Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Great. We can go ahead and open uh June 10th, 2025, Littleton Conservation Commission. And we are hearing this evening via Zoom. So, let's go ahead and get going. Um what I'd like to do is to start with the approval of minutes. I know it's been a little bit, but um hopefully everyone had a chance to read both sets. I'd like to go ahead and start with May 13th, 2025. Does anyone have any changes that they would like to make? I believe I just had one or two. Anyone have any ahead? A couple of minor ones for this. under the public hearing for 64 Beaverbrook Road. Um the third sentence in it says the commission requested asked that the wetland crossing comply. So I just removed the asked and then down below under let's see under the discussion of the conservation parcel U7-208 um it says Mr. Pearson noted that if the commissioner votes to approve, it should just be the commission. And towards the end of that paragraph, I just have um let's see when it talks about the uh the property was deed to John Mcweeny by Daniel Mweeny by deed recorded at should really be within book 12395 page 13. And that's all that I had. And then Tim, I just had one on page three, second line. It says, "Commission came to a consensus that they do not have an issue with the dock being stored with the buffer zones." It should be add the word within the buffer zones. Does anyone else have any changes or suggestions for May 13, 2025? No.

If not, may I have someone to move to accept the minutes as amended? I move that we accept the minutes as amended. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Carl. All those in favor? Roll call vote. Uh, Michael Michael Livingston. I Carl Carlber. Sarah. Sarah Seawward. I And was Ed here a second ago? He was. That's okay. We still have quum. Okay. And I'll also vote I. So, we have unanimous in favor. Okay, great. Thank you. Let's go ahead and move on to the May 27, 2025 um minutes for conservation. Does anyone have any changes that they would like to make or suggested changes? I've got a handful of them. Uh so, let's see. under conservation commissioner term expirations. Um the very last sentence it says ultimately uh it says while the select board ultimately makes the appointment then the candidate it should have an s on the end candidates would be sworn in at the town clerk's office. Um under the next paragraph it says CPC project updates. It says that I updated the commission. Uh it's got a capital T on the 'the'. Uh that the frog pond invasive plant control. I took out the application and frog pond got rid of that. So it just reads uh that the frog pond invasive plant control and walkway projects were approved at town meeting. Um and then under the public meeting uh RDA for a cricket lane the second to last sentence it says that Sarah suggested a site and then it doesn't say visit next to it so site visit so the

commission can confirm um let's see for 76 Hartwell Avenue uh it said the commission was notified after the fact that the public notice did not run in the newspaper. I just said the public notice for this hearing did not run in the newspaper, right? The applicant not paying. And then I just said the bill in time. And then I just added a quick sentence. The hearing will be rescheduled for and formally opened on June 10th. And sorry, I just had a couple more. Yeah. No, that's fine. I've got Yep. Keep going. Um, under requested uh request for amended order of conditions for Forge Pond. Yep. Um I have about halfway down the clean lakes committee is currently going through the approval process with D. Mr. Pearson stated that it says state national heritage and then the next sentence down conditions were discussed that the order will be valid for one year and I just put and would require any reporting and then the very last sentence I've got that I motion to issue an amended order of conditions uh to include the use of herbicides and diver assisted suction harvesting. I put a comma there and then it says subject to reporting and I put and see dredging permitting. Um cuz I know we had identified that. Um then the next uh key to public hearing for blood road. Uh the second sentence in it says any disturbed areas resulting with the from the removal of the poles will be receded with the New England roadside. This I wasn't sure if this was was supposed to be roadside mix. It says roadside matrix. Um I think mix. Yeah, mix. Yeah. And then um it says all excess soils removed from the utility trench will be removed from the site and stored at and the has

a capital T for the electric Littleton electric light and water department. And then get rid of the S on water departments. Uh and then finally the very last uh notice of intent 65 Brew Street about halfway down it says the commission suggests pulling the erosion controls. It's got one L. Just going to add another L in there. Uh the commission raised concerns about where materials um and removed fill will be stored. It's got a question mark. We just make a period. And then the very last sentence for the next meeting, the commission has just got the capital T and the 'the' again. And we're good after that. Okay. I would ask Andrew if you could forward those to Tim. I had one more if we can make note um of the adjournment time on the last page as well. If we can kind of add that in. Does anyone else have anything that they would like to add to those changes? If not, do we have a motion to accept as amended? I'll make a motion that the commission um approve the meeting minutes of May 27th as amended. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Michael. All right. Roll call vote. Uh Carl, I'm over. Ed. Oh, Ed, I think you're on mute. Yep. And you are. There you go. I'm having some technical difficulties, I think. But in any case, Ed's eye. Uh, Michael. Michael, let me say I. Sarah. Yeah. Sarah Seawward. I myself. I. It's unanimous. Okay, great. Thank you for doing that. Um, okay. Administrative discussions request for a certificate of compliance 26 Dear Run Road, DP number

204-0884. Tim, can you speak to that? Sure. I actually have have Dana here um who's going to run over some of the some of the things um with this request. So, I got this request um and noticed on my sitewalk a couple uh disparities between the Asel plan and the existing conditions, notably um the shed location. Um there's an area designated as supposed to be crushed uh either crushed stone or crush crushed ga gravel. Um and that um is existing patio. Um the driveway on the approved plan is um uh gravel uh existing. It is it's paved and and the footprint kind of extends a little outside of of um where it was approved. Then there's also an existing uh pa pathway towards the outer uh edge of the the 100 foot buffer. Um I have the plan here. Um if you'd like I can I could share my screen and I think you all will notice that um in your email packets from David Ross and Associates they had sent along three photos and some notations. Um, is there someone from Ross to speak to this or? No, it's just me here today. Okay. Um, and Tim, do you have the photos of all the areas in question in addition to the deck? I mean, the um the bottom of the deck. Um, I I don't have any additional photos other than the ones that were provided by by Ross. Okay. And you you have the applicant on Yep. Yeah, it's Dana. He's He's here. Okay. Dana, do you want to speak to all these changes from what was originally approved? Yeah. So, the uh the driveway

uh to be honest, I didn't think I thought it was all outside of the the buffer zone, all slopes away from the lake, and I just didn't uh didn't occur to me. It wasn't in the original budget for us and uh turned out to be something we were able to do and it it didn't occur to me that that would need to be uh run by you guys. Um and then the crushed stone uh area I I that's something that I didn't know was proposed in the original plan. If if you look at it, it would make no sense to put a crush stone area right in front of the door. So, I kind of was relying relying upon David Ross to not do stuff like that. I'm I'm not a civil engineer or professional in this area. Um, but it was already a um concrete area, so why I would take the area right in front of my door and make it um crushed stone is a little bit peculiar to me. have photos of the driveway. What was that? Do you have photos of the driveway? Uh, I think or is there a plan? Uh, I think it was updated uh on the package that he sent over I can. Yep. If you want to share that. Yeah, give me a second. And then do we have photos of the patio prior to the new concrete? Uh I I do not Sarah. No. Okay. So you guys can see my screen, right? Yeah. Uh perfect. So, after I I talked um to Dan Wolf over at at Ross about these um deviations in the plan, um he did move and and the plan's a little

confusing cuz it's overlaying the the approved plan with the uh original asbuilt and then the the deviations um that got corrected on on the latest version of the asbuilt. So, it's a little confusing. Um but you can see right here is the um location of the the new shed um or the relocated shed. Um the approved location is is right here. Um the previous location it used to be right here before it was relocated. This area right here is the area of of crushed stone. Um that is existing patio right now. Um, I will note there is a little area um I noticed it when when walking um on the side of the house under the the patio that is crushed stone um right about here. Uh I I'm not sure um the extent of of how large that area is. Um mainly because I I couldn't I couldn't see all of it. Um the I'm trying to see where the the gravel driveway the the the main expansion um of the driveway um further than than what was approved is is it goes a little bit back into this area to the to the right of the house over by uh the septic. Um whereas it was only approved to be about this boundary right here. And again, it's I'm sorry this is super confusing. It's it's a really a and I I think for the commissioners um with it, it would have to be a colored plan to be able to truly understand the before and after and the impacted areas. Commissioners, what are your thoughts on this? Well, that to me I think we need an up. We don't have an updated plan showing

where the where the actual location of these are, do we? Or because like Tim was struggling kind of Yeah, it's some of the locations are are updated, but it's tough because there's, you know, I've got three locations for for sheds on here, so it's it's a little I don't and I and I appreciate Tim trying to do this. It's not Tim's job to try and um go through these plans when they're not colored or you don't have someone representing them to um Mr. Kilpatrick, I I would ask that either you or your engineer submit something that's colored and can present all the the changes so we know what is impervious versus pvious as well. They he outlined the changes in the um letter that he wrote very specifically. Yeah, but they're not shown on the plans from what I can tell. Tell at least we can't tell where they are. Well, so I mean I can you can I can show you where they are, but the the thing is so what are what are the and sorry I I'm looking at this and trying to look what are the runoff numbers in terms of are we now into storm water management because it's now paved with the proximity to the wetlands. Are you asking me this? Yes. Every all of the pavement slopes away from the um w the from the lake and I would say 98% of it is not in the buffer. And you're referring to the 100 foot buffer or the 0 to 50? The 100 foot buffer. I'm outside of the 100 foot buffer. Okay. On 90 98% of it. There's a

small strip next to the house that is in the 50 to 100 that I didn't really think of. Okay. Yep. I think you can. So, this note right here, it says asbuilt paved driveway right here. It's this dotted line that runs all the way up. Actually looks like it runs a little bit over the septic um to the side of the house and outside here. So, so the area within the the 100 would be this area right here. Correct. And the the other uh the other impervious um I believe it's impervious is this this PA walkway. Dana, do you know is that an imper imperous PA walkway or is it pvious? It's pvious. It's just pavers. It's they lay right on the ground. I again I don't Is that something that I would need to run by you guys? Is it within the 100 foot buffer? Rocks. Yes, pavers are within the 100 foot buffer, but they they're just rocks sitting on sand. Right. So I think just to understand. So there are some pavers that allow water to penetrate and then there's some that are literally locked in that meant is meant for water to shed over them. And so that's why the commission always asks that what type of pavers they are. Got it. Okay. Yeah. No, these are uh there's cracks in them that the water gets and seeps into. I put them down. Thank you. Commissioner's questions. wasn't built to what was originally agreed.

