinion only I understand I I he I concur with the the the the chair's opinion um we asked you that you were doing it backwards and you were you felt you wanted to do it that way and you could have actually asked for a continuance last time until you finished your plans and the fact that you state is the opinion of sh leech and Edward pesy means nothing to me without declaration them stating that themselves that's just here say to me from an attorney signed as an affidavit submitted I held in contempt for that but no not you I'm talking about I want I know but I would never I would never quote another Professional without first verifying with both of them I would doubt I I I I'm an attorney as well I understand that I would not I I I can't accept what you say what Sean leech and Edward p pesy says as the truth without for the record I did have a phone call and a conversation with both of them in which we discussed this very matter I felt like it wasn't relevant for both of them to come had I known that you would have preferred me to have them sign this I would have put their signatures on here as well I felt though you know the board would take me at my word I I have no reason to I mean I guess you could say I have a reason to lie but I it's not how I do bus but again we I I think as the chair had said we counseled you that doing it getting our approval before the planning board approval comes with certain risks which means that the plans change throughout and more changes may occur with the planning board right because you haven't gotten full planning board we haven't gotten I would wait until you have your absolute final plans and the planning board approval before you come back to us that's just well if if the board votes right now to make us come back then yes that would absolutely be the decision that we make is to come back after everything else for the last piece because now I do feel confident that the board is okay with what we're doing whether or not the pwn one Pond two pawns three pawns we kind of narrowed that down I I do respect what both of you are saying and I hear that loud and clear it is my opinion and the opinion of Shan and Ed that this is a less of an effect on the aquifer if the board feels differently then so be it and we you know we'll go with what what is uh what is expected and what is expressed comments from well I don't I don't think the board uh has determined whether we feel one way or the other I I think what we are looking for from what I'm hearing is just uh some verification uh from directly from your engineer and so forth about this and and uh possibly uh uh possibly um the third party uh from the planning board to uh verify it but I have a question here about this is the is this the current set of plans that that is what's been submitted to the to the planning board yep we're being heard on November 19th okay they made change because they uh indicated just as one item uh about the plan should show the number of parking spaces on site uh but this this one does say proposed parking plan and it does show show them so have they gotten this one and acted on it no no nothing has been acted on by the planning board we are going before the board November 19th okay what what did you have a pre pre-plan review from the only only action that we have done is come before this board aside from that we applied to the planning board but the planning board had third party review as per they the planning board when you apply for site plan review sends it out for third party review and that came back and that came back came back quickly that documentation I don't not on me but I I mean I can forward the email the planning board does have that comment so what what is the actual issue here uh if you go back to them because until you go back to them and and get whatever they want they might want more changes agre whatever uh and you just continue this to to when you you feel feel that you'll be able to U get your uh materials from them approved and then you come back with with the the real approved sign plan and so forth and we just as we counseled them originally if we if we were to take that route and continue this even just this pure discussion of requiring any further you know reapplying for a special permit if we go before the planning board go before Conservation Commission those are the next two steps that we're in the process of so once we do that they sign off we come back with the finalized set whether it's this set or anything else if I come back here and I bring sea I'll bring Ed I'll bring everybody before the board and we can discuss that it has a less of a reduction that way they're here to make comments yes we don't have to necessarily I know you're not going to comment as this whether or not we're going to have to do that or not we may not necessarily have to reapply we may you have to reapply yeah well that's what you're voting right now that's what we're voting on if it's a minor then you wouldn't have to do that well so that's if we consider this to be not a minor then you're starting over again you you another application for for a zoning protection per understood and what if we were to continue that vote until after the planning just on the off chance that there are no what if there are no more comments but there are already changes in my opinion the CH your opinion the change to the loan that has happened already is significant and required because it affect the Acer and again whether it's better or worse you're going to have to come and prove to us that it's better or worse are we but you changed it yeah and since we are responsible for the aquifer we need to prove to ourselves that what you did didn't affect what we already had approved okay and I respect that and and I understand that I I respect that because like I said we're responsible for the aquifer just that's not the planning board's job so they look at things a little differently when they you know we're going to rely upon you know lot of information from them but but in the you know but according to the our zoning bylaws it's the zoning board of appeals that's responsible for a for protection solely so uh and again in my opinion you know whether you did a better job whether you you were did a better job of protecting AER or not is up to you to approve okay so we're really what are we arguing over another $500 permit no no not at all I was just more more going through the but going through the process but it's going to be a lot faster if you wait and reapply because you got yeah I'm not going to reapply until we're done CU if we continued we'd have to set a date today and you don't know if you're going to be complete by the time we reconvene and then you're here again we're here again and may be only for you and to me is this it's it's cleaner when you get everything all your ducks in a row then reapply and we will we we will do our best to get you as quickly as possible and hopefully that one will be quicker because we've already seen it once yes so we're looking at the changes what are the standards for a minor change that's that's up to you guys but at this point I don't I mean we can take the vote but I mean if there are more changes then we're going to get another but here's my thing if you if you take a vote right now and the majority vote is that we it was a minor plan and the special permit still stands mhm then we go to planning board and then we go to conservation and they make a change y we're going to be right back here again y so for the sake of all of us and everything else if if desire is to reapply for $500 or whatever the fee is then the detriment that is is uh a little bit of a delay because we have to then have another week public but at least at that point we're meeting in November 19th with the plan plan we should have a really good idea of where things stand at that point the next step is as soon as we close with planning on the 19th will be applying to concom okay so then at that point we will also you know concom will run concurrently they've already heard comments from the third party consultant currently with what right after the planning board okay and then after planning but not concurrently with planning board no well I'm saying concurrently with whatever comes on the November 19 exactly that but what I'm getting at because then conservation's going to have to do their public notice and so my my major concern and the reason for coming before the board first as I said to you guys before was if we came realistically the the pond was minor it was the three buildings we haven't changed the three buildings we're not going to change the three buildings unless anybody forces us to do so I now feel confident that the board was okay with three buildings so I can move forward with planning and feel like I'm not going to get approved three buildings all the things that we've done do all of this work and then come to you guys and have you say no for three buildings so if at the end of the day it requires one more meeting and we take you know hopefully a lot less time than we did the last one I will let the board know we've addressed all of the uh AB Butter's concerns we've had meetings with them been great all around good good good so if that's what it comes down to and that's what we need to do so be it I I have no objection okay uh we'll say this would be a majority vote uh of so tonight ENT the V be you know do we require them to come back okay a permit clarify tonight he's here is not another $500 that's correct right this is just this is not a hearing this is just do you need to come back for a hearing okay that's all that's all we're doing yes so any other comment before we no no uh so you know where I stand I make a motion that that the uh uh that the change requires a a new permit I second that all in favor I I I on opposed so again hopefully this next one's going to be pretty quick like you said all the other aspects of this I age and I and my concerns were as I mentioned with the buildings and less about you know everything else so happy to do so we'll come back again with our final plan and then once you guys it's not like we're after another 500 bucks it's no no I don't I don't feel whatever I agree and I I know that's what you're here for is to protect the aqua can can I ask I'm happy Roger could he come for an informational meeting without filing a special permit like if he want instead of the last time where he came for a permit which was backwards could he have just come before the board to discuss the project in general to get your satisfaction that you know I don't they would have heard that uh it really depends on okay the attorney no yeah well he can't got here tonight without no no because all he's doing is is saying here because we told them that there was no if there was any change to the plan and what he's saying is the plan is not isn't is insignificant so he shouldn't have to come back to us so he's trying to modify a previous decision or abide by it sort of you know you know I just you know I was just wondering could we could but if somebody comes in with a whole new project and saying should be come to you no you've yeah okay I don't have a problem of putting that as an agenda item that type of discussion it's not yeah I mean at this point notic noed properly just you know again just to kind of save for for next you know couple Shillings and some time of going through the process understand no on my part so okay we'll see you guys soon yes yes sooner than later probably after Christmas ah try to close I mean but you know it's Mar's time okay the decision he could say hey let's have an hope the second hearing is uh continuation Westport Lakes Road continue hearing on application of Pine Ridge Estates LLC and Bradford Dean for comprehensive permit pursu to mass Jal Law chapter 40b for a development off um Westport Lakes Drive consisting of 38 single family homes on individual watchs I guess it's up to 38 wats anyway um which are to contain two or three bedrooms 10 of which of those homes being designated as affordable deed restricted homes sub property is located at zero Westport Lakes Road shown on um assessor map 31 Lots 3B 3C and 4G um so will the uh petitioner come forward and again um you know we'll have the petitioner uh provide whatever inform I'm going to read some um uh emails and whatever that we've gotten from town offices um we are also going to talk about we do have a uh a prospective um uh consultant uh we'll talk about that and then uh and that'll open up to the petitioner we will open it up this time for public comment after uh we've done the the U uh our basic work in the beginning so um I'm going to start off here though with um because one of the main cruxs that we're going to have is uh is a uh is is a consultant uh to help us on this and we have had we do have one one consultant um that that has responded who will Who will actually do all the all aspects of this it's um uh MBL Land Development and permit incorporation uh where do we get this was this from the planning board did they recommend this no I did some research engineering firms um the applicant been been given prior to right now the information about this consultant prospective consultant did we email this to them no you didn't okay okay uh you want time to let uh this essentially is is the only respond we we sent it out to about like six people yeah and this was the only consultant that we had that actually came back and uh could do it within the time frame that um uh that that we need most some of the other petitioners were our contractors were just too busy um and they will uh you know they review the project um anyway uh and it's um their estimate is 13,500 for test specified in the proposal and uh so that our plan is then to because this is the only one that we that has actually responded uh that we will contact them is this a check from uh how you gave me that okay she came in that's a deposit that's a deposit if there's no objections even if there isn't well if there's it's a major objection we can hear it now yeah absolutely if there is um an objection to that here riew um for the record Mr chairman Christian falland principal engineer and president of Fallen up here tonight representing the applicant um after the last hearing um we did as discussed we met with start up the meeting with the fire department um we made some minor revisions to the plans uh we added um hewi some some tanks added to the plans um a turnaround area and um to make sure that the fire trucks can get around the M we demonstrated that to him I believe you have yes I was going to read that into the record or you can do that if you want whichever it's it's okay I mean I'll I'll you can you can read it into the record if you want but I just wanted to give the the board um as we said we were going to meet with them and we did and we addressed their comments um so they gave a recommendation letter um from the fire department also uh more importantly into the peer review consultant um I'm not sure if the zoning board knows but the failed engineering which is a local company based out of map poit they already did a thorough review of this project they never go back to me well we reached out to them and they didn't get back well I mean we would like to reach out to them again because if I can place this on file um we have extra copies if if you want I know we have that you have that already um so this project the roadway the storm water there's no changes um so we feel this has been thoroughly reviewed in regards to um engineering aspects of the project um the only thing that they didn't do a thorough review on is traffic um so we would we would like to um seek another um reach out to them again to get a a quote from them um do we feel it's going to be significantly than cheaper than having somebody who hasn't looked at the project go through the entire project already but that's I mean this is stuff that you've done we we need an independent consultant that we can realize this was the independent consultant networ for the the town this was the the field engineering report was the independent consultant report for the town of Westport when they went when they went to the planning board we went to the planning board for the independent living facil right but it's also over it's also over a year old yes so again I'm not going to I I would not recommend that the board relies upon this but you know I mean I guess we are you know I would we can reach out to them but I think what we spoke with the the planner Roger and I are another board together with the planning with with the town planner and they say most of their typical uh Consultants including this one are just flat out and that's was probably why we hadn't heard from them we can reach out to them again but I yeah I don't think that but if we do that