I I agree. We're looking at something that wasn't approved. I'm with Sarah. There needs to be a before and after. You know what? This is extremely close. I mean, I don't know if you guys have ever built a house, but it's very difficult to think of all these things in the middle of all the chaos that's going on. I'm not arguing that point at all. I I We didn't We didn't touch We didn't touch anywhere. We left an existing uh stone wall. We didn't go anywhere near the lake in terms of disturbing what was already there. M. So, what we're here to do, Mr. Kopatrick, is to make sure that under the Wetlands Protection Act that when you go from a gravel driveway to a paved driveway that there's not going to be any future um implications with water runoff. And so, right, was outlined in the letter that the um that Dan Wolf wrote that everything is away from the lake, tilted backwards away from the lake, all runoff. And in a hurricane, is it all still going to go away from the lake? What's that? In a hurricane, will it still all go away from the lake? I would assume. Yeah. I mean, it's very it's the that's the way the property is that the way it's graded. Yeah. And topography of the land all goes away from the lake. I'm looking at the letter from Ross and Associates. The plan that was revised that we're looking at now was the June 2nd, 2025 asbuilt.

Let me confirm this. Sarah, it should be. Yes, that's correct. And the original order of conditions was issued April 10th, 2019. How long has this been paved? Uh 20 uh maybe maybe 2020. Okay. Commissioners, what would you like to do? This is still a discussion. This is not This is a request for certificate of compliance. Would any commissioners like to go out to verify or ask anything else of the uh Gilpatrick's with the plan? It seems like Tim has already gone out and done a fairly thorough job, but the plan the plan's really difficult for me to Yeah, it's just really hard for me to figure out what's going on. Well, I mean, to me, it's it's the two deviations are the pavement on the left and can you can you uh circle that for everybody? Uh Tim, yeah, give me a second here. or excuse me on the right. Oh, so the pavement over here. Yep. And then the the uh square of crush stone further towards the lake that was um that that's a concrete slab now and it was prior to the plans. But right in front of that is a sliding door. So, I you know, I'm not a um professional when it comes to looking at these drawings. And I, if I had known that that was being proposed, I would have never uh said that that would was okay. I didn't I that was kind of new. I was totally caught off guard when Tim brought it to my attention.

But you you were the current owner when the 2019 order of conditions was issued. Correct. Correct. But I I didn't real and I didn't realize that that was being proposed in the plan. It didn't occur to me to check with the engineers that they weren't putting brush stone in front of my door, my egress. And then the lower as we look at this plan on the lower right corner, the shaded block versus the square. What is that? Mine. That's my septic tank, I believe. So, your driveway is going over the septic. Uh, no, it's just off. Well, probably going over part of it. Yeah, that's what it looks like. And Okay. And that's okay with board of health. Um, I mean, I can still access it's got all the the um things I need to clean it and etc. Okay, commissioners, what we would like to do there, you have in front of you a request for certificate of PL compliance. The option is Yep. Go ahead. I I just don't feel I'm in a place to vote. Yay. Okay. What other commissioners say, what what what would what do the other commissioners what our thoughts on this? I think at a minimum for the file, we'd at least want something clearly delineating what was uh different from what was approved in the order of conditions in 2019. Uh because when we look back at this, it's not going to match. When we look at the order of conditions and the plan that was filed

with the original notice of intent, it's it's going to look a little wavy. So you have here an ASB bill. What would you like to to have an overlay so that you can take the the 2019 and then the 2025 so that is of record with the changes or what would you I'd like I'd like the commission to think a little bit about my my wallet here when we think about all these drawings. I he he had to come out twice on this already and we understand that but we also have to follow what we are commissioned to do. In in his opinion in his opinion these drawings were sufficient and he's been doing this he was been doing this a very long time as far as I know. I'm pretty sure that I've been doing it the same time as Dan Wolf has been doing it. Okay. So we we t we typically expect a little bit more from Ross and Associates. Been working with them for a long time. They know what we want. They know that we would expect an overlay and a plan that is colored to denote where the buffer zone is as well. Right. All right. Commissioners, we have to get going. So what would you like to do? Sounds like the consensus is we need an overlay plan or something to mark what it was originally supposed to be and what it is now. But we've kind of two areas anyway. We can So we have two options. We can ask for further information or we can take a vote on the request for certificate of compliance. If you're asking us to take a vote, we can do so. I I I I mean I I I I'm not quite clear on what is not clear on the plans and from my advantage.

So I mean there's there's a there's a couple things I you have the I mean just for as an example here we have notes existing shed proposed or to be removed right and then we have another note over here on the the shed in this location saying uh proposed relocated shed and then another uh box here that says asbuilt shed. So it's it's a little confusing. Um well we what we we proposed to move it over there and then we moved it there. Right. But we have a lot of So when you have an asbuilt, you do not have proposals on asbuilts. Okay. Well, this is how they prepared it for me. Okay. So, we're going to move on. So, I encourage you to talk to Ross and Associates. They can listen to this recording and they will understand what we're going. So, we're not going to take a motion to vote on this at this moment. We're going to carry on to our 7, it's now 8:00. We're going to go to our 740 public hearing which is a request for amended order of conditions Long Lake Docks D204-10001 regarding dock storage. Who would like to speak to that? I'm promoting Tim Makowski right now. Good evening everybody. Hi Tim. Sorry to keep you waiting. Ah all good. So if you would like to kind of pick up where we left off at our last meeting that would be great. [Applause] So this is actually the first um No, in terms of what we had asked, hadn't we

asked for some information prior or is this the Sorry. So I believe Sarah and Tim can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh we had discussed uh where the docks were currently being stored. Um, and as far as the reason for the amended order conditions, um, when this was voted on last year, uh, it was a clerical error that the, um, that the information that was put into the order conditions was written as it was. Yep. So, Yep. So, go ahead, Jim. Yep. At the last meeting, um we had we had a discussion about how we um would would like to go about this this change to the language and um the commission uh voted that they would like to see it as a request uh for an amended order of conditions specifically to go over that language that that says the docks um shall be stored outside of the buffer zones. So, commissioners, let's go ahead and have some discussion about this as well. And um I have been asked by Diane Corey to submit into record um comments and photos submitted um by Rob Browns as as well. Um, commissioners, let's go ahead and have discussion, our thoughts on the storage and uh, the amendment that's requested. Um, perhaps Tim, if it might be easy just to do a recap of um, proximity to um, buffer zone and wetlands right now in terms of storage and perhaps if you ever had an opportunity to look at other

potential locations for them as well. Yeah, absolutely. So, right now we are uh Tim and I went out and measured it. I believe we're 17 feet uh inside of the 50 foot. Um to get outside the 100 foot would be pretty difficult without moving them completely off the boat ramp. Uh as far as storage goes, historically the docks have always been stored there. even prior to my tenure at park and wreck uh when they were the other docks that existed. Um it's a little difficult to put these docks kind of anywhere else right now. Um we did briefly discuss in one of the meetings, I think it was two or three meetings ago, you know, storing them up towards the building where the tight tank is. Um and uh you know we never did get any information on what the load could be put uh on top of that area uh because it is an existing it is the existing septic area as well uh that was closed off when it failed. Um I know in Mr. Ron's uh letter that he submitted via Dian Curry today uh it was suggested that we truck not only the docks but the boats over to the 36 King Street property. um which obviously everybody um can see that that would probably add significant cost as well as parking rep does not have the means to be able to do that. Uh if we were to move the docks over to the main parking lot, uh same thing, it would take up parking in the main parking lot as well. Um because one of the points that was brought up was it does take up parking spaces on the boat ramp. Um most of the time the dock is stored there. Uh the boat ramp is closed for the season. uh the boat ramp gets locked up as soon as we get first ice on the lake. Um so you know for a very limited amount of time the dock takes up space and uh to the point of one of the

conservation commissioners last year or last week meeting um you know the dock is stored on the resource for most of the season. Uh we're currently going through the chapter 91 water licensing through the state of Massachusetts uh to put that in which will give us our 15-year permit to have the docks at Long Lake, which is the new process that was established this year. Um and currently, you know, there there is no other solution for the actual storage um of the docs. Tim, is there a process when they're taken out of the water to have them cleaned prior to stored to remove? We actually pressure wash them when we take before we put them in, not before we take them out because they sit all year. Um, or they sit the couple months that they do on the boat ramp. Um, so we that's when we clean the docks. I guess I was thinking when we pull them out if they have any invasives on them, if they're pressure washed, when they when they come out and when they're sitting in the resource area was my question on that. So, I'm not an expert on invasives. However, I can tell you that uh when we pull the docks out, the only thing that's on them is a little bit of green and brown algae. Uh there's no zebra muscles, there's no plant matter. Um that part of the reason that we went with the system is the plastic is extremely um uh not thinking of the word right now. It's very resistant to anything growing on it. Okay, perfect. Thank you for that. Okay, commissioners um questions or comments on this. So, yeah, I just had a couple of questions. Um, especially digging into

Rob's, um, very well thoughtout email this afternoon. I was just curious when it comes to the new material that was authorized by CBC this past time around, what would the footprint expand to with the new doc material added to the existing site? It's approximately the same amount of material. Uh so it would extend almost to the end of the uh that railing that extends to like Metabrook. It essentially be two more stacks. So the existing pile would go much further up the driveway like the same width and height. Correct. It would be So we have two We have two and a half stacks now. There'll be additional two stacks approximately like 17 feet long in length. Yeah, I think they're Yeah, they're close to that. And how high, Tim, would they be then? Uh, we stack them about they're probably about six, seven feet tall when we stack them. It's uh six or seven um sections. So, one of one of the other things just so the commission is aware uh why we don't move them that far is uh especially for the sailing dock um the the last four blocks are ballasted. So, there are two blocks that are halfway ballasted and the second uh the two blocks closest to the water are fully ballasted. So, some of those sections weigh upwards of like 1,200 lb. Okay. Okay. Um Rob, I just want to acknowledge I see your hands up and we'll once the commissioners are done with their questions, we'll entertain other other questions as well. Okay. Um commissioners, um Andrew, are you satisfied with that reply? So I'm I'm

just curious. So, we're looking at the existing footprints or entrance into the buffer going from 17 ft into the 50 foot to about 51 ft from the shoreline. Am I Am I getting that right? Up to the Meadow Brook uh railing. So right uh Tim when we were there where the docks were stacked we had to move them back 17 ft to get outside the 50. Get outside the 50. Right. So if we shifted the entire pack back, Andrew, we could get outside the 50 even with the new docks. Okay. If we could get outside of the 50, would that be doable? Oh, 100%. Yeah, that's why Tim and I went down. I just wanted to have an idea of where it would need to be. So, if we shifted the current pack backwards 17 ft and stacked everything behind it, we would be outside the 50 entirely even with the new dock. Um, yeah, the only other the only other option, and you know, this is where it comes into, you know, it's off to the side, there's parking available. the only other option is to stack them where the tra the boat trailer parking is at the back of the ramp. Um but then you know originally when the gentleman who had owned that house who has since passed away um he he had requested we not stack them there just to avoid blocking the view of the lake and where they were. That's why we put them against that rail where they were because that was the least invasive to just line of sight for anyone. Gotcha. And with this new placement, this would open up the access to the boat ramp a bit more for people coming in to use it. So, we don't block the boat ramp at all with the docks as far as like there are

the parking spots that are on the impervious pavers that are adjacent to the guardrail, but there's the boat and trailer parking. There's the two spots that are in front of the snack shack. Um, there's the spots behind the snack shack. Um, we've never had a complaint about parking when the docks are out of the water. And like I said, that that boat ramp gets locked from the time the ice hits the lake to the time that uh the ice goes off the lake. And ultimately, it's the decision of fish and game when it gets closed. Um, there is a life jacket requirement once the water gets below a certain temperature. Uh sometimes they close it at that point and sometimes they keep it open a little later. Uh they definitely do call us as soon as people start asking for access in the spring and that's just typically when we unlock it as long as the ice is out. But that's that's how it's worked. Gotcha. I'm I'm much more comfortable knowing that it'll it'll be outside of the 50. Um but I'm curious uh to see what Rob has to say as well. Um, so Andrew, one thing I will note is it's outside of the 50ft buffer zone of of Long Lake. Um Rob identified in a previous um meeting or or maybe it was a submission to us that there is a hydraological connection um coming from Long Lake or not coming from Long Lake, actually going into Long Lake um from an outfall that um daylights. It's it's tough to to describe where it actually is without showing the the imagery. Um, let me see if I could pull up the imagery here and and and you all will notice that was in your packet with the letter that Diane Corey submitted um based on Rob's um email. You'll see it on the last page. Yeah.

And for those of you who don't know, um that is the outfall that was created at the same time as the frog bomb was created. So that was created by the state when that whole project was done. uh for rainwater that's coming off of Goldmith, Metobrook, and uh that um east side of the Long Lake neighborhood. And what is the proximity uh approximately from that outfall to the storage of the docks, maybe six feet? Okay. Doubt that I could lay down between the docks and that u but yeah, there's the guardrail adjacent to the boat ramp. So that that whole project was done. uh the outfall, the boat ramp, and the frog pond at the same time. So, I'm going to share my screen here and so you guys can get a better idea of of the location of this. Um, so the the outfall is back by here. I think you could see the the concrete slab and it drains all the way down here into Long Lake. So, although moving the docks further up um towards what is it? Lake View um would move it outside of the 50 foot of of Long Lake. It would still be within 50 feet of um this this drainage area. Um I guess no matter how far it was was moved up as long as it's still kind of hugging um this area. So we're always going to be in the 50 of one of the two resource areas if it's Yeah. if it's confined to this um area, general area. I guess my question too that we had brought up before is as far as the the maps are considered that's that area is not delineated as a wetland area um on anything,

you know, that that was a man-made structure that was put in, but it has a connection. I was just asking that for just knowledge. Yep. It's actually feeding. So whenever even if you create it, whenever you're feeding um a resource, it's considered a hydraological um connection there. Yep. Thank you. Commissioners, questions on this so we can Yeah. I I I um I'm just curious the the tight tank right now. If I'm looking at the map that Tim has up on the screen, is it located anywhere near where the boats are stored? Like Tim, your your cursor, is that where the titank is? No, it's it's about an inch above that. So, where the Pstone is? Yep. So, those are actually the boats stacked, Andrew. the white to the to the bottom of the building there where the cursor is now. That area right there where the boats are stacked and you can kind of see where the grass and the pestone meet. Uh just a if you go down like Yep. Right there. That's the tight tank right there. Andrew. Gotcha. Because if anything potentially suggest um like in Rob's letter, maybe we could move the boats to the new site on King Street and maybe move the de the docks up and over into that area. But I don't know what a tight tank can and Yeah. I mean any any movement off the property, if we move the boats, the boats would probably go in the the main parking lot. I mean there's they're also not light and there's transportation costs that go with that. So we don't have, you know, a trailer or anything else that, you know, to move the boats over to King Street. And um yeah, they would probably, you know, just reading that at 3:55 this

afternoon, they that stuff would just go in the main parking lot and take up space there. The main parking lot in Becca Town Hall or the new No, the main parking lot at the beach. We wouldn't move any of those resources from the beach. We don't we don't have the staff or the or the transportation to do that. Gotcha. I in the public interest. Can you and I'm I'm just trying to ask here. Are you allowed to do that, Tim? What? To to move the the boats for storage in a parking lot? Don't we have to have for the town's people some parking spots open in what we cons what you would consider the off season as well? Yeah. But to the left of the bath house, uh as it sits here, that's where the old track used to sit. We would just stack them right there. So, it wouldn't be necessarily taking up people's parking spots. I mean, the same argue could be made for King Street or anywhere else that we put them. You know, we're just getting into that building. I don't even know how many parking spots are required for that particular space. Okay. Yeah, I was just trying to understand parking. Yeah. Um, it could be made to work uh wherever it went. um the you know stacking those on the Pstone like I said I don't know what the amount of weight can be put onto those um the other thing is is as far as getting things in and out of there you know it's easy enough to work with highway but all of those boulders that are lined up there to prevent cars from driving so we need to move those before we can drive a loader up there to put dock on top of that in in terms in terms of like putting like let's say we didn't shift the boats over to the parking lot, would this dock material possibly fit as well or is that just a a non-starter?

Um, so just the dock when it fit there, just so everybody knows, we planted a big maple tree kind of right in the middle of that grass area. Um, so right now if you were to go down there, all the boats, the zodiacs are parked there, the tree is there. Um, we would have to move the boats in order to put the docks there. Good. Um, other commissioners questions. Michael, Ed, Carl, Kyle, I know you're you're with us again. So, just to summarize that, we're trying to decide where to move those gray things that are by the 50 in the picture there. And, you know, do we want to move them further up in that same line up to, you know, like where the A is to get them out the out of the 50? It's that that's what our discussion is down to. Yeah. And I I think um the other problem though is we have that other resource area nearby as well. The the one um feeding in um if there was a way to get the the docks out of both 50 foot areas that would be amazing. I just don't know how we can configure it. Um can I ask a stupid question? You can ask any type of question. These docks are in the water all summer. So, they're already part of the 50, part of the part of the zero. So, why are we concerned about them being stored where they are? This was the argument I brought up two meetings ago. I don't know why we we've continued that. That's my exact viewpoint. That was why I mentioned that during our discussion. Um, from my viewpoint, if we're putting these in the resource

area, so I understand I think it's on my end, it's more of a paperwork exercise and we need to find a way to validate our submitting a waiver, right? We need they if they're going to be within the 50, then they need to submit a waiver for their order of conditions, right? I'm sure Chase, I'm just moving you over. Okay. Sorry. Sorry, Chase. We didn't see that you joined us. So, Chase is now back with us. Okay, Chase. Okay, let's go ahead while we're pondering this. Rob, you're permitted to talk if there's any question you'd like to ask. If not, that's fine as well. I know you lowered your hand. Okay. I'd like to uh if Tim Pearson could put up the map again. I just like to clarify of Tim Mcowski. I see the two the two sets of the docks. And Rob, before we do, can you just officially um announce your name and your address, please? Yes. Robert Brown's 25 Juniper Road. Appreciate your time. Um, so the the two sets of um the off-site storage right now, as you consider um the additional purchases, are you saying there's just going to be two additional sections that are going to do the entire lengths that are that are anticipated to be purchased or are we basically saying these two are going to be now tripled? because I you you'll have a total of four stacks if not four and a half max. Okay. All right. I appreciate that. So um to the commissioners then I just as I think Andrew articulated others have as well the aspect of I'm thinking that this qualifies from a wetland within the 50 and seemingly

unless it's in the public interest you come to terms you I don't understand how residents are pretty much challenged to resolve problems inside of 50 or resolve them in a way that doesn't exist. Um, and the last point that I'd like to make is with regard to the uh the visual that you're seeing, how tight it is with regard to the public interest to use that boat ramp. Um, the docks were just put in the water. I don't know Tim McKowski can say, but I'd say within the last month, and they'll be removed from the water typically by Labor Day. and and yet the offseason the shoulder seasons are used extensively and you know just a trailer um with a truck there's just not that many spaces there. So the space that the offseason storage of these docks in this area it's extremely tight. I I appreciate Tim Mckowski saying haven't heard complaints, but I'm there quite frequently and see, you know, multiple trailers and and boats and in some ways the space should be open and available encouraging the use of Long Lake and the boat ramp. And so I appreciate your time. Those are the points I wanted to make in addition to what you've already seen me submitting. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners questions, comments for Tim. So, just out of clarity, um, as this area looks, we're looking at two sections of docks and then with I believe what Rob had just asked. So, that there was going to be four more that will be added. Is that four more

stacks or four more sections of cubes that represent a dock? So to clarify, with the square footage that has yet to be purchased, uh you would have two to two and a half additional stacks making four total, four and a half total. Can you define stack? Is it is one of these? Uh so each of those So you see two there, that's a stack. So, one stack, two stack, we would have two additional stacks, maybe another half stack. So, you would have four or four and a half total. If you were to look at these from the aerial with the new purchase, you would see four of those. So, the competing want to be clear that commissioners understand that. So, what you're looking at now is not going to be representative of what the future will be. So, we're kind of splitting hairs whether we move it towards the A because then we're still doubling the size of those stacks. So, the I think what we're looking at is what we're picturing now, but you're asking us to look down the road for the new purchases as well. Will the new purchases, Tim, have ballasts in them as well, or is it just the end sections that will have the ballast? So none of the new sections will be ballasted and that was one of my points I made two meetings ago. Um the the section that the conservation uh commission had actually requested and we had talked through that we purchased was for the replacement of the fishing dock off a lake shore. Yep. Um you know that could be something if it was at your behest. Now, it would be easier to store that over on that parcel that we were suggesting might be a good canoe storage or something like that. Uh, so we don't have to bring it all the way over to the boat ramp. Um, you know,