we're going to delay everything well if it comes down to time I mean we can talk to our client and give an extension if if if they're saying it's going to take them another 30 days versus MBL then I think that's something that we would we would look consider we going to need to know that time wise going need to know that now yeah absolutely TimeWise it's going to save save a lot of time having them do the review right and then more importantly for us to respond to any kind of comments that they have so that would delay it even longer that haven't F already that's already familiar that's right but you got you comments and yeah no I was just going to say that it would have been nice if you would have brought this to our attention at our first meeting it would have been but unfortunately I didn't yeah I didn't have it um I told you I was going to reach out to conservation and fire and this is what conservation um gave us your client should have known about this if we not technical let the attorney and I yeah just a couple of minor points first of all peer reviews totally within your Province right so the you're encouraged by the regulations to cooperate with the applicant up to a certain point and then it's your decision um you know and and the there's a very broad brush to you know if a peerreview consultant is improper it's basically a conflict of interest or lacks the qualifications so it's totally within your decision to say no we we want this peer reviewer going to go forward with it if you choose to um you know do some more due diligence about this other peer review work uh and if they work for the planning board then it sounds like they're known you know locally so it might be a good firm to look into but I would I would recommend first of all a confirmed extension yes um and also that you you do get a formal proposal from that peer reviewer even even if they've looked at the project before you want a new engagement proposal from them right and then be able to make the decision on that by the next public hearing session right yes uh yeah I would like to say that um what I would not want to see is us to reach out to them and they respond and so forth and and we were to seek uh their help uh I would not want to see them make photocopy of what they did a year ago and and and have that be what they're submitting to us it was a different plan a different purpose uh uh different housing uh and uh and so that would be a concern in mind we're going to get something similar to this from this guy potentially yes maybe maybe not maybe not because it's it's it's over year oldest changes happen you have to request it you need a a new proposal from them yes scope of work what their reviews yeah and you need it in a timely manner so if they're going to yes if you're anticipating that you're going to reach out have the response or nonresponse between now and the next public hearing session get the extension to give yourself on the back end for your you know close the public hearing the amount of time right and then be prepared if you don't receive a response or it's an ADD adequate or whatever by the next time go with the other peer reviewer mhm yes I'm I'm okay with that and and in reality I really I'm not sure if it would be cheaper because they're going to have to they can't rely on the old reports we're requiring new storm water reports probably from a new uh consultant that are going to be different so they're going to have to look at everything again I I don't really see that it actually is going to be cheaper well that's but we can try no yeah we see it right yeah um do you have the fact that they've been through it once before maybe it makes a cheap you know yeah but but there's going to be a new report right you're planning on they're not going to just dust off the old report yeah well because they're going to review a new storm report from from you guys right right we're not relying on the storm water report based upon March 2023 I mean do you have have you have you gotten the storm Mor report and the traffic report yet no so well you know what I going to what I'm finding rather frustrating here is that we're on a very tight timeline and you knew exactly what you needed to be here and I don't understand why the the applicant was so hurried to apply until he had all the ducks in a row that we need a storm water report we need a a traffic study and you said you were going to have that done before we were you're going to meet again and now you're saying you don't have that yet no I did not say that um you don't have a report what I said was we wanted to we wanted to finalize the peer review and we wanted to finalize the layout before we went ahead with the full engineering plans um which includes the storm water report that's not my recollection from the meeting it was more of that we were working in parallel to in order to move this project faster your your client asked us for peerreview recommendations at the last meeting and we said we were prepared to give them to him and you said you were going to be working on these you would have them ready to go once we found a peer review and if if we need to go back to the the tapes we can go back to the tapes but that it was not a you were waiting for us to give you a peer review in order for you to do your work and I just I'm I'm kind of frustrated here that you knew exactly what you needed based upon your previous application to the planning board for the the the uh Assistant Living facility so the you know you're asking us to accelerate stuff your your your client wanted us to have another meeting a week later and you know and we said there's no way we could do the peer review back and you and your client maybe not you assured us that you you were working on these things in tandem to us finding a peer review that we would have a peer review person in in in place that you would then hand over immediately to to to move this project forward so before I get any for I just want to make sure that we understand the voting members for this will be Jerry coutino Ray Elias myself Raj manard kinsky and Cynthia ktz uh for obviously so obviously the votes are not on this are not going to be for approving the 40b because that's going to be a long process uh uh if there's votes for continuations or whatever it's a majority vote but those will be the voting members uh I have no problem with u i and I would actually encourage um a another uh consultant that we can compare against but you're going to have to give us leeway in the uh in the time frame now do you have authority to do that yes okay uh are you requesting that we do that yes um uh can we just write that in the in the meeting minutes that what you want to do is you want to vote and you want to vote formally accepting the extension and then they they'll have to follow what we generally do is we have we have them right I am requesting and and uh and I and I and I agree that this is an extension of the uh yes and the date certain and it gets follow the town clerk right so yeah um and and just to follow up Roger on Cynthia's comment too I just want to make sure you're in control of this process so to to get that proposal it has to go from Maria or you or Cynthia M of the board to that peer that other peer review firm uh would you know we're seeking a proposal yes when can you provide it if you can provide it and and have a timeline for that to go forward peerreview is not to and it's respectful to the to the representative PE and this is probably not what he meant but I mean I'm not loving what I'm hearing because it's almost like well we're getting peer review to help us design the project peerreview as Cynthia was saying is you take a report and the peer reviewer looks at it you know and then they comment they they don't like you know consult with the applicant in the development of the plan so just wanted to clarify that and then who um ultimately if we get another U bid or um proposal who makes the decision between which company to go as a as a board as a board uh we can then look at it uh decide if uh which one is more approp even if even if the even if the petitioner doesn't like the result we we can pick whichever consultant we feel most comfortable with do you have a business conflict with with the other review no no and there's no business conflict with field engineering either no so we uh so the petition is going to have to physically right I request although we maybe we leave this to obviously we're going to have to continue this hearing uh it's different is it different yeah what you're you're you're going to end up continuing tonight's hearing to another dat certain for there's a lot of other but what you're confirming it's an extension of your deadline to close the public hearing yes so for instance if you're contemplating that a 30-day period is reasonable to reach out to this peer reviewer get a proposal or not mhm and then be able to bring it back to the board at your next public hearing session to make a decision either we received nothing further or we've received this and it's we we don't want to do this we want to go with this first beer reviewer you determine that so if that's a 30-day process then I'd recommend a 30-day extension of the deadline to close your public hearing so that that would be what you'd be the way the way we generally handle it is when we ever do a continuation is we have applicant you know sign a uh a request for continuation and in that same request saying that I am author that yeah but you you don't need the only here though Roger is you don't need his consent to continue the hearing because you're within your public hearing do yes so you don't need that from him in other words you're not getting it because he's agreeing to continue tonight's hearing to the next session you're extending the back end of when you need to close the hearing because you're going through this additional process right right right but uh so you don't need his consent when you continue but what um what all I'm getting at though is that is that usually in this we agree upon a time certain for the next meeting yeah but this is that's your decision totally you don't need it consent well okay you don't Roger you're within your six months yes so tonight when you're done with your hearing session tonight you're going to discuss with the board the next time you're going to hear it and then the board is going to formally continue it to your next session you're within your deadline you don't need the applicants consent okay but what you do want to get is consent and the sign off that you're saying for the second delay because we already have one on the the record is for just determining what the applicant is agreeing is the extended deadline to close the public hear hearing not your next session to close it close the hearing yes and that deadline was 6 months from when you opened it oh okay okay all right so if that's I I can't do math this quickly I was up late last night watching the big map and all that but uh so I'm a little sleep deprived but so I can't do math in my head but say it's your existing deadline is March 15 you want to get it to April right uh but we won't but we'll have to it's not just a month it's the next hearing the the next hearing may not be a month from now well but yeah I know but I mean I can't just say it's 30 days because we're not going to we're not going to be here to decide anything in 30 days no it's 30 days from the what there's two things we have to decide right when our next meeting is that's and two that he has to approve that our we are delaying our final decision date just 6 months and another 30 days 45 days whatever yes and that's what I'm getting it's not just 30 days it's it's the time period between now and next and when we schedule the next no no I I understand what he's saying he's just saying because as a practical matter it's delaying it that much well so exactly so there's there's two delays there's a delay in which we need to do our work or or our his to do the work that he requested and then the fact that we're rescheduling a date so we don't know exactly how many days we want to extend this I guess it's a matter of what I would like to see is that at the next meeting whenever that it is um that we would I think is what we agreed upon before if we had come up with a consultant we would let you know who it was um and you would send them immediately the storm water as well as the um the other matters so but it sounds like they haven't done that part so you know I'm I would like when we deci finally decide who that consultant is that you're ready to send that material to the consultant because I am pretty sure that that's what we agreed upon last time and um yeah and that's totally reasonable so if you're figured out right now I know you're not going to continue to the end when you're done but if you figure out in your mind now well when we're done tonight how long is it going to take them to get their reporting done how long as it going to take Maria to reach out and determine whether or not you're going to get a another proposed scope if that's 45 days Days yeah you know and then just get documented from him that he's going to that he agrees to the backend deadline and then later on that'll just be your continued hearing date yeah so whatever you think that would be are you okay with that yes okay so we we need to vote on on you need to you need to determine what the agreed extension of the deadline for closing the public hearing right yeah and then you'll vote to accept that right then you're going to proceed with your hearing and then at the end so but he has to make a does he have to make a a request to no we don't do that yeah you but you're talking about it now so why don't figure it out what's the deadline uh right no what's the deadline without extension right now the application was filed on August 28th M the applicant request a continuance from the first hearing which was September 25th to October 2nd that's just that was with an agreement of the deadline extension right so October so it's six months from October 2nd right that's when you open the public hearing October 2nd that's all right so that's your clock that's our clock it well it was opened on September 25th he aged notic but it was only to continue it to the second of October and he agreed on the they agreed on the week extent so 6 months from October to ail and then November January fech APR and whatever you think you need May 15th is it months or is it days is it actually is the statute months or days well it's 180 days so that's different than 6 months yeah but it is I can figure I got a little calculator right here where did I put my phone no I'm a patent attorney days are very important so if we do start date of October 2nd and days done and the end date is let's say 2025 come on move over April let's say April 2nd is April actually from October 2nd to April Wednesday Wednesday April 2nd is 182 days yeah so actually it's going to be April it's going to be March 31st now add 45 days to that to make me really I'm just going to check my math so March 31st is and then we add 45 days from okay I got do done so March 31st beginning middle of May somewhere it's going to be by my birthday I ain't going to be around so we got this they said that the one on on this doesn't actually let you do the extra add the days so that would be approximately May 15th right yeah done let's and the Elegance of this is you'll have it's a date that you don't need to worry about calculating it CU once you're comfortable with that date it'll that'll be your deadline so yes so we can say 45 days right Thursday May 15th is 45 days so I would suggest that we actually do it to the following Wednesday right because we only meet on Wednesdays or do you want to do it a day early the 44 days ofes well this is when we close this is oh closing the healing closing the hearing okay all right gotcha so Thursday May 15th yeah I mean we can do it the day before that's the day perfect yeah that's the deadline that's actually good yeah yeah and and and you have 40 days to issue your decision after you close I have 40 days isue decision y okay that's when I that's when we close the hearing close the hearing then you have 40 days right so uh again does does he have to yeah he should he needs to yes he should request that you should vote to accept it plus you and then and then there'll be a writing that they sign and you'll file in the down FL uh request to extend the uh permanent 45 days to May 15th 2025 the deadline to close the public hearing to May 15th okay we have a we have a request I I make a motion to the to Grant the request to to increase the deadline to May 15 2025 close the public here close the public here right can you put in that the reason we're doing it do we need to no no okay I have a second yep second all in