there's there's opportunity for that to have other other places. Is there opportunity for the future stack to be outside of a jurisdictional area? I mean, anything's possible. Okay. So, I I want to be clear. What we're looking at here is for request for a certificate of compliance. I believe it is what we are looking at and not looking at the future for a request for compliance. But Andrew, can you correct me on that? So, tonight, uh, park and wreck is essentially looking for an amended order of conditions, right? basically striking the 50 foot um requirement um from the uh the placement of the docks in relation to the the lake and the wetland. And ideally, I mean, it would be great to get these out of the 50. Um I'm just trying to So, just so everybody's clear, just to kind of give everybody a reference point. So to get out of the 50, the front section of the first dock would really be lined up with the number one just so everybody has a reference point of what that looks like. That's just out of the of the Long Lake 50, right? Not not out of the not out of the the drainage swell. Yes. Moving them to that spot though does address what Rob Rounce was just talking about making it easier to get uh boat trailers down the ramp. Correct. Yeah. And just so everybody's aware, there's 28 feet from the from the docks to where the canoes are. There's plenty of room to back a boat trailer down. We don't we don't obstruct any of the actual boat ramp with those docks. It does take up two car parking spaces, right? Um just so everybody's aware, like each of those sections is a little larger than a car. If you were to park your car there with space to get

something out of the back of it, essentially those two two dock spaces take up the same amount of space as two cars. Yeah, that's the the favorite area, right? It has like the the concrete blocks and pavers. So there's cars parked there during during the normal hours. There's cars parked there. So those obstructing space just as much as these docks are. Is that part of the problem of that whole kind of smooth gray area is access for backing in boat trailers and parking? Yes. And I actually when we just did the update with fishing game, so the the area that's closest to the rock wall uh by parcel number 52, we actually just had the boat trailer parking signs reinstalled there. Somebody had stolen them during CO. Um, so there are two signs now that clearly delineate delineate boat trailer parking only. Um, the spots in front of the snack shack, there's uh two parking spaces uh where the Zodiac is parked right next to where the number 150 is next to the canoes. And then on a good day, you can fit about six cars along that guard rail. And worst case, you drive around the corner and park in the main parking lot. Yes, during the off season, anybody can park there. Anybody can park on Lake Shore uh as well. There's ample parking on Lake Shore and Lake. There's uh six spots. So, we're not really worried about taking up two or three more parking places with adding those stacks. It's really about moving them away from out of the 50 or away from that other resource area, which isn't going to happen because there's nowhere to put them, right? So, I don't feel comfortable adding two more stacks in this resource area. So, I would like to have this really focus on what is here and now versus what's going to be in the

future. I recognize it's a request for amended order and um I just Sarah if I may I I would the reason I led with you know as far as talking about this we don't own the new material yet and like I said those are not going to be ballasted systems I think we have a lot more opportunity for where we could stack them and and how we could do I guess mine was it's easy it's easy like even if we shifted this all the way back y mine was more of a point of order because I don't I apologize I don't have the amended I don't have the order conditions in front of me of if that was just for these two stacks that we're looking to amend the order our Tim can you tell me that um yeah I mean the order is only referencing the docks that were permitted okay during that um okay that I just I just wanted to make sure so that we're clear that if we're going to amend this order, it is for what is currently um in location. They don't own the other two sets. So, uh let's Why are we talking about something you don't own? When you do or if you do buy them, you can come back and and and revisit this very lengthy discussion. So, I know that those docs are basically a guaranteed buy at this point. Um, so I mean they they will happen. Um, so I'm not sure, you know, going forward are we going to have to amend the order of conditions once again with the new docks and No, I think because that will be a new docking system. That's a totally different order of conditions. Yeah. And to the point that I made earlier, um, you know, it since those aren't ballasted, you know, that's something that would even be easier to

move with a loader. And whether they were stacked next to the bath house or found something out, um, that, like I said, we can figure that out and if that's the behest of the commission is to find a new place or, you know, that that can be arranged for. Can can I ask a question or excuse me here I guess clarify one thing um my opinion so our standard orders with respect to doc say we don't want you to store it in the 50 and that makes a lot of sense to me when you look at just look at the parcels to the south here right storing it in the 50s on vegetated land that could have a meaningful impact on the ecological resources I'm really struggling to understand what resource area impact there is from having these docks stored on an area that's already pavers. it listen like we wouldn't permit it to be this way as it is now if we were to revisit this whole thing maybe but the fact of the matter is it's it's pavers and I don't it to me in this situation whether we have the docks where they're currently pictured or we move them back it doesn't change any impact to the resource areas because they're they're being stored on this paved area so I I'm I'm really struggling willing to figure out why it matters when when there's no resource area. In fact, outside of this 50ft buffer that we can look at and and wave if we so choose. I think that's you're the third person to suggest that, Chase. [Music] Anyone in the public have any questions

or comments as attendees for this hearing? Commissioners, what are your thoughts? If someone would I move that we accept, if that's the right word, uh the request for amended order of conditions, Long Lake Docks, DP204101. I I guess sorry I don't mean to interrupt or cut you off. Can you clarify what the amended is and we've had so many different conversations. Are we moving them 17 ft out of the Long Lake resource there? Are we keeping them as they are? What is the actual amendment that we're making that you're moving it? I assumed the amended was keeping them where they were. But so that's why I'm asking right that's a great great question Kyle. Let's go back to our Tim. What is requested in that amendment? Yeah. So the the request would be to change the language within the special condition or within the order of conditions. Um currently it it says in the findings that the docs will be stored outside of the buffer zone. So I guess the request would be to amend the order of conditions and state that um they would I guess striking that language to leaving them where they are right now. that it's okay for them to be stored within a resource area. Yep. I mean, if we want within a buffer, they're not actually in the resource area, are they? That's not delineated.

So, well, they're they're in the 50. That's fine. That's just that's very different. I mean, they get used in the resource area, but currently they're in the resource area, right? That's that's been way too Okay, I'm sorry. I'd continue. I will second. That was what I put out there for um uh the motion. Okay, I second the motion. So, we have a first and we have a second by Kyle Andrew. Roll. Uh Chase. Chase car guy. Kyle Kyle Maxfield I Michael Michael I Carl I'm Ed Edai myself I it's unanimous sorry Sarah your Q over Sarah Sarah Sarah Tword I it's unanimous all right she's only the boss Tim Jim you're all good okay all right thank you guys for your time. And uh just so you know, when we do procure the new docs, I will put together a plan and let you guys know exactly where they're going to be stored outside of this area. Thank you. Thank you. Uh just as a point of clarity before I leave, um do we need to get a um uh Tim, what did we just do for the walkway certificate of compliance? Yep. You got a certificate of compliance for that? Yep. So that needs to get recorded. Yep. Okay. Thank you all for your time. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you. All righty. It's 8:35 and we're going to do our 7:45 continued public hearing request for amended order of conditions Foster Street reconstruction D204-0991 relocation of leeching catch basins. Who is here to speak to that? Hello. Good evening, uh, commission

members. U, my name is Aaron Keegan. I'm a project engineer for Faucet O'Neal representing the town for this project. And you are welcome to share your screen if you have something that you would like to put up. Uh yes, do that. And then Aaron, if you would like to discuss from our previous meeting what the requests were for you so you can carry on. Yes. Uh the previous uh hearing uh that we actually had two requests for the commission. The first was for permission to use herbicides to control and abate invasive plant species. However, um upon further review, Masot and the project contractor have uh requested to withdraw the use of herbicides request as an amendment. Um due to the project's schedule, they felt they needed to move forward with non herbicidal methods uh including burial and/or removal from the site and disposal in a approved facility for invasives. Um and so we're that request is being withdrawn and that leaves our second request which was the reduction in the number of uh leeching catch basins from previous five to one due to the dis the discovery of high seasonal groundwater uh that would not allow the installation of the catch basins where they were originally proposed. Uh the one catch basin that we are proposing is in a the one location where we did find groundwater uh to be of a sufficient depth below the surface. Uh in our uh most recent documents that we submitted, we submitted a map showing the test pit locations um where we looked for groundwater depth. Erin,

would you like to pull that that plan back up that you had for us last time that showed where the five were and where the one successful is going to be? Yes. Um, so the screen that I'm sharing now is Can you see the No, we don't see. We just have a list of your screens. There's nothing. Oh, okay. Um, I'm sorry. I thought um see there we go. Yep. So, if you can just do a quick overview of the five that were proposed that are now no longer and then the one that is successful to remain. Okay. Um your request is to go from 5 to one. Yes. Um Okay. So, this first location we're we're at Foster Street and Taylor Street. This is just a test bit location where we were looking for a possible alternate site. um the groundwater there was not deep enough. So there was neither a proposed nor um you know this is not a site where we can can put one but I just just wanted to mention that. Erin, you do have some people that weren't here at the previous Can you talk a little bit about what you needed for cover in terms of depth and water? Yes. So let me just go down to I brought um we submitted some details. This might help explain it. Uh the original uh project had uh five leeching catch basins. This is the ma mass standard structure. It's six uh 6 and 1/2 ft in depth. And in order for these to u successfully infiltrate

groundwater, you need at least 2 ft of um dry soil below the structure. Uh for the groundwater infiltration to happen. So the seasonal high ground water in this case needs to be 8t 6 in deep. that's 2 ft below the the structure. Um even if we looked at the smallest uh dry well or leeching catch basin is another term for it. This is the the smallest one that um they make that we can we can we would be able to procure. This one is it's a smaller structure but it still requires 5' 11 in um to be 2 ft below the the cement structure if this this is called a mini dry well if this were used. So, we're looking at 5' 11 in as kind of the minimum for this type of groundwater infiltration structure. Um, going back to the plans. So, we're moving on east from on Foster Street from Taylor Street. Uh, we're at the front edge of 305 Foster Street. So this was the proposed location of leeching catch basin one and the groundwater uh was found to be seasonal high ground water 48 in. So more shallow than the the 5' 11 even for the for the smallest leeching basin. Moving on east or sort of northeast to location of the second proposed leeching catch basin. This is uh kind of at the front edge of 29. Yeah, 295 Foster Street. Um groundwater is 38 in uh below surface elevation there. So again, more shallow than the 5 ft 11 in. Moving on uh to the next spot, we're across the street from 286 Frost Street.