favor I I okay now we can get on with business so we'll do Maria reach out to the to the firm again and and contact them and see if in fact we can get a proposal from them within that time frame within you know within the next you know few weeks did you did you email them or call them or I emailed okay originally but I emailed the actual owner I didn't email so maybe we have a phone number now maybe just put a I have the previous the one year yeah you can just sort of and well it's going to be a different report they're going to be can always contact yeah you can contact them and say you know this is before us again there's some there are some changes being made can you do this and within a and we should also check with the other firm because we gave them a different right deadline they may not be able to now right that's yeah we did that figuring that he would have his this does not necessarily mean we're going to hire these people right but we also need to make sure that the other firm can I still available it's still available available yes yes can reach out to them as well I'm saying there may be a delay you know if if if it's another month you still going to I guess guess you know I would like to ask the applicant when they think they'll have information to give to the uh third party reviewer um Mr chairman um I was just told that MBL may be a conflict with uh delic Associates why is who's the 40b developer as because they they they're going to check to see if they have any ongoing projects together but they they do work with them um on 40b projects um so will also work with heels no on no no um wait a minute not on 40p or you don't work with them at all we don't work with them at all and yet we we I thought we got the that was us that was the the town confli the town Contracting with them so can we ask for um confirmation of that from yeah absolutely from MBL well they I mean they got copies of everything that have been filed by the applicant and they didn't tow and they never said anything about they didn't deem it to be a conflict on their side because you you gave them the the did you give them the name of the applicant they have they had everything yeah so I mean I'll leave it up to I mean usually they would flag it that they request the applicant I just wanted to bring I just wanted to bring it up we may not have anything active at this time um I would have to go and look at some of our other developments to make sure they're not the engineers active now um but we have worked with them in the P well I assume you work with a lot of people in the P I mean you could disqualify probably we want to put it out there okay yeah we we can confirm yes we just okay um I just want to get clean up some of the documentation before we move forward uh again you mentioned the Westport fire department so I'll read um the roadway this is from the Westport fire department plan review Pine Bridge Estates um the uh roadway design and fire department access shall comply with 527 CMR 1 c18 minimum 20 foot width not including any Cape Cod firms um minimum cesac of 60 ft uh uh 125 ft I guess that means diameter not including the verm edge center of the culdesac shall remain free of obstructions preventing uh firefighting operations Road length 150 ft or greater provide a turnaround at the dead end Hammerhead fire apparatus Access Road shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 6 in the angle of approach and departure of any means of fire apparatus Access Road shall not exceed a 1ot drop in 20 ft or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department and shall be subject to approval of the uh AJ which is the fire department um display of street address number on dwelling buildings use in enhanced 911 service addresses street signs shall be posted and visible from the roadway prior to final inspection uh access boxes lock boxes may be installed undetermined at this time fire protection regulations in accordance with the fire protection regulation 100 subsurface water storage sank shall be installed within 750 ft of a structure fire department permit is required prior to the installation the water storage sank shall be protected filled dressed with appropriate appliances approved by a ahj and in service prior to occupancy the fire department shall inspect the water storage tanks for function prior to any occupancy all subsurface water tanks shall be located within easements provided exclusively for this purpose tanks shall not be more than 1500 ft apart so that every residental structure shall be within 750 ft of a subsurface water storage tank each suction PT shall be located at least 7 ft but no more than 9 ft from the edge of the travel way no parking keep clear signage barrier protection at the subsurface water tank area if needed utility signage for electrical and gas emergency shot off shall be provided undetermined the distance from one service tank to the furthest structure you may need two tanks a hammerhead turnaround called the stack radius fire protection regulations uh uh any questions call Chief Mark any fire department that's from the fire department um I also have something from the highway department um the highway surveyor to whom it may concern the highway department has no jurisdiction on unaccepted town roads upon evaluation my recommend my recommendations are as follows veget ation should be cut back for visibility and safety to the route 177 intersection stop sign should be installed at the route 177 intersection um please Chief what else do we have here we got the from the police chief do you want it uh fire chief yeah the police chief OH police police chief done oh D police chief uh I hope you have a nice week police department does not have any comments regarding Pine Ridge Estates project thank you uh that was this one yep okay um field engineering do we have planning board comments yet yes uh I'm going to read those next uh this was uh May 22nd 2024 uh Michael burus Town planner in response to town administrator's request for comment on Pine Ridge Estates 40b proposal the planning board discussed and forwarded the following recommendations at their 521 2024 regular meeting the board recommended that the planning staff assist the the zba by providing a thorough analysis of the proposal staff provided a simal analysis for the applicant prior submission under the independent living facility bylaw the applicant 40bp uh plans are conceptually based upon that prior submission Mission the board noticed that water and wastewater Provisions were not included in the applicants plans the board recommended that the applicant include a denitrifying community Wastewater Disposal system the board recommends that the applicant meet the Board of Health storm water standards the home waterers ass will be necessary to maintain private infrastructure the applicant an included infrastructure maintenance plan to be provided to the zba and the homeowners association the board asked if either the proposed roadway Andor Westport Lake drives are intended to be submitted to the town for roadway acceptance the board recommended that the upgrades to the existing Westport Lakes Drive be like will likely be necessary to accommodate the increased traffic demand the board recommended that the applicant provide the zba a traffic study to demonstrate the proposed will not result in a reduction of the service to Level D or lower again that's from the planning board um I think that's about it there was a note there about U and uh I guess I should read this uh it's in relation to Westport Lakes uh development and again it's from Michael barus the town planner uh as you may be aware the town of Westport zoning board of appeals is currently reviewing the proposed 40v development located off Westport Lakes Drive residents on Westport Lakes Drive had exess concerns about the conditions of the roadway as it was never fully constructed the Westport planning board holds 123,000 insurers to make improvements to the subdivision I'm reaching out to request status on the update to the project does the CER current owner Coastal Harvest LLC have plans to continue moving forward with development and I did get something just recently from them saying that they are they do plan on on further development in that area uh so there there was a later uh uh email from the town planner saying that they may want to hold off on doing any improvements to that road until um until so whatever further development is being done because you've got all this heavy traffic that's going over it uh they they also said that they were going to start foundations two foundations but yet there's nobody know permits right so I pulled I mean I have a an email from uh a couple of emails from U uh residents and but i' uh I'd really rather have them actually come up and we will get to them uh uh shortly uh have them come up and actually speak rather than having me read their comments well one one can't be here because they can't be here because he can't be here okay is there's one that can't be here yes there was uh here a family last meeting say they yeah this one from um uh B FZ so it's speci oh okay they're here they can't be here okay yeah so I will read this then um uh my name is bezo fiz I live at 64 Westport Lakes Drive and I am a family of four me and my neighbors went to the last meeting to say our comments and complaints but unfortunately the chair said there was no comments for public at the previous meeting and all neighbors are going tonight but unfortunately I can't make it there tonight because I'm working I tried to make the not but I couldn't do so so I'm worried about my kids and my family there's going to be a lot of traffic on the street also they want to put a place for a school bus in Westport Lake Drive which is going to make it difficult for us there and they want their entrance from Westport Lakes Drive which is our street and this is not fair to us who live on that street I know we only five houses now but in the future it's going to be more house and it's going to be more hard and struggling for our families if can vote no to this project and let the board know I really appreciate it and thank you bezel fores that's okay so I think we're up to date on documentation so I'll I'll I'll let I'll open up the again to the petitioner uh any other uh topics you want to discuss tonight's and what I'd like to then do is then plan one of the future meetings sure uh you know sort of a a road map of how we're going to you know get to the final product sure um if I may Mr chairman can I request all the documents that been filed because I don't believe we received um most of them okay um especially the peer review I mean if we get a peer review you know a couple weeks before our meeting it'll be great for us to review that before we are at the meeting that way it just makes things more efficient for us um if we have any questions when just reading it at the time of the meeting y um it just helps us here um that would be greatly appreciated um didn't if we want to schedule the next meeting I would say we would probably need a good um another four to five weeks to to get this drainage report completed now that we're going to we're going to stay with this layout um um I was under the impression I apologized I thought we were going to talk about the peer review and make sure the layout was good uh if the if the board had any additional questions or concerns um but hearing there's there's not so we'll we'll proceed with finalizing the engineering plans on this the drainage the traffic correct correct um the traffic has already been authorized they were very they were six weeks out so it's yeah yeah that's what that's what that's what we were facing we are hoping to have that at the next at the next meeting um and again that it's it's my fault for not having the the drainage drainage done I was just didn't want to finalize it until we know exactly um but yeah we will if we want to pick a a date for the next meeting no the this the um I assume you you mean you have the copy of the uh uh the report from uh uh the fire chief we yeah we are has that affect how do that affect your your plans we've already addressed all these comments I don't know if you have the the revised letter um do you have the revised yeah the revised is is stating that we did meet his requirements which are which are um noted here in red um so we did meet all his all his requirements um so I don't know if if there's really nothing else to do from from them I don't know if you want to request a new letter it looks like he just amended his um with the revision and the stuff in red here which we gave him the information on um so that that has been done already um you say you met them uh my understanding of that was certain things that you will be expected to do but you haven't done them yet we did do them no we did do them we reached out um actually he reached out he reached out to us after the meeting yeah um actually the next day but for example uh we'll say the uh um the access for the equipment for the Fire Equipment it hasn't been built yet but they've changed the plans that's what I'm saying you you've addressed it by by your plan is that correct correct actually the plan yeah yeah then they're okay by the fire once they buil yeah I mean it's not built yet but yeah I mean I don't consider that the pl are in compliance it's it's it's the is okay yeah but you haven't PL you haven't built it yet no no no no no obviously just want to be clear on sure so yeah I mean the only other you know that's that's really the only update we have in regards to to the plan revision um so at the next meeting we'll we'll have everything ready to go and hopefully we can pick a a consultant um you know whether it's NBL or or field has time to do it it it doesn't really um as an engineer I just know it's you know being familiar with a project it it can save a lot of time um especially a little technical stuff and being familiar with with Westport so you don't have any other major U no I would just say just make sure that this is you know they're going to do a full review because if you didn't give them a copy of the storm water report I don't want them to say well we didn't know we were reviewing the storm water report you know what I mean mean that could be another 15,000 um so I I just don't know the discussions that anybody had with them or if there was a clear scope on MBL it says a clear scope it says Pro review the projects commission including storm water wetlands and traffic components for complete with state regulations conduct one on site prepare a written peer review letter and attend any meetings if required yeah but then if you look at the next documents to be reviewed there's no storm AR report there um so I just want to make sure that MBL is clear is what I'm trying to say um not saying they're not including it but I think it would be good for them to maybe take a look at the scope to make sure that that's included okay don't want any you know want them saying hey upset with you guys right yeah yes CU that would just delay it you know yes um and again they're going to have to review again documents to reviewed it should be the traffic report um as well um just so we're all on the same page we're just trying to you know be as efficient as possible um we know time time is very tight we want to make sure we have everything that they they're going to need it was contended by the applicant that that they felt there might be a conflict on that and so I I think that that should be uh looked into addressed we will have a way I guess they could uh provide we'll provide every everything that we have and then if you want to you ask counil for a determination um I mean I don't I don't have any issues with MBL I mean um but if you feel like there's a conflict because they work with delic I'll leave that up to up to the board and councel for that that's more of a legal it seem it would really be the peer reviewer to note it like I I don't pass on it I'm not a I don't determine a conflict of interest issue for a peer reviewer they they if they think that there's an issue they should tell you yep right right during the first hearing uh wasn't there some mention of a project in matap poet yeah it was yeah now was that field that was doing that or was that no that was that was that's us okay yeah yep um the BR Highland Village that was when I recommended that if the wants to visit because it's very similar in small Lots I know you're concerned with that island off of brand Island Road yeah yep um that was something you did your engineer not you actually were the engineer and the developer of it okay so it's not delic wasn't involved with delic was not involved with now is that completed or or it's two houses left out of 26 I see yeah so it's pretty basically completed yeah so it give you a