Um this was the proposed location of leeching base number three. Results of estimated seasonal high ground were 38 in uh again too shallow. Moving on to we're now across actually this is inside the mass dot rightway that's um part of the route to overpass uh just east of Bal Kelly Road. Seasonal high ground water found to be 34 in. So again, too shallow. Um, and then here we are in the fifth uh previously proposed location. Uh, we're at the front edge of 265 Foster Street. This is pretty close to the railroad track crossing on just on the southwest side. Seasonal high groundwater found to be 36 in. So, the this uh here we are uh another another spot that we checked uh we had a test pit. This is actually right across the street from the MBTA property. Um and a test pit found water 60 in deep there. That's that's 5 ft. So, not quite deep enough. And then the remaining site where we did a test pit, this is um east of the MBTA property um and west of Balsam Lane. We did find this uh spot that's was 108 ft deep for the seasonal high groundwater. So we can actually at that at this spot we can fit in the fullsize Masto standard uh leashing catch basin. Unfortunately, you know, it's not the number that we were trying to install as part of the maximum extent practical to meet storm water standard number three for storm water recharge. Um, it just turns out that the maximum extent practical was not what we thought it

was. And again, we regret that we didn't test for uh seasonal high groundwater during design. Um but it was felt at the time that the the test pits could be rather deep and and somewhat invasive to the road that was you know open and operating the traffic. So we uh decided to do it you know during the early part of construction. Um and that that's more or less what we submitted. We submitted a letter from the from um a licensed soil evaluator in Mass who determined the groundwater elevations in addition to the construction details that I shared with you earlier um showing that the uh leeching basins themselves. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners have questions. I think it's unfortunate kind of lesson learned for us because during the preliminary stages we really spoke quite vigorously about how wet this area was and is. So commissioners have questions. I have a general comment I guess. Uh but by removing these leeching catch basins, what we're going to do is we're going to further deprive these resource areas on either side of the road of recharge water. We're going to fundamentally change the footprint of the wetlands when we do that. And I I I think an answer that simply says, "Nope, we're just going to take the easy route here and switch them out for something that doesn't address that concern is not acceptable. I I'm not sure I understand when you say fundamentally change the the footprint of the wetlands. We we don't have any

direct wetland impacts as part of the project. Um this was an attempt to provide some extra groundwater recharge. I I I understand what you mean. This entire area is lined with wetlands. So the purpose of these is to enhance the recharge so that the wetland complex is in the greater area, right? That that's why storm water standard 3 exists, right? We want to infiltrate as much as we can so that a we're not running it off, but b so that we are ensuring that the the resource areas in this vicinity that rely upon the groundwater being at the elevation that they are, we're no longer going to be recharging that water. And so it it's not necessary that these have to be exactly in a wetland complex. What you're what we're doing is ultimately depriving the groundwater of reinfiltration. We're now going to run this off and discharge it to a surface water body. Well, it it is. Yes, I agree with your statement. Um, we I mean I what I can say is that we're we're trying to provide the maximum extent practical with the high groundwater. We just we're we're limited with the narrowness of the road layout and we we we don't uh there really isn't a practical way for us to provide groundwater recharge with the width of the road corridor and the the the high depth of the groundwater. um we don't have space for example for you know a some kind of you know man-made basin um earth and basin um so we're just we're just meeting the maximum extent practical as a redevelopment project where we're struggling to meet and this is the best that we think we could do at the time you've submitted nothing to us except this switching out from

um recharging catch basins to standard catch basins to support that statement. I I appreciate what you're saying that in your mind the the only feasible alternative is to simply make this change out. What I'm telling you is you haven't substantiated that. You haven't defended that. You haven't explained that and you haven't justified why you can't meet this another way. What what this looks like to me is it's a lot easier to just flip these out than to go through the work to figure out how to achieve this outcome in the long run. And I I think here we should require if if you're really going to do this an alternatives evaluation to figure out how to do this correctly rather than just take the easy mode change. Okay. Well, I mean we can certainly, you know, work with the client to see, you know, what what more can be done. It it is it's a fairly you know um to go back to the the alternatives drawing board it's it's a you know it's it's something could be done but it it is a fairly costly endeavor which we can pursue if that's what the commission is recommending but listen that's that's my two cents I okay I'm one of half a dozen people here but I that's what I would prefer to see other commissioners I know we stated a lot of our concerns at the previous hearing that we were very perplexed with this. So, other commissioners, second Chase's comments, I would agree to Yeah, I agree. Well, and and just to kind of clarify or remind me, Erin, we I mean, you're creating additional impervious space from what's there. Correct. this road is either getting widened or there's a shared lane that is adding to the volume of or area square footage of imperous area through here. That's true. So

overall the the project adds about um6 acres spread out across the uh 7/10 of a mile corridor. We did submit as part of the original NOI a uh peak rate attenuation analysis for the water the uh wetland area at the intersection of Grimes Lane and Foster Street that showed a negligible increase based on the impervious the added impervious uh of the shared use path. Um but it is true that we are yes overall we are adding impervious right any other comments I'm just wondering what's happening now all right was adding the impervious adding the um recharging catch basins an attempt to make things better than what we have now or to mitigate the changes that are going to happen. Cuz I was my my question was going to be, well, where is all the water going to go if it's not going to be going into the recharge basins, you know, collecting underneath the highway down there or Oh, it's just going to go into a standard catch basin and then get dispersed wherever the outfall is, wherever this water goes. Correct. Right. So I I just wonder still is would this was this going to be an improvement over over what we have now or a mitigation for what's being changed? It was originally intended as a as a partial mitigation to the maximum extent practical to meet stormwater standard number three. Okay. So it was a little bit of both. Michael, I'm sorry. It's a little bit of both, right? It certainly would be better than what we have there now, but it was required from by the storm water, right?

But you you've also paved over 6 more acres, right? That's that's water that's going to get collected and get discharged somewhere else, right? Okay. Um Aaron, I I think that you have heard some of the comments from the commission. Um commission, what would we like to do? Can I can I just ask a clarification? Um, so is it is it my understanding so what's being asked for is uh some type of analysis that shows the recharge that the proposed basins would have provided and some type of some type of equivalent compensation for that or you know demonstration that it can't be done if if that's true. Chase, do you want to answer that? Yeah, my my expectation here is a feasibility evaluation to determine whether or not it can be done. Listen, Erin, if if at the end of the day it truly can't, and I'm not sure that it truly can't, but I'm I'm open to that outcome, then so be it. But I I think you need to prove that you can't achieve that recharge. And I think you need to look really hard at what you can achieve. Okay. And ultimately my interest what I'm expressing here is that I do not want to deprive the groundwater of water that feeds the the resources in the area. So it it's not just a storm water standard consideration here right to reduce flows but rather a you know regional aquafer recharge consideration. So to that end, I think what I'm trying to tell you, Erin, is if you could tell me, hey, I can't put it in right here, but if I move 2,000 ft up the road, I do have a little room for a catch basin. I

think that should be within the scope of your feasibility evaluation outside of the project limits. I mean, I I think everybody prefer you keep it inside of the project limits, but Okay. Okay. I mean we can certainly you know do more test pits um possibly again I'll have to talk to the client about um and the design team and or the construction team. What part of the reason why we you know I showed the map tonight you can see that the test bits that we did uh sample are like fairly the coverage is fairly complete. I mean we have on every page which is typically you know about 300 feet we have a test. So, I I don't I I'm not entirely hopeful that we'll find um space to replace the the four basins that we weren't able to install just based on the results that we're seeing already. Um but, you know, that's something we can try to prove it in in a more convincing way. Um there's a possibility. What I'm saying is I I'm skeptical that we'll be able to find enough spaces to install the the other four given the results that we've already seen. Understood. And I I don't think I don't think you should restrict yourself to answering this question just with recharging catch basins, right? that the overall objective here is to not deprive the greater wetland complexes in this area of any more water than we need to. How you guys want to evaluate that, that's up to you. On top of that, if you ultimately do a reasonable job of a feasibility study and conclude it just isn't possible, then maybe we're in a different place. But I'm I'm not sure that we've done our homework yet to justify that. Okay. So Erin, we meet again on June

24th and July 8th. What would you anticipate would be best for you and your client? Well, I'd like Yeah, I'd like to be on for the next meeting. Um I if if we're not able you to June 24th and um if it looks like that's not going to work for you within that time frame, just let Tim know accordingly. Okay, we will. I just one last one last uh statement if I may. Um so I I just want to make sure that we're not being held to a more strict standard than the original um you know permitting. We as a MAC a redevelopment project maximum extent practical I don't know that we'll be able to show that we can recharge all the groundwater from the additional impervious and we weren't doing that in in the original set of plans. Um but we can certainly look at can we replace the recharge that would have been provided by the the leion catch basins that we could not install. I think that's a reasonable basis to begin your evaluation. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Option also to decrease the additional impervious make basically make the road smaller. Oh, I'm afraid that that's that's not a practical consideration. U at this time, we've we've already minimized the actual road width per masked out and road safety standards. The shies path is also the minimum uh standard at 10 ft. Um and I'm afraid that we wouldn't be able to practically change the design to that extent at this time. Okay, we're going to carry on. Thank you, Aaron. Have a good night. All right. Thank you. the 8:57. We're going to go ahead and open up our 8:00 continued public meeting request of determination of applicability. 8 Cricut Lane, removal of six trees. I think Kyle and Tim have been out. Who's here to

speak to that? I'm promoting Linda Turner right now. Okay. Linda and Deb. Linda, so just so you know that you are muted and your camera is off. If you could at least unmute yourself and give us your name and address, that would be great. Sorry, I retired before Zoom was a thing. So, that's okay. If you can uh welcome back, if you can just state your name and address and we'll go from there. Linda Turner, 8 Cricut Lane. Okay, great. And Tim, I believe Tim and Kyle or you went out to the site. We did. Yep, it was me and Kyle. Um, we took a look at the at the trees um and the the loc location of where the proposed replantings would be. Um, one of the things we we did notice while we were out there um was a dock. Um, and um, I've since talked with uh with with Linda and and Deborah uh about um the need to to get that in uh or licensed uh as as part of this application. Um, so so Linda, I think it was Linda, sent over um this the specifications that we would typically look for um um when licensing the docs. Okay, great. And how did the trees look like? We're removing six trees.