good visual of you know lot sizes and so forth although those houses are a lot larger than what these houses will be but I'll give you an idea so should we open it up for public comments yes that's that was going to be my next if there if there's no other major business I'll open it I'll open it up for is Mr Pereira here yes yeah I mean I was going to read your your email but I'd really rather just have you come up and uh and talk about it be a whole lot more uh beneficial for us to hear it from you firsthand Bren Pera 26 Westport Lakes Drive regarding the email um I submitted that the day after the previous meeting because I was pretty upset with uh the fact that we couldn't make public comment I do have um I I in essence of time I don't think I could go over all of my concerns right now I don't know how much time we have to be able to do that as far as as far as the public I have a I have a list here that's similar to my email that's a little bit more defined I don't know if I could submit that directly but even if you submit it then I probably going to read it so so it would be good for you to sort ofest your concerns go ahead you've got our attention we're here we were planning on being here all night so all right so if I could begin with with some documents that I provided for the last last uh during the last meeting is from scitech and then uh from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the executive office of energy Affairs do do you all have that by chance that we could look it over while I speak about it just a couple of things that I wanted to talk about um regarding the evolution of Westport Lake's drive and um the applicant Mr Dean and how long he has been um with with that property since about 2001 up until I believe up until now before we go did you state your name and address he he did okay good I did on the last meeting Mr uh cussen I believe from delic made a number of statements that I don't that I don't uh believe to be true as far as um this applicant's um relationship with the current uh developer that now owns the rights or whatever it is for for West Bol Lakes Drive basically the timeline goes where Brad Dean who's the current applicant he owned the land along with uh his sister and some other some other family he went through a very in int intrusive uh permitting process through the state in order to get what is there currently now initially he had a plan like this which was considered the phase two of the project he had phase one of the project which is essentially what Westport Lakes Drive is currently and then he had a phase two proposition which is nearly identical to this with uh a number of of uh residents maybe 40 or so in the in the in the to what was originally planned as far as as far as what I'd like to talk about with that is I have good reason to believe based on the permitting process and what he went through with the state um through the state process of checks that he gave up the right to develop this possible land that that they're looking to develop now as far as the phase two component if you refer to this sitec document I just would like to just point out a couple of things so as far as the project summary I'll just read it verbatim the Westport Lakes project is proposed proposed as a single family residential subdivision located in the North side of American Legion Highway route 177 Westport Mass the project is currently under meepa review e o ea1 12703 with the most recent action relative to this project being the issuing C certificate of Secretary of engineering environmental Affairs in the draft environmental impact report dated 14 2008 copy of this certificate is contained in appendix a the project is evolved over over time from a nine-hole golf course with 72 residential units and four single house lots to the current 32 Family House lot plan the current project configuration was described in the third notice of project change which was filed with meeper on July 2000 uh July 26 2006 it goes on to talk about uh the draft the deir which is the draft environmental impact report at the time the proponent was contemplating developing 31 single family lots for phase one a potential second phase for the second project to be located on a 64 acre portion of the site which I believe to be this one that the applicant is currently looking to get approved the second phase which was projected to consist of a maximum of 40 condominium units with Community Building to be constructed off gfu Lane these units in the community building were proposed by the service of private driveway system individual Wells for drinking water and a comic SE septic system in a community building it goes on to read on page four after C careful consideration the residential housing market and the associated site impact the proponent has determined that a phase 2 condominium development is not feasible and a strong Market exists for the use of a phase 2 development parcel as a single estate estate style lot as part of the initial Land Development goes on three elimination elimination of any Phase 2 development results in 32 lot single phase single family residential project the proponent understands Meep position on the project phasing and recur reconfirms the scope of this project is limited the 32 Family House lots to be constructed in a single phase on the bottom of page four future development the deir and Associated certificate contains an evaluation of a future Phase 2 which was proposed for the 64.2 acre position of the site this parcel was further depicted as a portion lot on the 32 lot 32 on the site plan as previously stated the phase 2 has been eliminated from the scope of work and is no longer under consideration for development other than as a single family house lot due to the elimination of the 40 40 unit Phase 2 from lot 32 the project of fourth notice of project change is not required there are no significant environmental issues associated with the construction of a single family dwelling on lot 32 access to this lot will be provided by a driveway constructed from a cisac at the end of you end of GF VI Lane the actual certificate of SEC Secretary of engineer environmental Affairs the final the final environmental impact report says just read the project description real quickly the proponent it it's it's repetitive to this but it's important the proponent proposes to construct a standard residential subdivision cons consisting of total of 33 single family houses approximately 3,500 linear foot roadway storm water infrastructure improvements on a 216 Acre Site located near the intersection Route 88 and 177 in Westport it goes through a number of project changes based on environmental impacts that was going to be uh incurred on the the initial project future development this is this is this is what I I'd like to stress this pretty good because um Brad Dean has been involved in this land for for a long time Paul cussen on the last meeting suggested that Mr Dean is no longer associated with the current development that's here known as Westport Lakes Drive we have five houses there the road was cut in in 2008 one House was built on that on that roadway in 2008 and then nothing happened until 2017 absolutely nothing in in in an around 2017 Mr Dean sold the development essentially to Coastal Harvest since then four other houses have been has been built that was from 2017 till now the assumption that he should be trusted with building a project of this capacity is crazy to me because he's had this land since since 2001 and he's done nearly nothing with it except to build himself a house to which I now own with my family as far as back to this the uh the report from from the state it say specifically says future development the previously submitted deir for this project February 6 2008 including a conceptual future development plan Phase 2 for a 139 acre development parcel lot 33 located in the western portion of the project site according to the information provided in the feir final environmental impact report the project design has been modified to eliminate the phase 2 development plan from lot 33 and to incorporate its development within the proponent Phase 1 development program as a 139 acre single family estate style lot access to this lot will be provided via a driveway to be constructed beginning at the end of the proposed Golf View Lane called this act should the proposal for the development of lot 33 which is under my belief is what the current project is proposed to be built at lot 33 I believe it's considered something else Lot 10 or or four and 10 or I'm not sure which one it is should the proposal for the development of lot 33 change as future plans for the site evolve the proponent will need to file an notice of project change with the meepa office the NPC will need to discuss the potential cumulative infrastructure environmental impacts associated with all devel Dev development activities within the proponent site the project site including but not limited to traffic water supply Wastewater rare species wetlands and sight planning issues I'll the agress on that uh document because you all have the copy and you can review it at your leisure as far as this is concerned Radine has already proposed a similar project like this uh under the uh Assisted Living proponent through the the planning board they withdrew because they were not going to be able to they they didn't fall under the under the definition of Assisted Living so they withdrew their project and now they're submitting this they're 40 B from my understanding in contact with meepa the meepa office uh to this date Brad Dean or the or the applicant or delic or Farland has not contacted the meepo office and made notification of them of the uh project change which is happening now from from what I to believe they should be required to Rec contact or re-engage with meepa and not them that they are now intending to develop this land to which they agree to one not develop fully as proposed but to put it into like a a a Stacy um one single family house lot from my understanding they have not contacted meepa and not contact contacting meepa on the previous application nor conting them contacting them on this application shows that he's not willing to conform with things that were set into place way back in 200 2008 on the previous meeting Mr cussen um made some statements that Brad Dean the current applicant has no association with Coastal Harvest which is the new developer who he along with his family sold the coastal Harvest essentially if if I could I don't know if I could pass these out this is this is basically um I found this on the registry of deeds and it basically just shows a timeline as far as um Radine owning the the property can I cop I'm I wasn't able to make a enough that's okay essentially what this is is just to show the board that Brad Dean was always involved in Westport Lakes Drive and I have good reason to believe that he is still involved still involved with West B Lakes Drive despite the fact that he sold development to Coastal harvest the first the first page is just the manager certificate it basically outlines Shannon Corey Lisa eston and Brad Dean as managers of of that property the second the second document is the subordination of mortgage so this happened in 2017 if you if you read through the document it basically conveys that Brad Dean as part of bluecat LLC and then previous to that American links course sold the development or landmass that is now Westport Lakes Drive to Coastal Harvest for $2 million the only reason why I'm laying this out is just to show track record that Brad Dean I don't mean to repeat myself that he was involved he's always been involved and he's still involved in the project just to reiterate Mr cson uh on the last meeting on a number of occasions said that Brad Dean has nothing to do with the current developer and he made some comments of the fact that the road conditions and the way that it's overgrown and the condition of the roadway that that is now has nothing to do with Brad Dean it only lies in the hands of coastal Harvest which is not true because like I just said Brad Dean has been owner of this project or property since two at least 2001 since since he sold it to Coastal Harvest he in fact has has had his hand in in transferring of some of the Lots over Coastal Harvest so he still had signature power over Coastal harvest in order to release lots for sale and this is the L the latter couple of pages there just partial release of mortgage it just shows um lot 11 which is 64 Westport Lakes Drive Lot four and lot 20 these are the ones I could find this evening and if you notice that the dates are on those consecutively from 2019 2021 and then the most recent Lot Sale um that I could keep that I could track was in 2022 so as recent as two short years ago Brad Dean has still had power over Westport Lakes Drive even though he sold it essentially to another developer I feel it necessary to just point these things out because of all the things that were said in the last meeting and what Mr Dean is trying to accomplish with this project he's owned the land since 2001 or at least as far as I could track he along with family which was American links SCH force and then bluecat LLC and now he's changed his LLC once again to Pine rigid states he has been essentially a failure in developing this land since 2001 and I believe that he's still a failure for further development right until up until now even though Coastal Harvest still owns the rights to the land or to sell it as a developer I have firm reason to believe that he still has signing power to release those lots which definitively shows that he's still has his hand in Westport Lakes Drive and just to reiterate he's done nothing to the road except to build one house for himself since 2008 beyond that Coastal Harvest who's the current developer out of Freetown It lines it out in these documents Brad Dean had Coastal Harvest built in addition to his house which is on Westport Lakes Drive back in 2011 so moreover it shows that he has connections with Coastal Harvest he has had them for a number of years and he still has them up until this day and again I I firmly believe that he was a failure to to develop a simple 25 lot subdivision built one house sold it over 20 something years and now he wants us to believe that he's capable of following through on a project of this size and magnitude I I I don't believe that's going to be the case my email that I submitted I had a number of questions and concerns and comments these are a list of my questions concerns and comments again in the essence of time I don't know if you want me to read them just to just to start um The Well proposal for this project 38 Wells on each lot will the wells be dug prior to construction as a condition of ensure proper sustainability demand and portability will Wells be certified should demand should we demand uh the town of westw demanded a hydrologic report to ensure the sustainability and potential effects on surrounding Wells digging Wells require significant disruption to the land in mass in order to get to to the land mass in order to get trucks to the location should a project like this require what would be considered a public well public water supply as opposed to having individual Wells for each individual house which are on non-conforming Lots which means that these wells will be closer to each other than under normal conditions do we have reason to believe that these 38 Wells are going to be able to sufficiently supply these houses with portable water and enough for demand phasing for this proposal is desent to fail Mr Dean failed once already to develop Westport Lakes Drive considering the affordable component houses will only be available sporadically what would become of a project that has only one entrance and egress look like under construction and occupancy at the same time on the on the the meeting last month it was suggested that this project be phased I understand the whole thing probably conceivably couldn't be built all in one shot however if they phase this project out with only one entrance in erass how do you build some of it have it occupied and then and have the rest of it be built and it to be safe some of the previous uh regulations that were required of Mr Dean when he um got the permitting for Westport LS Drive was that he was supposed to replicate wetlands in part of the property because of a Wetlands um area that was disturbed because of westw lak's Road close to 177 where it could where where the road itself goes over a stream and it also is uh comprised of uh two tunnels or a tunnel for a turtle Crossing or Animal Crossing I have good reason to believe that Brad Dean didn't complete that um that Wetlands replication and I would I would concede that uh I would implore the the the zba to check with Conservation Commission to see if they actually follow through with the replication of the wetlands that they were required to do based on the phase one of this project I don't even know if that's possible if the concom even has record of that I would assume that they would if he did it provide documentation uh as far as the requirements for wetland replication because of that that that Crossing that occurs that's on West lak's Drive if if necessary as far as my uh my first documents that I provided does the 40b component of this project absorb the previous requirement to file a notice of project chain with meepa I believe that that answer is no I believe that they should have two years ago when they or or a year ago when they proposed the First Independent Living which they withdrew from the the planning board and I propose that they should be contacting meepa for this project as well and again I have good reason to believe because I contacted people myself that they have not done so and fact that they have not done so shows that he can't be trusted a starter project of this magnitude the current storm water design for Westport Lakes Drive was approved back in 2008 the road was built all that storm water areas and the Retention Ponds were built in 2008 or 2009 none of those areas have been maintained since then and they are all completely grown in with trees and shrubs and everything else it's my understanding that those those Wastewater managements or the storm Water Management areas need to be maintained throughout throughout time so that they can one be kept up to the original design and two to be inspected periodically which that has not been done a reasonable person would expect that if you build this in the woods adjacent to Westport Lakes Drive storm water is going to change despite all of these renion ponds and all this all this design that's all going to come back to westw Lake's drive and I don't believe that westw Lake drive's current storm water management system would be enough to handle this new construction moreover the the storm water design that was put into place is essentially in disrepair the catch basins are there they're covered with dirt and leaves they don't provide proper flow there's a large storm water area ac across the street from from where I live it's completely grown in it hasn't been managed since 2008 as far as I as far as I can tell if any if any of the board has ever taken a a a a personal ride on West Lake Drive you would see that the road condition is deplorable to think that the town would take the bond from Brad Dean to which he paid in 2008 to fix the road it makes no sense to me the road in its condition now currently in my opinion which I think the town should take into consideration as far as the peer review where we need to determine if the roadway which is a private way can handle both construction traffic which is significant as well as traffic for these 38 homes without some significant repair and assuming the fact that from the last meeting that Brad Dean has nothing to do according to Paul cusson with the current developer and I don't I don't think that he should be bailed out by the town using his bond although I understand that's what it's for I don't believe he should be bailed out to fix this road in order to do another project that in my opinion is destined to fail the road surface is 17 plus years old cracks grass growing through multiple patches the road base in my opinion would have to be removed completely recompacted and potentially um material be brought in recompacted a base an asphalt base would have to be put back down and then after construction is done then you would have to put the top coat on to finish the idea of of running construction vehicles over the road as it currently exists to me is a disaster waiting to happen just to go back to those two crossings that that exist under the roadway I've looked at them myself they appear still legitimate I don't know if they're designed to handle construction equipment as such that would be required to do this type of project I think that would be important to for the town to make sure that that those Crossovers and those tunnels that go underneath would be capable of handling construction traffic I have good reason to believe that they could potentially fail and then the roadway would be impassible I was going to talk about the D dite systems that requires to Westport new construction however I think that's already been addressed there's been some conversation with the with the emerald bus company that we've had over the last couple of weeks I know there was a comment brought up on the last meeting whether a school bus would go up to facilitate all these new houses and the answer to that is they will not they will not go up to there they don't come down Westport Lakes now for five houses nor will they ever come down according to the conversation that we've had through amals bus would ever come down to access these these uh 38 new homes if that means anything to the board we currently don't get mail on our street we have to have our mailboxes at the top of the street at 177 I would I would I would have good reason to believe that the post office wouldn't access these houses either unless there was some type of mail station that was put up I don't know where that would happen um but I would considering that they don't even go down Westport Lakes Drive to to to service us as far as mail is concerned I would assume that all the Mals mail boxes and such would have to be on 177 as well which is technically land that's not owned by Brad Dean cartly the applicant for this project also I I would I would ask the board to look into the electrical um Utilities in the in the existing infrastructure currently it's underground cabling to to provide electric power to the houses I would be curious to know if what was installed there for Westport Lakes Drive to service 35 houses or 25 houses is significant enough to supply the potential buildout of Westport Lakes Drive which would be 25 or so houses if it was completely developed plus 38 new homes I think that's all I have for now okay thank you thank you I mean I'd like you to comment on this but obviously this is a long list and something that that um that you can then you know if you don't already have his comments we can provide you with his comment so that in in the future you can address uh all of those concerns yeah if you may uh Mr chman provid us his if you provide an email you can provide that to us we can certainly be prepared to address all those comments right certainly it sounds like to me a lot of them are really um not in the jurisdiction of uh the application here tonight um especially in regards to the um the which right now we're only um proposing 25 development the 25 acres not the overall 132 Acres um so a lot of that stuff is really irrelevant um also I believe it's irrelevant well mean these are all things that you can answer yeah you know in you know we we prer you to be able to see these papers and answer them correctly rather than EAS if we just send you an email with have to yes is it okay if I provide those questions that I just read I mean it it probably these are just the questions that I outl if I could just provide those you can make photo copies give them to Maria I have a question excuse me sir yes I have a question for you um in early in your presentation you were reading uh uh some uh I I assume a letter from a state uh uh facil uh State Department of um and um I I couldn't quite uh understand all of it because I hav't seen it I'm just hearing you here uh but it seemed that in the early part of that letter it basically indicated that that area was not to be developed at all other than a single family house uh but later in the same document it it appeared as though they were saying but if there is a change you have to do this and you have to go back to the state and so forth did you clarify that did I hear it wrong I don't know if I'm the one to be able to clarify that I'm just reading the document as a lay person okay but did did I hear it right I mean it it does it does sound like that however um there are two different documents the final environmental impact report from scitec which was submitted to the state that outlines the fact that uh as far as the whole entire project was concerned phase one phase two and a potential phase three actually that I didn't even talk about um that environmental impact at the time may be different now but at the time it was as such where they were made to lessen the project scope so that it would have less environmental impact on the area there were some other some other things that I admit that did did um play into that like Wildlife as far as endangered species but my understanding is that's no longer but my stance is that in the progress of the of the process to which he already went through to just get Westport Lake's Drive approved as far as an environmental standpoint my stance is that during the progress and the project changes he gave up the right to develop that parcel in a manner such as what what is being considered and then moreover in outlined in that document it seems like he conceded to say okay I'll agree to say that this lot would be okay for a single family estate family lot and then which the reduction of construction allowed them to get a pass from the state and then just to build phase one which is what's currently Westport leak's Drive but moreover I know in the in the in the latter part of the the document it does say that if there is a change as far as any buildout of that of that land mass that they're required according to the the f FEI the final environmental impact report and then the the certificate from the from the state that says if a project change occurs in my opinion no matter how big or small on that land mass based on that document they're required to re-engage with meepa if that's just a phone conversation and then meepa goes yeah you know what it's it doesn't conform anymore my my argument is that it seems like something was put in as a regulation back in 2008 when he got approved for Westport Lakes Drive at which point he in my opinion he conceded to further develop in such a manner that lot to which he's looking to develop now in order to get Westport Lake drives approved and then he got it built the road put in the lots and build one house now he's trying to do phase 2 which if you look through the documents it clearly outlines that it it's it's very similar to what it was before back in 2008 as far as phase two this is nearly identical any project change as far as I'm concerned from reading the document and talking with meepa they should at least make a phone call to meepa which to my knowledge they have not they have not made any contact with meepa even though in my opinion looking at these documents they should be doing not my my concern is uh a legal one and that is uh uh and I can't tell from the presentation uh but I think it ought to at least be looked into as to whether that can legally be developed based on what that was said in that document I I don't know if there was an agreement I uh or is that just me was it MEA meepa uh saying that you know you can't do this didn't they just recently try to make that an affordable living uh and and it and it failed well they it didn't fail they they they pulled it back because uh no because because it didn't meet the requirements for assist of living right oh things didn't go forward with the planning board enough to this point I think to them to even evaluate this basically bylaw right that they were trying for assist living can I ask you one question I think and I think you uh alluded to the fact that the original Westport Lakes Drive development was also to include affordable housing uh no okay I thought I miss heard then sorry no I if if I may because I'm back standing here um another argument that I would have is that g VI Lane was never constructed during the original proposed plan as far as the subdivision in my opinion that was supposed to be built and there is some documentation that talks about um that roadway being built along with Westport Lake's drive there was never built or constructed and constructed my argument would be because they didn't develop that road at the time of approval back in 2008 is that or should that be an issue with the town or or right of way access specifically off of what currently is a private way there was there was some other talk on the previous meeting where we were talking about HOA homeowners associations and I heard it again today where the folks who potentially buy these this property they're going to be required to have an HOA in order to upkeep everything here as far as more more specifically the septic is probably the biggest concern are you talking about the proposed no that was this proposal not not the original for the ho the the planning board suggested I believe was a planning board's thing that said that there needs to be an HOA Association to maintain the the the joint septic system yeah well I think there should be there was away with where you live well well okay I I I can get to that there was some talk on the last meeting about HOAs and whether they exist Mr uh cussin made some statements that I believe he knows nothing about I think he should have probably looked into it before proposing a project of this substance just like today when we left the meeting last month MH they were supposed to come back with some specific information as far as storm water and then now they don't have it it just goes to show that a similar track record is already occurring with this new developer which is not a new developer because it's still Brad Dean he's owned the land forever and he's still trying to do it that they can't be trusted to to to with a project of this magnitude to get back to the HOA I'm sorry currently the home owners on Westport Lake Drive we do not have an HOA we have we have five houses so how do you manage like um snow removal okay so so kind of before you get to that more complicated answer was there supposed to be an HOA formed and it didn't get formed I can supply the board with that documents the documents as far as uh anybody who purchased Lots in Westport Lakes Drive there's Covenant document and there is an HOA document right okay however it's my understanding that we can't technically form an HOA because we only have five houses how can we conceivably form an HOA with only five houses this and again not to beat the horse since 2008 the road has been put in and it's now 2024 five houses exist there when you look at the rest of Westborn as far as its development people are killing for for lots to build houses why why have none of these other Lots been sub been been developed and why is it you can't have an HOA with only five people how would you so currently we don't have an HOA because we never we never with five people the current developer idea typ typically I think when a developer does a house they're the ones responsible for forming the HOA and and and initially funding it yes and that never happened it never happened okay and I don't know if it's going to happen with the current developer because he shows a complete lack of interest to develop the rest of the Lots despite what was said today we don't have the ability to form an HOA because it hasn't been released to us by the developer it would be foolish to to think that five houses could afford an HOA to maintain this roadway as it stands right now the develop veler or developers if you want to look at it this way Brad deine owned it up until 2017 to which he sold it to Coastal Harvest which he they know they're friendly he built his garage they still probably associate with each other I would assume they're they have they're they're together from those deed documents it shows that Brad Dean still signs off yes but you were you were doing something else we we've already talked about I'm sorry you were talking about the as far as it stands now we do not have an HOA okay the current developer Coastal Harvest is responsible for the plowing and the maintenance of the road which is almost non-existent trees fall on the road we need to get to work I'm in public safety I need to get to work I have to cut the tree I have nobody to call the road gets plowed intermittently based on how much Falls it's a disaster now if I had known all of these things before I bought the house off for Brad Dean maybe I would have reconsidered except not having the knowledge of that and a future project as such as this which in my opinion will completely erode the the how much our lots and houses are worth if you plug this place in off again off of a private way which I can't conceive if we don't even have an HOA to repair the road if 38 new houses come in they have their own HOA and