Correct. Kyle, did you want to uh Sure. I I I had no um no concerns. They were more, you know, the one there was definitely one that had been struck by lightning and was starting to split. Um starting to lean towards the house even. Then the remaining three uh similar were all making that making that inward climb or tilt towards the house. Um, there's still a significant amount of vegetation and trees all around that area. Um, but this seems pretty straightforward to me. Okay. And vegetation, reveation, replanting. I can um I can pull up the the plan um if it would be helpful. Sarah, you just have the inventory that you'd like to just tell the commissioners. Yeah, I believe it's um and and Linda, correct me if I'm wrong. Is it um six river birches proposed to be replanted? Correct. Okay. Commissioners, I know we had some discussion with this at the previous hearing. Does anyone have any questions? What kind of trees are we going to be losing? Uh it's two pine trees and four oak trees. Linda, any thoughts on trying to put back any of those oaks? Um, we had um we had not considered that. We have we have a lot of trees. Um, we we thought the the birch would be a nice addition, but Okay, Kyle, I mean, um, Carl, do you

have thoughts on trees? I'm just I'm looking at the, uh, trees to be removed as the circumferences, I think, must be wrong. Um, I used a tape measure. It's the circumference, not the diameter. Oh, it's not that di It's not the diameter. Okay, gotcha. Got to do some math. Yeah. Like, wow. That's a That's a big tree. Yeah. So, the these are the pines right here. Number one and number two. And and these are the four oaks. Yeah. Was it number number six and four? I was They're basically already leaning on two other trees, right? Yep. we got there. They'll be coming down in another major storm. I would thank you because I have two one question one comment here that the question is um Miss Turner do have you given us plans and if you haven't I haven't seen them I apologize that explain like what you're going to do in terms of um sediment and erosion controls I imagine in this area. You're going to have to have some heavy equipment here. We're going to disturb the slope and I want to make sure that we're not going to get like a bunch of sediment runoff off of this when you're doing this. Have you have you given us anything like that to to make sure we're being protective of spec pond? Yeah, Tim actually has all of um the application stuff that we did and we're not going to be doing any stump grinding. Okay. Um we're just going to take them off, you know, fairly low and then um leave them as is. Sure. I think

you mentioned you wanted to keep them as high as you could, right, without being without uh them causing any danger. I I guess what I'm getting at is particularly those um those two pine between the house and speck pond. I I do want to make sure we're going to have to have equipment in here of some type. It's going to disturb the area. My expectation is that we've got some type of sediment and erosion control and we've got a plan to reveate this as quickly as possible. So, Chase, I'm not a tree expert um by any means. My my gut and my instinct with how they're going to have to deal with this is there's there's no access to to any of these trees really. They're going to have a crane coming with a crane over top. I think they're Yeah, they're going to go top down. Um, yeah, that was the discussion with tree masters was a Okay, that alleviates some of my concerns. Maybe I didn't appreciate the grades here. Yeah, it's um it's definitely not the the the driveway is kind of where it says a crooked lane any tree masters um and that's a lower spot. You have to kind of climb your way up to the backyard. Okay, fair enough. I think nonetheless that our expectation miss Turner will be that you you know to the extent that there are disturbed areas we want to get those seated and and things like that as quickly as we can thereafter. Um the other comment that I want to make here is that I do think we should ask the applicant to replant at a 2:1 ratio. Um the basis for that is that if we ask the applicant to replant at a 2:1 ratio and we get typically you don't always get 100% survival. If we get 75% survival then we know we've replaced the trees and we don't have to have a long drawn out um sort of evaluation process. If we only replant one to one then we're going to come back and we're going to expect

something to be replanted um if it dies. So I I think asking for a one replacement here is a a reasonable way of sort of striking a balance. Okay. Um yeah, and there's there's a there's a lot of trees on the property. Um but we can do our best to do a a 2:1 ratio. Well, and as I said before, I'm I'm just one of a half dozen members here. It wouldn't be the first time everybody else told me to shut up and go home. So Kyle and Kim, a quick question. Would this be an area that would be suitable for different type of bushes or berries um to find a type of a mix or is it so heavily canopied that it wouldn't work? I would think that a bush or shrub might have a better chance in some areas of their of their property rather than trees. Um Okay. He said everywhere around this house is is wooded. Um Chase, would you be okay if we started to kind of um do a mix in planting there? Absolutely. Especially based on the perspective of folks who have seen it on the ground. Okay. Yeah. I think Linda, you could probably find anywhere else. Doesn't have to be where the trees are coming down, but anywhere else on your property to to kind of mix in some other other vegetation. And so, Linda, you could submit something to Tim um outlining. So, if you're taking six trees, you would replace with a minimum of six trees and then look at a diverse planting of of perhaps other um bushes or or um berries or something that that would help in that area as well. Okay. And my sense is I would be comfortable going forward tonight and just having

that be something that Tim as a conservation agent reviews and agrees to. Yeah. Preferred. Okay. So, this is a request for determination of applicability. Who would like to talk to this? I'll make a motion that the commission issue a negative three determination for uh 8 Cricut Lane for the removal of six trees with the aforementioned uh planting uh condition. And does this require a waiver for safety, Tim, since every tree is within 40 ft? It it would require a waiver. Um I can check the application. I think we we have a waiver. We do have a waiver. Okay. Yeah, we we have a waiver and it it references that safety hazard as the basis for uh compliance with the bylaw. Perfect. So with the uh waiver for safety. All right. Roll call vote. Uh Ed Ed folds. Kyle Kyle Masai. Chase, you're on mute. Chasey. Uh Carl Carl Milberg. Michael Michael Livingston I Sarah Sarah Stewart I myself I it's unanimous and Miss Turner just for clarification we just voted to give you what you're looking for it was a negative determination but that's that's actually what you're asking for just just so you understand good news negative didn't sound good to me no appreciate it we're granting what you're asking for okay thank you and good luck thank you okay it's 9:08 we're going to open The 8:15 continued public hearing notice of intent notice of intent 65 Bruce Street D204-1016 construction of an addition and installation of a septic system.

I'm promoting John and Randy here right now. Okay, just so the commissioners aren't freaking out for the time, the next three are postponed behind this. So, forgot to tell you. That was gonna be a really nice surprise there. I mean, it's still a nice surprise, but you were to make everybody's night. You just waited. So, okay. 65 Bruce Street. See, unmute. All right. So, let's try that again. Good evening. This is John Boardman. How are you tonight? Good. Thank you. You are able to share your screen if you would like. All right. Thank you, Sarah. Can you see a plan in front of you? Not yet. Let's try that one more time. Oh, it's loading. There you go. Modern technology. Um, so we met with you at your last meeting. Um we had revised the addition location. Uh we had provided uh some drywalls on site and we had provided a planting plan. Uh at the end of that meeting we had a couple of doouts. Um one of them was to adjust the uh erosion control um to ma basically match that 50ft buffer zone because we had moved all of the construction work out of it. So the plan that's been submitted, we have the erosion control following the 50oot buffer zone in this location. You can see the proposed addition is again outside. Uh there was some concern that uh contractors working on site might uh

sort of uh stockpile and make a mess within the buffer zone. So again, we took that uh erosion control barrier line and just basically popped it right on top of that 50ft buffer zone uh in this location. Uh and then the last do out was there was a again concern about stockpiles. So I added a couple of notes to the plan. One sort of right here, right in the middle that hopefully a contractor can't possibly miss. uh that stock piles get moved outside the buffer and it was also included in the standard construction sequencing that all stock piles need to be outside the 100 foot buffer zone or material needs to be removed from the site. So that plan was submitted to Mr. Pearson uh and is part of the application and I think that was the basic due out for the the civil plan. Uh I'm happy to answer any questions with that and then I think uh Mr. Miller is on the line. Uh he was working on some planting plans and he could probably address that if there aren't any questions on on the civil. Okay. Any any questions? If not, let's move into the planting plans. Randy, are you around? Randy, you're actually muted, just so you know. Good evening. Hi there. Welcome. Um, can you just bring us up to date, pardon me, with planting plans, please? Uh, they are submitted. Uh, I believe uh Tim has them. Um, I don't have the ability to put them on the screen. Okay. I can uh I can pull them up here. Yep. So Tim can do that for you. Just give me one second. Would you like to just go through kind of narrative of what your thoughts were from the the last meeting

and then how you've revised that? So from the last meeting it seemed like there was more of a push for actual trees. Um so with this this new revised plan I have incorporated more trees. Um it's almost a 2:1 ratio. Um they are outside of the uh the 50ft buffer. Um, I don't at this time don't feel comfortable planting any trees uh within the area of the septic system um or the uh the backup septic system. Uh in case I have to uh do any repair work to the wall or if we have to go ahead and start construction of the backup system, I'll be in the same predicament again with trying to replant trees. So Tim, thank you for sharing that. You can see that they've added significantly more than previous. Any commissioners have any questions on this new tree planting plan? And uh I never heard of a Sun Valley red maple. I mean, aerubram is red maple, but sun valley. It's a cross between um the uh boy, it's a the sun sunset tree and a red maple. It's a little bit smaller in diameter. Um it doesn't grow as high um just to keep it out of any type of the the telephone lines, the electrical lines uh do run uh on that side of the property. Uh so just to uh minimalize any type of effect it would have uh with the electrical lines and the uh and the green giant. I never heard of that one either. They're very prevalent.

What's the What's the common name for it? Is it green giant? It's the common name's listed on it. It's a type of arborite. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions with um the engineer and the plan and the planting plan? We appreciate you coming back and making these. I think we've come a long way. Yeah. Commissioners, I think that that covered it, didn't it? It I I did have one residual question here. The reserve area, it looks like we're taking trees out of the reserve area right now. Is that correct? That is correct. Do we need to take trees out of the reserve area right now? I understand we may someday. I believe that we should uh just for the effect that if there's going to be encroachment with the trees that are there and there are uh several pines um that are broken um and are falling. Um and again 10 years from now if I have to do uh any work over there uh I would just like to have it done and um the question taken out. I I guess the reason I asked that is it it appears based on your list here that trees 11 and 12 there there's not any notations that there's any health issues with them. My my preference would be those are trees within the 100 foot buffer zone. I understand that they may need to come out someday. I don't see a need to take them out

right now. And I would be I think comfortable writing in a condition to recognize in perpetuity that if the reserve area does need to be constructed that when we looked at this we were comfortable with the ultimate removal of trees 11 and 12. But I I just don't see a justification for taking trees out of a buffer zone when there's no construction that's going to happen right there. I don't feel comfortable with that because if those trees fall, they're going to fall on the septic system that already will be uh new and in place. And if there's damage done to the septic system, then I'm replacing a septic system. Uh am I am I still on? Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead, Sarah. I guess the only comment I would make is um 11 and 12 are two large white pines. Uh and it's been my experience is that when you move when you remove trees uh adjacent to and around the large white pines often times that they get exposed uh to increase in wind and increase in weather and often times they end up getting uh damaged or knocked down. They they don't survive once they're no longer in a forested situation. So that may be part of the consideration here. Um we're going to be clearing a significant area for the main system. The two large lone pines directly adjacent to it may not survive post construction. Okay. Any commissioner got I just had one quick comment on the tree removal. Are all these trees actually damaged? I mean it seems kind of weird that they would all be split trunk. They are all same. What I mean by split trunk is um almost above shoulder level. They branch off. So split means that they branch off at a very uh low uh part of the tree um and

they are sharply split or branch sharply branch. So split trunks not saying they're damaged. split trunk simply is saying there's a a fork. Correct. Correct. I don't know many I don't know that we've ever allowed someone to take healthy trees down because of the outside chance that they could fall and damage a septic system. Like that that would be a very new justification for us to allow people to take trees out. And I I see at least five trees here that I don't understand why they're being removed. I I get 1 through 9. I get it. Don't love it. I get it. 11 10 11 12 13 and 14. 13 and 14. Um the arborist came in. They're very high. Um and he believes that they could have potential to fall in the house. So that was also submitted as well. Oh, well I mean white pines are extremely flexible. They take a ton of wind. I I'm kind of agreeing with Chase. Listen, I if it's the arborist opinion that 13 and 14 have to come down, that's fine. But I would expect replanting in those areas then. What essentially what I don't want to see happen here is this is a vehicle to take a buffer zone and turn it into lawn. Correct. And and that that that's my ultimate fear. So if if it is the arborist's opinion that 13 and 14 need to come down, I would expect replanting in the in the areas of 13 and