then 38 I would assume I don't know what the math is if there's 38 houses I assume each one house is going to have at least one car probably two too that's a lot of vehicle traffic knowing that the current developer which again not to beat the horse is still Brad deine along with Coastal Harvest is currently not maintaining the roadway they're not plowing properly they're not maintaining the utilities as far as the storm water um conditions that are there now all the catch basins they're all covered in dirt leaves we as the homeowners have to do it ourselves I have plowed it myself because we need to get to work I'm not making that excuse for not doing this but you have to assume that if it's not being done now why would we be leted to believe that it's going to be done once 38 more houses get plugged in here and the access is our private way to which doesn't get maintained there has to be something in in this project that would make that occur or or some provision that this road is going to sustain based on its current condition and complete failure of upkeep is going to sustain this this subdivision which is I don't think it's GNA I don't think it's possible okay thank you anybody else I have a question one more question about another aspect of this um document that you provided Us by scitec um just very curious um about the historical resources and it says that there was a um the Cornell house and barn was located on the property yes um and uh that the proponent has proposed to renovate the house in keeping with this historic historic nature um that the barn was evaluated and determined to be import condition but that the proponent previously offered to relocate the barn what um whatever happened with that house and the barn was that ever followed through so I think it's important to to identify who the proponent is right when you read that the proponent is Brad Dean yes right he's the current applicant so those houses that stood on lot four the Cornell house and that Barn which were there when we moved in they were they were deconstructed they were torn down by somebody whom I'm led to believe is the current developer Coastal office I'm not sure they had a they had a company come in they did an abatement for asbest and all that dust blew all over my yard and my family and then shortly thereafter they had a excavator in there and they tore the whole thing down another point to show that Brad Dean the current applicant doesn't conform to what he says he's going to do and any regulations that are put upon Him by either the town or state agencies he doesn't follow through he doesn't follow through and the fact that he has shown that definitive track record for this whole entire time it's inconceivable to me that he would be allowed to construct this even though he is the applicant he's got some other company that's coming in again this is literally so they were American links course then they're blue cat and now he's changing his name to Pine Ridge LLC why why are we why are we doing this why are we changing our names over history what's the point other than to cover up your past failures okay thank you anyone else no okay name and address my name is Joseph monis I'm one of the uh abuts the said property here uh at uh 55 Westport laks Drive so I don't really have much to add to what Mr Pera just stated he obviously spent a lot of time energy a lot of research to bring up facts that are not just hearsay but documented state in from local and State documents that clear clearly state that there are procedures in place to have any future development be addressed through the proper authorities that has not happened from what I can see and if it did we need to have proof we need to have to see those documentations allowing them to go ahead and proceed with this project considering the fact that we know they were they gave that up as a concession to allow Westport laks drive to exist so if if that was an agreement that's in in writing you have it in your possession then there should be another document that takes that away and allows them to go ahead and proceed with this new project that I I don't see that um and then there's obviously the obvious concerns for septics and drainage and so on uh I don't don't want to reiterate things that have already been said but I think there's a lot of information that was brought to your attention through the due diligence of Mr Pera and it has to be addressed and answered and um it's not just again not here say but documents that are in your possession signed by authorities that have jurisdiction over these type of uh conditions that we're talking about here today so I think they need to be addressed and I think it falls on the board to go ahead and make sure that some of these if not all be addressed um to satisfy you know us as residents who are pretty much victims at this point of a development that's never taken place and are now going to be subject to another development that's going to be ruining what is already in dis in despair um so I just want to bring that to your attention that I think we um really deserve to have uh some representation since it seems like we've uh had the ball kind of dropped on us um that's all I have to say thank you thank you Roger yes excuse me um I I still have concerns about some of the legalities of of U their a ability to put this project on that particular property I I voiced one a little while ago uh I I hope that those just don't slide by that we actually act on them but the other one and I can recall talking about it at the last hearing is this whole idea of an hocc for um for this new project and the um either lack of or inactivity of an HOA on the original project I I can't see how legally you can put a new project that's going to be quite burdensome to the to the traffic um going going over another party's uh private road without some kind of legal consideration uh and I can recall asking uh at the last hearing is there any potential of combining the two things in terms of an ho hocc so that it they would become one because there's no reason that the people in in a new 40 people project would use the facilities of of these other folks who are already there uh without some kind of legal consideration or or compensation or or something I mean you know they got to plow the roads otherwise he other people aren't going to get get to their homes uh right and I just think that I to me that's a legal question that really ought to be addressed like what happens when you don't plow West P they don't plow the West Port Lakes Road Association doesn't plow that road right how do that development get out right well we just had this happen um just on the road there you could put they add they added on a development on a private road turn make it private road and put Gates there yeah no that's right no no right down the road here we there was a uh it wasn't a 40b but there was an extension onto a private road for another development right but I don't know what the legality is yeah and last meeting the uh the representative said that Mr Dean or blue cat own the rights to that Westport Lakes Road and therefore that's why they allowed passage um but if he own if he owns that road then he's also responsible for maintaining that road right or should be yeah well there's all things that we have to sort of that we're going to have to thrash out in the next several meetings yes the the legality really isn't in your jurisdiction you know that if they don't have the right to pass over the private way it's going to be an issue between Property Owners it's going to be their dispute you have an eligible applicant before you with the project eligibility letter right right from Mass housing so you don't have you don't have the ability to deny it because of potential issues you know about the rights to use that private way you certainly have within your jurisdiction St standards for the roadway you know recommendations for safety safe passage the construction plan and all of that but you know the way this works is you do have an eligible applicant with the project eligibility letter so if there and you know that project eligibility letter is based on information that the applicant submits to Mass housing I've seen people go to Mass Housing and challenge C submissions that were made to them and get try to get them to reconsider that but that that isn't really that's not our per yeah your purview is overall you know uh looking at this project looking at conditions you know in terms of health safety local rules and regulations uh not not to not to try to resolve potential private property disputes between those owners okay um you know that issue about meepa the these are very you know reasonable questions and issues to raise I'm not saying that and certainly it would benefit the process for the applicant to be responding to this and bringing it out on the public record um you know and addressing concerns but you don't have the ability also to stop your proceedings because of meepa so if there's separate jurisdiction involved if there's a new Environmental impact report or an amendment that's a separate jurisdictional issue that gets resolved by those uh state agencies and again there are issues that are legitimate they're definitely within your perview in terms of your discussion items and it would behoove the applicant to try to respond to those on the record um uh but you know there's only so much so far you can go in other words if you determine that they did require you know a notice of project change you don't have the ability to deny the project on issues within your jurisdiction for meepa um even at the stage where a developer appeals a a um comprehensive permit decision of the housing appeals committee there are requirements and the regulations that they make a meepa filing within seven days of filing the appeal or to update HC so there there were different jurisdictional issues involved in all properties you know there's state issues Federal all of that but the the issues that are in your jurisdiction are local rules and regulations um of other Town boards and committees but how does that get resolved EXC what about the fundamental question of Are We dealing with a trustworthy uh developer I mean are we are we theun fundamental are we are we hearing from someone that follows through on what they are asked to do does that I mean is is that a consideration yeah to a you know up to a certain point what what's more within your perview is making sure that you have a a cogent properly conditioned permit that's enforceable and if the the app you know the permit holder doesn't comply with that it's it's an enforcement situation so that's really all you can do I mean yeah it's it's interesting if you know um there's reason to believe that representations are false you can look into that but you're not it's not really something that you know you wouldn't deny a permit because you think that the applicant you know is not trustworthy it depends on what the issue is well who's whose job was it to follow up on what happened with uh Westport Lakes I mean if if if he didn't do I don't know if if the developer didn't do what had been required of him to do then who follows up on that I mean we we don't do that no you don't it's a separate issue but who does I'm just curious I I don't know I'd have to look at it I I don't I haven't reviewed you know what was permitted here I haven't done a title search or you know I don't know anything about about the bonding or or what's required all I do know is that you have the ability to condition the permit and you have the ability to make sure that it meets standards the roadway and then they have to comply with that and again your permit will also be a checklist that you know before they apply for a building permit they have to approve XYZ you know so all that's going to be set out in your permit but those are really the issues that are within your purview and and again I'm not saying that anything that was address tonight is irrelevant it's certainly something you know for the applicant to respond to and you can look into it I'm just saying your overall focus is on local rules and regulations health and safety issues within your jurisdiction and sitting in the place of other Town boards and committees it's not to try to resolve private property disputes so we condition the permit on a joint F HOA for the road you wouldn't be able to you would you would be able to condition it in terms of the homeowner you know what should be required in the homeowner's association agreement to a certain point because certain issues that are within the purview of the subsidizing agency you you don't have jurisdiction over but you know there there is some leeway on that area so you can have conditions related to that but you don't have the I mean I I can look at documentation related to it but my my sense of this right now like you don't you don't have the ability to require them to join in with another part you know ownership parcel for a homeowners association you're just dealing with the parcel that's the subject of this application and again they're they're eligible to come before you because they've been issued the project eligibility letter and and that is not necessarily A sank or sank forever if if it appears that that might have been based on a misrepresent ation or some type of incomplete fact somebody can certainly go back to Mass Housing and say you should look at this project eligibility letter because they don't have access or you know they don't have site control that they're not acknowledging all the pieces that are involved in this but that that's that's really in the province of Mass housing okay but we don't have the uh well I'll say the other way around uh we it would be our responsibility to approve a project if they didn't have any legal access to get to it somebody would have to prove that right who proves it and then you would have it at most really you'd have it in a condition in your permit that that this is based on access as documented through the Mass housing they should I agree that it's a private uh aspect but U but it seems to me that should be addressed and resolved before we can approve a a project you know in other words H how are they getting legal access to go over somebody else's property to get to their uh well he own bradan and blue cat own that road yeah and again it it's that's what the project eligibility they have site access proven through the project eligibility letter and again it it makes them eligible to apply to you and you're you're not you know I I'd recommend against it getting too far into a potential private property dispute because then you you're left without a substantive hearing on the issues within your jurisdiction you know and so that's that's where you're at at this point unless there's some misrepresentation on which the project eligibility letter was based you have an eligible applicant before you so your purview is to look at that roadway get departmental comments on the roadway get peer review of the adequacy of the roadway traffic issues and that type of thing you try to condition it accordingly and again your conditions will be a checklist for when they have to go through each stage of the development so it would have to be the abuts perhaps that would have to go to uh the the funding agency and and uh yeah if there or anybody could but there you know if there's an issue about it so I mean I'm not hearing that there's necessarily a dispute that they have the the you know that that this proposed development has access through that private way I'm not hearing that I'm hearing more that it hasn't been completed it's it's not adequate it nobody maintains it it's it's a freefor all for or how we figure out how to get out if there's a storm or whatever those are different issues but that that can be within your that would be within your jurisdiction to make sure that the project is conditioned so that you have an adequate roadway yeah that's is maintained correct and that that meets standards right so we can't force Westport lakes and the new development to form a Jo join HOA to men maintain Westport laks but we can condition Pine Ridge Estates to maintain Westport Lake Road and when they don't who has to enforce that it would be enforcable through your permit conditions are enforceable as a matter of zoning so you'd have basically your zoning enforcement officer enforcing it yeah so that puts a very that put a that's also why that's puts a big burden on the state on the tax no it does and that's why I'm saying right don't don't take my comments as discounting what's been presented these are important issues it's important to look into it it would also behoove the applicant to give you some type of assurance to answer these questions okay here's the story you know here's the