14. And I I'm I'm really not comfortable with 10, 11, and 12. And you can also renaturalize with a lower lower growing. Doesn't have to be trees. It can be shrubs. It can be other things as well. I mean, that's fine. Um, there are plenty of uh invasive species that are over there right now. Um, so [Music] commissioners, what are your thoughts on the allocation of trees for removal? I I agree with Chase. I don't feel comfortable that 14 have been noted by the arborist. Are you willing to allow those to be removed? Have we Have we heard anything from Do we have any something in writing from the arborist? Yeah, we do have an arburist note here. I can pull that up. Thank you. Yep. Top one. But the the arborist the arborist can't be the company removing the trees. I've noticed that from another application that came in. If the tree masters has the contract to remove the trees, I don't think that's appropriate to evaluate the tree. But this is signed by two separate certified arborists. Yeah. I I don't disagree with you, Carl. I think we should be careful there, though, because we haven't formalized a policy that says that. I I'd be more than happy to ultimately do that, but I don't think we've ever formalized the formalized it, but we've definitely for the someone um uh was it Debbar's uh

trees where we had him get an independent arborist had a third party. If you read this letter, it doesn't specify specific trees. So it talks about due to their size, location, and species characteristics, these trees present a significant hazard, but it doesn't all trees. I guess he's referring to all trees on the plant. See, that's the that's the point that the the company taking the trees down is evaluating and it just Okay. So, let's What would you What would you like to do so we can give guidance here? So, I would just like to go through with what the plan that I have. Yep. Okay. Let's go go back, Tim. So, are we saying this plan as noted minus trees 10, 11, and 12? Uh, no. I I would like the commission to vote on what I have proposed. Tim, you've been out and looked at these trees. What are your thoughts? Um, I I can't say I've looked specifically at at trees. I think 10, 13, and 14. Um I I they're under Randy, correct me if I'm wrong. 13 and 14. Those are in a canopied area, right? That's not existing lawn, correct? Everything over there is is is canopy. There is no existing one. And is is 10 as well or no? Uh let me I have to blow it up. Yeah, 10 tent's in the middle of the

woods. I mean, basically the entire site is the woods with the exception of the area adjacent to the house. Um, if you if you take a look at the plan you've got on the screen, you can see there is the the tree line is shown on that plan. It comes down behind the existing system uh just just inside uh 1314, continues up to the shed and basically continues up to the street. So that whole area south of that plant south is is completely wooded. Um and that's Yeah. So it's all within the canopy existing canopy currently. I mean the majority of the site is entirely wooded. Right. But I I believe if I remember right, this area, this general area here is a little more open and and accessible than than this area with these trees. Yeah, agreed. Uh, and I think at our last meeting, uh, Randy had indicated that 13 and 14 would be a situation where they'd be coming in with a crane. Um, hooking up to the tree, cutting it, leaving the stump, and then picking the tree out. Um, I believe that was the discussion at the last meeting. I suspect the similar situation with 10. I I don't know what their plan would be for 11 and 12, but all all the trees are going to be lifted by a crane. And I wasn't I wasn't really commenting on that in regards to access, but more so in respect to what Sarah was saying with the the threat of enlarging the uh footprint of of the existing lawn. I wouldn't worry about that too much with 13 and 14 as I would um you know this general area just because it's it's more open and accessible and and less sloped. So, you can correct me if I'm wrong. The Wetland Protection Act doesn't restrict

or prevent the removal of trees within the buffer zone. And I'm not sure at the current time your local bylaw prohibits the removal of trees within the buffer zone. Obviously, we don't want to remove trees that are unnecessary and we don't want to remove trees that would cause an impact to the wetlands, but the property owner does have a right to remove trees. Am I incorrect? We don't have it currently in the bylaw. It's extremely important to us to protect as many trees in the town as we possibly can, which is consistent with the the Welllands Protection Act, right? Like the Wetlands Protection Act doesn't say you may or may not remove trees. It's part of the considerations associated with resource area impacts. And so I'm just saying it's not a prohibited activity. Strictly speaking, not a prohibited activity. And that's and to be clear, right, that I I think that's why we're not talking about trees 1 through nine, right? What we're talking about are trees 11, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 that are not necessary to be removed, at least some of them, and there's a little uncertainty as to which trees the arborous note is referring to. But even if it is referring to 13 and 14, I I think my personal take is if if those really are a threat to the house and they need to come down and there is a need to replant those, I can get my head around that. I I I still come back to really struggling with 10 11 and 12 because they don't need to come out and I think there is an interest in the under the wetlands protection act in maintaining them as long as they don't

need to be removed for this project. Understood. I appreciate your appreciate your opinion and appreciate your input on that. Um, just out of curiosity, what is the proximity to the edge of the wetlands on 13 and 14? I'm trying to read the scale to the closest flag. If you give me a second, I can look at it on CAD. Well, you can see you can see the 50 foot buffer zone there. So 13 and 14 are probably what 30 and 35 ft something like that. 35 and 40t off the wetlands. They're clearly within your no disturb zone. So So that would require a waiver. We had submitted a waiver originally that was more based on the construction of the uh addition on the other side of the property. We could certainly revise the paperwork if necessary to include the two trees that are that are within that buffer zone. Um and you're correct. You don't have that waiver currently tonight, but it could be provided easily to staff. So Sarah, if I may, Mr. Miller, that part of this comes back to I think you've heard the concerns we have with these trees. Um I think a few minutes ago though, you said you would like us to vote on what has been proposed. And I I want to be clear, that's your right to ask us to make that vote. I think we're missing some information that would allow us to to have everything that we need here, but that doesn't mean you can't ask for a vote. So I I would like

to ask you what your appetite is here for considering trees 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 or asking for a vote right now. What is the other information that you're missing? Waiver. Yeah, we're missing a waiver. We're missing an understanding of whether or not trees 13 and 14 are those referenced by the arborist. Um those are referenced. Um unfortunately when I spoke and also emailed um that did not I specifically had requested um that they reference those um and then this email that I received while I'm I've been in training um in Fort Drum for the last two weeks. So, I received the the email uh after the fact and submitted that. Um, so I've I've had no way really to um get anything done at home since uh being away. So, th this particular letter says the site contains three white pines. When you look at your list, there's many white pines. Correct. And that was is with the directive or the direction that I gave for the arborist. Um there was three trees. um the 13 and 14 uh that are within the buffer zone um that I would wanted him to indicate because it was expressed on site that those needed to come down um but they didn't clearly get indicated on that uh on that letter. So I've I think Mr. Miller is interested in hearing the commission's opinion from the individuals of the commission. Um I'm not sure I've I've done with other commissions and I've done with planning boards and ZBA boards uh straw poll of the commission to get an indication of the feeling of the the members.

I don't know if that's something that this commission is familiar with or is interested in doing that might allow us to get an understanding of whether this is something that can move forward tonight or whether it's something that needs to be revised without necessarily having a denial or an approval um and therefore the the the necessary appeals that would follow. Right. Thank you, Mr. Bman. Is certainly your prerogative to ask for a straw poll. It's up to the commission if they wish to accept that. Carl, I think you had a question perhaps. Yeah, just I'm just trying to look at the tree planting again. Um the under like each one of those like I'm trying trouble reading. Like under white dog, what is that? Four to five. What does that say? I can't read it. Feet planting. Four to five feet planting. So four. So one dogwood. Correct. So each Go ahead. No. So, so one, two, three, four, five. So, so it's only a total of seven trees. No, each each color that you see there, each individual each individual circle is one distinct tree that I'm planting, right? So, the seven that you're planting. No, no. So, you have But then you have the green. So, you'll look at all the green giants. So there's eight 12. I see the green ch. So now I'm looking I'm thinking. And now look at the lower left where you have the spruce which are the dark gray. So that's another three there. I mean Carl, you're considering the arborites to essentially be shrubs, not trees. I'm Yeah, I'm considering arborites. Basically to me it looks like you're building a fence of arborites. um which you know I I don't think uh

habitat wise they really give a whole lot besides of a a buffer fence especially when they're that close together they're all just going to grow together but that's you know that that was just my quick you know look at what we have here so you have what looks like two dog woods and three red maples. Four uh there's four dog woods. There's there's two different varieties of dog woods. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we will go back to what would the commission like to do? You have Chase has um reiterated to Mr. Miller what his request was. He's asked for a vote. Engineers ask for a straw pole. It is up to the committee members what they would like to do. If we want to base it on what is being presented to us tonight, I will only do a straw poll if the commission wishes to do so. I think that would be a productive things. Okay. All right. Should we do a straw poll then? Thank you, Andrew. Sure. Uh, Michael, uh, from what I'm hearing, um, I would vote a uh pet, I would probably go I Kyle, think I'm leaning towards Hey, those two trees in the reserve area being my concern. Oh, sorry, Kyle. Uh Carl,