plan for the future you know it it and as the more forthcoming they can be with you the better off they are so if there are questions about not his representation that's something that town would bring forward uh to the perit to the state or would or private CI who who whose job is that to whoever is agreed yeah whoever thinks there's a misstatement yeah and again I'm not hearing that I I'm not hearing that right now okay despite the concerns that have been raised I'm I'm not hearing that type of of issue like a misrepresentation was made to Mass housing on which the project eligibility letter was based I I don't know what they did represent to Mass housing as far as accessing over somebody else's private road or whatever well it sounds from the presentation it sounds like it's his road right he's he's saying he's the same owner okay and well I'll say an unmaintained RO yeah yeah they they have said that it's not it's not a matter of unmaintained yeah it's not a matter of unmaintained it's a matter that they found site control M so that that's why they're eligible to apply to you if they have control of it yeah they never completed it well they have control of it but they don't have to maintain it nobody's going to but again you have the ability to condition it make sure it's an adequate roadway if DPW was saying to you this this roadway cannot service these houses for XYZ reasons if your peer reviewer says this roadway is going to be underwater for eight months of the year issues like that that's within your Province you you could potentially deny a Project based on an issue like that you could say the roadway is inadequate to Services we can't condition it but that's not saying that that the U that has nothing to do with uh whether they plow the road in in the winter time nope no no NOP and they have access to this to this development through this road that he has no interest in on on the development part itself I mean I have no idea I I that's why I'm saying would behoove the applicant to try to respond to it so can when well two how would we find the app application to Mass housing because it just says in response to your application we don't have the application it's in the it's in the packet yeah typically that would be public right and with respect to Westport legs did they not Westport the original development where this gentleman and that gentleman live there is it sounds like a lot of steps weren't completed based upon what they required to do I mean I I don't know I but let's say that if there was then whose jurisdiction is that and how does it so how does that affect the new development it he didn't finish the old one so we can't do a new one is that the it depends I mean I I don't know was it an anr plan was it a subdivision I I I don't know I I don't know anything about the history of the site all I know is you've got an eligible applicant right Mass housing found site control and the ability to pass through that roadway and and I and I know that you're Serv have within your jurisdiction making sure that this is a safe and adequate roadway not just for the project but forever else it serves yeah right so if it's serving an area that is then subject to flooding issues or whatever it may be yeah you know that's those are issues within your jurisdiction access for safe Public Safety yeah and that's why fire department weighed in they made recommendations they made a didn't that happen when Westport Lakes Drive was put in that they all weighed in and there was some conditions I don't know what happened right but I'm I'm assuming that they did weigh in and they did put certain conditions on it and now somebody and I don't know who has failed to ensure that that is a because in my mind if there's nobody if that's a private road and no and that individual owns that private road that individual is a responsible for plowing and if he doesn't then he's responsible for any damages that may occur for lack of emergency vehicles able to get into the houses that are there yeah but I I just don't know I don't know the history of it and I don't know what the obligations are C certainly somebody is acting at their Peril if they're responsible for maintaining Public Safety access to a residence that you know so I I don't know but it it doesn't sound like a great situation that's for sure and and again it would it would be helpful for the applicant to try to Enlighten the board a little bit about about the history of the roadway what's planned for the future what the story is you know as the gentleman pointed out you know the last time the applicant had represented he knows nothing about it he has you know no control over it or or whatever it sounds like that maybe isn't the case and I definitely think you know would it would be helpful for him to Enlighten the board okay you got something else you want may I just ask one a question to the Town Council good if I'm sorry through through through the chair regarding the Mass housing application if there was items left off potentially like I guess my question is how significant of an item that would be left off that document that the applicant didn't provide potentially would be significant enough to cause a problem with the application itself having known that on the application the final sheet is an affidavit that I swear under pains and perjury that all of the application is correct and all of the information that I have is actually put out to Mass housing my question is if anything was left off no matter how small would that negate the application or could there be an potential issue with the ual application that's that's kind of an open well I mean I can answer within reason is Mass housing would would have to act on it so if someone were to raise an issue with them they would they would look into it they they may or may not make a decision on it they could always revoke the project eligibility letter do they hold i' I've seen applicants i' I've seen applicants who will remain nameless and do not involve this project in any way shape or form or this applicant ha H have been you know have received like temporary stop orders from the state that okay these existing projects you can go forward on you will not file new projects between now and another date I've seen that i' I've seen Mass housing you know revisit an issue um I I can't answer for them about what they would find significant or what not right does Mass housing hold public hearings are they required like we are well they did Mass housing I'm sure there was a site visit before when they got their prior to their project eligibility letter I wasn't involved but the town would have gotten notice the town would have been able to to comment on it there would have been a site visit yes I don't know what happened with that so there was a whole process Mass housing before the application was filed with you for Butters there was no opportunity for Butters to make comment as far as the the 40b application yeah but the town absolutely and it's it's by regulation so the town received notice the town had the ability to comment they might have I don't know yeah it it was a site visit that they before a selectman's meeting yeah and and I i' I've personally seen this and uh and the Selectmen don't don't care okay yeah we've been informed that we have a 40b application no it's not an application no what there's a to I'm talking about a totally separate thing before yes there there was an application of Mass housing the town would have received notice town has the ability to weigh in I don't know what happened here if the town did weigh in a lot of towns absolutely they participate in the process they'll gather departmental comments they'll put a letter together select board they'll vote it they'll submit it to Mass housing often you'll see it quoted in the project eligibility letter we we we direct the applicant to address the following concerns during the the the process that goes on again they have a site visit that the town you know has notice of I don't know of any site visit they did did can I can I ask question with respect to the materials that have been given to us there's two things here there's one development team would that be something they submitted to Mass housing or something they submitted to us yes well um they listed their attorney as Brian Corey who's been disbarred prior to the application he also they also there's another spot here that says Brad Dean is a season entrepreneur blah blah blah blah right from 2010 to 2016 beer Brad spearheaded the development construction and successful sale of West Port work's drive a premier subdivision boasting 30 meticulously crafted single family lots there well there might be meticulously crafted family lots there are no houses on that lot so I would say that that's a misrepresentation other than also putting a dispart attorney as their attorney it's a concern can you are you asking me if you should deny the project tonight we can't we can't say no no I'm just yeah I'm just just bringing out some things for uh because we can't talk you know the the we can't talk amongst ourselves outside of this this is where you want to be having this dialogue uh you know and and we's say how it shakes out again it would behoove the applicant to respond uh your your final decision will end up having you'll have the background the procedural history you'll have findings in your decision if you find some of these issues are relevant that you want to raise it in your decision you can certainly put it in there uh we'll just have to see how it all shakes out during the process I guess but my comprehensive permit decisions typically are multiple pages of documents and history and findings before you get to the conditions so we'll just see how it all shakes out M I guess I guess I request the applicant to address the fact that they don't have an attorney and to address that statement regarding the 30 meticulously crafted single family lots okay um I'm sorry am I able to just provide these there was a question about phase one and phase two and then some potential deed restrictions that were placed on the uh on the the proposed lot I don't know if I can just you can submit it you can submit it he can submit anything it all becomes a public record once it's submitted so do you need these back I'll can we all have copies please yes okay you want to come back up we'll talk about um when when we'll have it now you want okay name and address U my name is Stacy Pereira I'm also at 26 Westport Lakes Drive um I just earlier there was a comment about further development I might had some confusion on that where did that comment come from where there's going to be future development it was I don't know if it was the planning board or it was the the future development of West Lake right who was the one that stated that I don't where did it come from it comes from the planning board okay I just had that question um my other um I didn't realize that amoral was notified I actually reached out to uh Westport Community Schools not that I I know that this won't be a great impact on the decision but I did email the school PR uh School business administrator for Westport Community Schools and in 2009 District made decision not to go down every street unless there were 10 or more students in one area and buses cannot back up and turn around with students on the bus they also take uh consideration during snowstorms um and as far as private roads they do not don't go down private no they do not go down private roads um as far as the traffic study which I thought we would have results because that is a definitely a major concern with myself um just with three houses on Westport Lakes Drive there has been three accidents so my major um concern is safety so I could I guess we could get those police reports if we needed them and the other thing I had cuz Brent did mention a lot of my concerns was um the Westport fire department what the representative represented today I just want to actually see the adjustments that were made I don't know if anybody else is interested in what they suggested and the changes that they actually made on the map that's all okay thank you thank you so we're going to have to discuss when when to have the next hearing much you come back up there if you want Mr chairman I could show the revisions on the plan for fire chief if you want or we can just wait to next meeting I'll be you that should be fair quick yeah good so revisions the umor underr storage things for in case they have a fire there one there's one here and there's one here the fire chief wanted to make sure that the distance between the furthest house to the tank was no more than 750 ft so in this revised letter we had those two dimensions on there um this Dimension and then the dimension from this one the first house okay there um also we wanted to make sure that the the radius radi was 60 it actually was so there was no changes that needed for that those were the only two changes that that we made in regards to the oh no sorry the the turn around te in the back oh in the back to get to these houses so he wanted to make sure he can turn around and that was in compliance with their requirements it's actually 12 ft 60 ft on each side um they provided a detail for that and then there were some future things things like putting numbers on the houses and things like that's can't do that so you got a house put it on yeah okay so again it guess the project goes in phases so do infrastructure would have to be in place prior to them building like the septic system would have to be in place for x amount of houses when they build the first one yeah I mean you're going to want to have conditions in the permit I at at some point the applicant really should suggest conditions to you on on on with regard to phasing um and then just you know you're not bound by those but they should sort of present to you what their plan is and again your your permit will act as sort of a checklist like before they can apply for the building permit what infrastructure has to be in place and then you know and what those building permits can include and how much clearing they can do and phase by phase and all that has to be in there so can I just understand you're just you are not you don't have a financial interest in this development other than being the engineer or do you own part of this development I do not own part of the development um I'm not saying that I may or may not in the future um we are also a developer too yeah might be something that I make an offer to Mr Dean on okay um there hasn't been no offers yet M but there I'm definitely interested in it um so that's a possibility okay so uh Mr Dean could he could sell the Apostle to anybody at the end right at the end of the day so he he might just be going for the permitting doesn't mean that he would actually be the one who's actually doing development right now he has a development for like a small subset of the houses what houses the I mean there uh there are so many Lots but uh it it's going to be done in phases you're not going to build 30 houses you're going to build the development half a dozen I think in the beginning again I mean I can't speak of the the developer but I mean as as Council said it's something that we would present right as part of the conditions a phasing plan um certainly the infrastructure would all be done um whether it's that's you got to put in the drainage you got to putting the septic but it sounds like just to clarify that once we get the if we go through the permitting process we issue the permit the develop Mr Dean can sell the whole project with the permit to somebody else oh absolutely yeah okay pretty common with 40 vs okay uh what do you propose for the next meeting um the second Wednesday of December December 11th okay by me okay by me okay by me you can do it poie yes I can make it we need you we need you it's kind of you to check I not all boards bother no we would thank you yeah just prior to that next meeting um if we can get just a copy of everything that was submitted especially your bus we like to prepare a response with everything that we feel is applicable and certainly will help the you know stuff like legal access I think that's important um for the for the board to know um any other you know issues that we feel that we should be addressed they they'll be addressed um you traffic report traffic report be done by then should absolutely be done by then okay not going with yeah I think the traffic report actually in some respects is more important like the storm water report like that's just engineering you can get it done yeah yeah right but traffic study is it is what it is y uh when you use the term legal access a moment ago would you include in that the um uh a plan for the maintenance of of the road I'm particularly concerned about uh snow in the winter time for our project yeah um I think it's a little early for us to prepare the ho8 for our development but that's something that certainly would be part of the final yeah we like to we won't have that in the next meeting I think what Jerry is but certainly I mean I can speak on HOA the development I had in map poit I I was I bought that I had 26 lots and how it worked was I was responsible for 26 payments so if if it was a let's just say it was 100,000 you know I had to pay divide that by 26 when one person came in that person now was responsible I was responsible for 25 yeah you're talking about a ho that's how it works that's how it should work um and that's how it should have worked for West yes the development I bought as well the HOA you know we had to get it get it set up my concern is to see a plan that would comedy if the people that are already there chose not to plow at all yeah that's more of a legal issue that's well no no your plan you that's not going to be part of our how are you going to get your people to to get to that will become a legal battle between the the responsible for I'm trying to avoid illegal bad yeah yeah we can't we can't you know we can't that's something that we we don't have it that development should be however any owners yet they should already have an HOA no I'm not talking about them I'm talking about if they suddenly refuse to to to do that plowing uh how are your people going to get it I mean well it's an enforcement order that they would they would make a complaint and take the legal legal action at that point but we certainly will have one set up yes so what we everybody agree that uh December 11th is okay M yeah the same time I'm assuming 6:30 6:30 yeah so um I'll make a motion then that [Music] we uh that we continue this this hearing on December 11th at uh at 6:30 p.m. second all in favor I I oppos no thank you so uh we will do that and hopefully we can start making some progress absolutely thank you and thank you all uh neighbors for coming you we certainly did want to hear your uh any issues you have okay um couple of other orders of business we have a couple of uh meeting minutes that that have to be approved I'll take up Mr chair okay thank you very much for coming you're welcome see you in the month than you don't go don't go back the way you came did he did he uh did you give me a copy of the second okay okay um start off with October 2nd I have meeting minutes for October 2nd that Maria's uh produced and Incorporated comments um so this was the one that was the preliminary stuff for pinebridge Estates uh so um I will make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as provided for October 2nd 2024 second all in favor say I I I oppose no that's approved likewise for November 9th which was the uh oh the the 96 Mass Squatch Road the demolishing of the uh premiss and making a new yeah U it was a finding for Dyson so uh again I'll will make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 9th 2024 as provided by Maria I have a second second all in favor say I I I I'll oppose no that's approved um just other other business uh Cynthia and I both attended another short-term rental meeting that U and we're making progress uh what we've and I and uh We've also discussed this with attorney Blake um a plan is that the U Accord in accordance with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that has identified short-term rentals as a business we're going to treat it as such which means that the zoning part of it is going to be very straightforward there not going to be a lot of conditions to it um very very top level and it is going to then but then we have to also change the general bylaw because that's where businesses are managed so the so the general bylaw will have a section for short-term rental businesses and it will mimic a lot of the other businesses you know that uh that are uh that are in that bylaw uh but again it will be relatively straightforward what it will do though is that you that short-term rent deals will have to fill out a um a permanent application but it will be what we call it self self-certifying self-certifying they won't have to actually get approval from fire department approval they will certify that that they have met the requirements of fire you know of um uh fire detectors and whatever and they will certify that they will meet the requirements for for Health Department septic systems and whatever um and then that will then go to the select board who will then in a meeting will app will come up with a list of all the short-term rental properties for uh permit approval and that then allows the public to say I got a problem with this one it's kind of like you've been to town meeting we say we have a budget and there's a 100 line items and they just say here's all the line items if you have a problem with anyone say hold and we'll talk about that one so this is on an annual basis and this will be done on an annual basis with the selectman with the selectman yes so it will be a relatively straightforward there won't be a lot of nuts and bolts on either of the General because it will essentially be on the application form the application form will have uh you know sign not a sign off but you know do you have adequate parking you know does your septic meet the requirements you do you have fire so uh and Cynthia is actually gonna you're G to go to no no Steve was Steve's going to all Steve is going to go to all the department to say with the application what aspects of each of your responsibilities need to go in this application so that but again the applicant isn't going to have to actually call the fire department to say you got to come because otherwise you're going to have the fire B you know everybody's going to be running around for I mean we don't have resources for that uh but they need they could though on a on a per case basis say I'm not really sure so I better go call them and have them come check so um that is the plan at the moment and then and then we're going to present that to the select board uh because now that's more work for them um I've talked to Paula Brown about this um and she has and I've seen these several different of these um application forms and they're relatively straightforward and and all we're going to do is we're going to sort of cut take one and cut and paste it to whatever we need for short-term rentals yeah so it's like uh I think uh the junkyards and right I mean yes we have automobile places all have to come AC in front of the select board every year to to get their permit to operate their business and that's what we're doing right this way we thought it would it the enforcement would fall similarly how the the this Elman enforce all the other businesses in town and right right yeah since it's a business and since elman's man enforce the businesses then yeah and what this allows though is it's it's a it's a trade-off between it's it's not putting an excessive burden on the short-term renters that we we don't really want to do that we don't want to make it so that you can't rent but on the other hand we we need some assurances that you know you know that they're doing it properly well it's safe I mean like the last thing I want to do is say yes you can do short-term rentals and then you know a deck falls down or a fire happens and somebody gets hurt right in this way by having them themselves certify and under penalty of death then how enforceable that will be in the end game but at least it makes people uh thoughtful of those things that maybe like I think you know some people just don't if they've been a long time from being a renter themselves like you know when you're in college and you're young and you don't have a house yet you have you kind of think about those sort of things but I think as time goes by as you start to forget right yeah what it is so anyway that's the um a renter that right now is the process of yeah and at the same time though we are going to actually have to make a change to the the other one which is accessory pment yeah and that one is also we're going to have to work on but that's mostly going to be cutting there are paragraphs in there that are no longer allowed that's due to the state the state because of the state law uh but getting back to shortterm rentals for a second uh I'm just curious based on my experience being on that committee U uh have you had much public public inut Y no and we've been doing it at night so that so they could come yeah on a Monday night when you have the select me because I well we I tried to change it but no one would listen to me sorry I listen I listen somebody somebody was the only day could come was Monday but anyway we have had we've had one or two people that each one I don't have enough yeah I I I don't think that any of the town meeting ought to be held on a when a select meeting because that's the top dog so anyway uh that's the um uh that's the status of of that we're having another another hearing in a couple of weeks um uh with a with a unupdated draft and St like I said Steve is going to go and check with all the Departments to what we want to do is we want to come up with a strawman of this application form so that the select board knows what they're getting into when when they do this I just I have just a question how that plays out so right now we have uh the same amount of both businesses and private residents pay the same tax base yeah yeah we don't have enough businesses yet so yeah I'm just curious they pay taxes though they pay rental they do pay so when you get they pay taxes on the rental so when they rent it out for $200 a night they're paying state tax as well as a town tax yes so we are getting taxes and they're paying real estate tax wasn't my question my question is uh so if you so I mean I I was talking to people from um from Dartmouth and uh that are on select board they were uh that used to be on the select board and on the finance committee and they were surprised that we didn't have a different um oh two levels for commercial commercialist and and so in now making all of you know how many uh short-term RS we have couple hundred right so now they're so now they're all small businesses right M technically yes according to Supreme Court they're all businesses okay so what happens I mean I'm just like thinking down the line I it's like so if it ever comes before the town to change that rate um then it wouldn't affect them no because the r because the rates going to have to apply for a business permit that's what s of what we're doing well there is a there's a fee for apply for application but yeah that's a because because it would wouldn't change the we're not changing the zoning so let's say if we decided to to the commercial which I think we should but that's just you know the commercial districts should pay a higher tax than the residential districts we're allowing a business in a residential district so it's always going to be residential where it's versus a commercial District um and you've seen the pie chart the business is this much and yeah 98% is residential right so the would if we had a bigger business base then we has a big business B then you would then you would have a different rate for business versus but but it's such a small pie it doesn't I just was wondering how that would affect yeah yeah that wouldn't affect that yeah thank you so anyway that's that's isn't the U I mean isn't there going to be a sewer in water going down moment probably not in our lifetime short they did get a they did get a grant to do the first phasee they only got a they only got a grant to but they they took property for what could be where the station will no no they got a $3 million Grant go on the website yes right but that's it's not going to they're not putting sewers in any worse that's no they're already digging in McCumber the school oh for that yes but that's first Loop they're doing the first Loop of the sewer only the sewer not the water yes no wasn't that down by the town they're doing the first water doing the first doing the first Loop of the water okay I just was yeah yeah catching up you're right they did the first phase of the of the um they got money to the face first phase of the water so they can get water to this McCumber school right um they didn't get it for the sewer and they did they had money like from some previous Grant to do the takings yeah which really wasn't much money cuz meatworks got $10,000 right what they do is it is that a private business no it's a well it's a it's a has there been any discussion at all that's only going to take yeah that that stuff came up yeah has there been any discussion at all I want to hear just one around the voters because well because Sor actually said we should do the taking it was only it was only um sha who was who was against the takings and they said the people said no then then they said well it was what you said no to was the funding we got funding from another source I was like oh that's interesting well that's a true statement yeah yeah I understand I didn't know that prior to going to that you were there I saw you they were trying to get a well that was the whole point they they knew they could get funding for the first phase because of the past and the water down there and and for the school in particular so but then they decided to say well we're going to do part of what we might also do do all of it and that's when it got a little bit out of control okay and the reason they did that was because we had an auditorium full of people who wanted that and instead of doing it in the phases yeah and so we went along with that um my question back to shortterm rentals was has there been any discussion at all about um actually enforcing that uh has there been much enforcement this year at all um I know there's at least one yeah I I know there's at least one and is it actively been been stopped I don't know for I know they've been they've been issued Seas assist what happens after that we're talking shortterm okay there was one season assist order one assist determined once it was determined that they were all illegal we were all made to think that oh boy well now we got to stop doing these things or we got to Pro them now we sort of had a moratorium on thing and well but I mean the way it works is that the only the only the only way we would issue a cease and assist is if somebody complained if somebody complained then he issues a cease and assist so then what happened with that one because they didn't come before us I don't know I don't know what ever happened to it I don't know if they ceased it or if they I don't know if they did they ceased or assist it but they never came to appeal it never came to appeal it no I know if I might I know that one that Ralph sent out season just was a few months ago you're at the end of the season and she had contacted me and said she wasn't going to be renting out anyway oh until next year so it's next year it'll be a whole different thing okay yeah cuz I got somebody asked me because oh is it is it are you are you sending them out everywhere and I be able to make money I'm looking for this no I mean they wish do they could but they don't do it it's going to have shortterm Ral it's a business I mean they do make they I think it's time for a glass of wine short rentals pay a okay I see I have a I have an update on the on the zoning boards legal fees how much have we take for fiscal 24 and the first quarter of 25 we're in now uh for 24 35 Old Harbor Road was $634 uh 581a drift Road was $1250 and we had a general invoice for 11250 and we had short-term rentals for $327 and then spin away was 40 uh $4,050 yes wasn't so bad and so far this year uh in fiscal year 25 um we had uh Pine Ridge Estates for 470 and 40b for 68150 there were two more line items on uh fiscal 25 and fiscal 24 charged uh when I looked at him because Paul sent me the email and uh I said Paul we didn't have anything for bricks Landing for $1,269 and she goes oh no no that's that's built to as own and off you got to take that off so we took that off and then I looked down to the 24 one hey we didn't have uh Wildberry Lane for $2,825 cents oh yeah that's the zoning officer too one of them was the final review for Briggs Landon by the zoning uh the building department mhm and the other one was a review for Wildberry it goes under zoning because it's the zoning enforcement officer correct yes but but no they're separate building department and us are separate he reviews things okay but the thing to remember is we did well there we're we're we're we're only a short period in into 25 and we already have a th000 and it's it's all 40b and it's yes and it's going to be it's going to be you're now you're wrong I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting I second that all in favor I okay Val thank you