I would vote nay. Um we've had we try try and be consistent as we can. Uh even though we don't have anything on our bylaw, we're still trying to be as consistent as we can with tree removal. And um there's been other sites that we've just denied, not denied, but we have, you know, not not allowed people to remove certain trees. So I'm going to say n uh nay. Sarah, I think based on what is presented today, I'd rather see a robust um planting, but in lie of not having a specific waiver tonight that accounts for those two other trees. If put to a vote, I would vote nay. Okay. And myself, um I would just look for that um that additional waiver um you know, for safety or whatever the applicant so chooses just for those additional trees as well. Um, and Jez, I know I'm going to throw you guys a curveball here, but if if you forced me to vote right now, I would probably, against my better judgment, probably vote in favor of it. And the basis for that is the things that I think are the most important, the movement of the construction out of the 50 foot was done. I I I don't know, maybe that's easy to say when the vote doesn't count. At the end of the day, this would be an easy yes for me if we address trees 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Right. I completely agree with that. Right. But as it's presented at this particular time, a bit. Yep. Go ahead. No, I was just wanted to get a summary on that numbers. I was trying to scribble here on my paper, but Okay. Is that a three to two or I I forget. I think you went down three to four. So, I've lost track myself in my understanding. Let's keep this

going. What is What is the prerogative? Are you asking for a vote or not a vote? Can I just clarify? Littleton has a local bylaw. So, that any appeal would be only would be not only to D but to Mass Superior Court. That is correct. And there is work within the 50. So, it would appeal to both. Thank you, sir. Mr. Miller, I think that's your call as to whether you would like to proceed at this point or whether you would like to uh try and come to an agreement on some planting plans. Oh, I I think the planting plan I don't know how much more robust I can go on the planting plan. If if if it's about trees uh 11 and 12, again, if they come down and ruin the wall or the septic system, now I'm out $46,000 on a septic system. Is I don't know. I mean, is the commission willing to allow those trees to be removed with sufficient plant replanting? Is is that a situation or are we at an impass here? The re the replanting doesn't get us where we want to go. I think we still have to discuss a waiver, but the waiver's not been presented to us. So, are we hung up on the waiver or is it the robust like tree planting? Because there's multiple there's two different things that are being discussed. So, if it's it's the waiver, then we can go ahead and go through with the waiver. Robust is the wrong choice of words. Well, that's what was put out. That was one of my words. Yes. Thank you. So, it's the wrong choice of words for that kind of a planting plan. may have 16 arborites as in replace of a tree. That doesn't

that's not in my mind that's not robust. That's just putting something on there to have something on there. But robust was the word that I used asking for it to be enhanced. Meaning I wished for something to be enhanced more. Oh, that's different. That's totally different. We're getting into semantics now. So speeding going Randy, I'll be I'll be blunt here. At the moment, they probably have the right to deny this if they feel that's appropriate because they do not have the waiver request. Um, and that is simply a matter of paperwork and semantics, but they will win in court um because they do not have the paperwork requesting the removal of the trees within the 50ft buffer zone. If you would like to keep that same planting plan and resubmit a waiver that lists that, we can have the same argument at the following meeting. And then that removes their grounds for denial. Ah, that's good. We'll go through with that then. Okay. With your permission, we will continue to June 24th. Thank you. Appreciate your time. We're going to go back to our administrative discussions. Um discussion conservation parcel U17-208-0. [Music] Tim, uh yeah, give me one second here. Um where we left off with this was um Parks and Rec proposed an idea of um I guess they've they've had uh some requests from the public about having an area where there could be um racks for for canoes and kayaks. And so the idea would be that the um that parks and wreck would would put the the racks on this parcel um and the revenue generated by um the dues that for the the members of the public that um you know pay to use these racks would go towards lake management or clean lakes committee um work. Um, where we left off was commissioners were going to take a a

drive by the parcel and get a better understanding of of what they thought. Well, but I don't think I'll because we discussed that. I don't think the commissioners that that are Did everybody get that understanding that everyone was supposed to do that? No. I have to tell you from my perspective, it doesn't matter if I drive by. I am dead set against this. Okay, I appreciate your opinion. Yeah, I I go by the site um just about every day. Um and I have heard various concerns about uh you know uh not only safety creating a blind spot around the corner on Lake Shore and Lake. Um the storage of the materials uh affecting the maintenance of the site um potentially creating a hazard for families walking um down the street. There's no sidewalks. Um, as well as, uh, security for the boats. Um, you know, if we're charging people rent, have cameras down there and potentially if something happens, are we liable if, you know, a boat goes missing? So, I just have a lot of concerns about using I like the idea. It's just I don't know if this is the right place for it. Thank you. Anyone else have comments? Uh, I don't I don't recall where where are the boats being stored now? Are are there none there and this is a new place or are they now being stored someplace else in the area and this is hopefully a better choice? So, we have we have Saul who's raised his hand. I'm going to allow him to talk to that. Yeah, these so good afternoon Marini uh 149 Hartwell and also chair of the park and rec commission. Um yeah, we had

we've had requests. So, these are would be racks for residents who currently store their boats at home, uh, drive them down, use the either the parking lot at Long Lake, the parking spots on Lake Shore or the the, uh, boat ramp to launch their kayaks into the into the lake there. and and you know have an interest in in not having to do that load and unload um and be able to to keep them a little closer to the water for for convenience. Just out of curiosity, Saul, how many racks are are you thinking to accommodate how many boats is my first question? And then would they be driving on the road and then walking the boats onto the property or are they thinking of driving onto the property to unload onto the racks? No, I think you would I mean, so I don't think we've defined a number. Um I think we would would start small and see what the what the demand is. Um, as far as I think you would, you know, these are all uh, you know, car topable sort of kayak hand carry things. Uh, so it would be, you know, park on on Lake Shore the first time to put the boat on the rack and then it would be walk across um, and and launch from the I think from the proposed fishing dock there. And who would own the racks? uh in this case I think park and wreck would own the racks and essentially you know lease the the space is the the concept or at least the you know a a rack slot

with lots of of uh to Andrew's point lots of disclaimers and waiverss about you know it's at your own risk it's uh you know there is not security. You're responsible for your own storage or or securing it to the rack and and that sort of thing. And would it be a lottery system to how someone would be able to procure such a spot? Correct. I think we do a lot of things as a conservation commission to maximize the public's ability to safely and with minimally minimal impact access our natural resources. I see this as part of that. I I'm not going to die on the hill if if everybody else opposes it, but um if we started with one rack to see how it goes and make sure everyone is behaving responsibly or two racks, whatever a small number would be, I I would think that would be a reasonable thing to do. I understand there are some challenges and constraints here that could prove that to be a poor choice, but I think it's worth exploring. I think my only challenge is impact to the to that land. There's no exploring here. This the minute you let one in there, that land will no longer ever be the same. We will have forever changed it for the negative in my opinion. But um that that's my opinion and and and uh so whether we start with one rack or we start with 10 racks or or whatever we do, you're going to have foot traffic, you're going to have uh everything that's there will be gone. It'll be or changed, not to be so dramatic, it will be changed forever in in a in my opinion a negative way.

I I agree that it will be changed negatively [Music] and and so this was kind of on the agenda as more of a you know take your guys temperature like is this a non-starter? Is this something that we want to you know talk about? Um, so if it if it's something you guys are open to, um, and you want to talk further about, you know, specific, I would make a motion that have people drive by, put it on as a discussion item now that we've had our first discussion, have a second discussion and see, let people process the comments that we've heard tonight. And just I just as a clarify for myself and make sure I'm thinking of the right space, this is the lot that's used for uh or the the parcel that's used for parking for the triathlon. Yes. Yeah. And that's once a year. Um Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we we will let you know when we have another discussion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yep. Thanks. All righty. Um, well, Tim and I have some good news. Very good news in regards to uh in regards to assistant conservation agent appointment vote. Um, we have um Lauren and I don't know how to pronounce her last name, Redos DOS, that has accepted an offer from the town. So, we recognize it's still preliminary. you have to do background checks and such. It is a 40-hour week. Um, I would like to make a motion that we would uh vote for her appointment as the

assistant conservation agent to work with Tim and all of us. And I welcome any questions you might have once she's formally accepted, well, formally gone through all the motions and all the hoops and jumps from the town. Um, I think we would have her come in and introduce her to us online. Um, Chase, anything else procedurally outside of the vote? I don't think so. I think your disclaimers are important, right? Like with everything looks good. No reason to think otherwise. But so we have more than step one done. Um, we have been asked to take a formal vote. So, I would like a motion that we make a formal vote to accept uh Lauren Redos as our new assistant conservation agent subject to all background checks and everything else that the town desires. I'll move that we the Little Conservation Commission uh appoint Lauren Redosh as our assistant conservation agent. Um pending approval of background checks and other administrative items. Second roll call vote. Uh Carl I. Ed Ed Fultz I. Kyle Carl Maxfield I Chase Scar I Michael Michael Livingston I Sarah Sarah Seward I myself I it's unanimous him and Sarah you guys ran a a really nice process there and I think you should be commended for the amount of work you did as well as the HR team who who really I think put a lot of effort into cultivating a good group of candidates. Thank you for doing that for us. Thank you. I I agree. Have we missed anything on this agenda? I know that the last three have

um postponed. I have um hopefully a quick uh administrative item that I want to uh run by you guys. The highway department is going to be submitting um applications for the for frog pond dredging as well as the um the walkway and the invasives work. And their lean is to do it as two separate notices of intent instead of combining it all into one. Wanted to run that by you guys. Make sure that's that's okay with you. And then if that's okay with you, I would also confirm with with DP that's it's all right with them. The only reason why I asked is because it's all happening on the on the same parcel. So I want to make sure everything's squared away going into this process with D specifically too. Is there a reason why they are making that preference of two? I believe it's um the area of disturbance cumulative with both those projects would require additional permitting at the state level. You don't think DP will see that? And that's what I wanted to confirm with them, too. I mean, I I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight. It's going to be a little redundant. What I would ask is if they choose to submit to and we're good with it that they don't make us have like serial discussions on the same topics, you know, and alternating meetings or something like that. M in other words, I don't want it to be inefficient and painful for us. Yeah. No, I agree. But from a wetlands protection act perspective, I think we could we could ensure the protectiveness of the the work for the resource areas in either context. So Tim, see what they see what D says. Okay, that's all I had. Okay. Anybody else

have anything else? It is now 9:53. May I have a motion to adjurnn, please? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Roll call vote. Uh, Michael. Michael Livingston. I Carl Carl. I Ed Ed Foltz. I Kyle Kyle Max. Chase. Chase Car. Sarah Seward. I myself. I. It's unanimous. We're journed. Thank you.