Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

7:30. I'm going to call to order the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting of June 24th, 2025. Um start off with Tim if you want to take us through the administrative discussion and then for those in attendance, we're going to spend 15 minutes on some of these administrative matters. Then we'll jump to the public hearings that start at 7:45 and we'll wrap up administrative discussions after that if we don't get it closed out. So Tim, you want to run us down the list here? Sure. Uh before we start, I will note that we had some late continuence requests today from uh let's see 8:15 the request for the amended order conditions for Foster Street reconstruction and then also for both of the uh 64 Beaverbrook lots. So those are Um, we have no mo no minutes ready for approval yet. Um, first item we have is the request for a certificate of compliance 26 Deer Run Road. And we do have we do have Dana here to speak to that. So Dana, I'm going to promote you over and I will bring up the most recent revision of the plan. Chase, just so you're aware, I'm going to recuse myself from this conversation. Sounds good. We still have a quorum without you. So, thank you. So, Dana, you want to fill us in? And uh yeah, it looks like we've pulled you in as a panelist and we can uh can share your screen as needed. How about now? Can you guys hear me? Okay, can hear you. Yep. Uh here we go. And now we can see Well, we could see it. Now we can see it. Um just looking to um hopefully button up my uh order of conditions certificate of compliance.

There was some questions on some of the differences between the proposed uh and the existing the last time we met. Um so I resubmitted some um information that hopefully you guys um had a chance to look at and is sufficient. Tim, would you mind to summarize that new information for us or give us a Yeah, give me a second. I'm trying to pull up the plan here and I'm struggling to find the email where I attached it. I do I do have all the stuff right here. Uh Tim, if you want me Oh, yeah. If you're able to share your screen, that'd be great. Sure. So the it was a bit confusing um what the architect did or um the last time, but I tried to color code it so that you can see what the differences are here. And I made a little uh um table here or key rather. But basically, um, there was a crushed stone bed that was proposed, um, right in front of my slider door somehow that was an existing concrete pad and it is still a concrete pad. Um, not being familiar with this prop this these drawings, I didn't realize that's what was being proposed by the engineers. So, that is not crushed stone. that is um concrete as it was prior to the rebuild. Um however, all this blue area is new areas of crushed stone that was not um proposed in the initial plan but was um installed as part of the final grading. Uh, and then the other things that were different is this was proposed to be a gravel driveway and it was um paved as

an oversight when the paving company came and it's a little chaotic. Um, and then add in addition, we have some plantings that were not part of the original um proposal, but we put in here um just cuz we like them. So Tim, the the request here is for um a certificate of compliance with these changes. Yeah. So I Dana was here at the last meeting and uh the idea is just to be you know to go over these deviations from the approved plan and see how you guys feel and if you are comfortable with with approving it as is or if you want to talk about other options. Okay. Yeah. And you'll have to excuse me. I wasn't at that one. So uh other members of the commission, what what questions do you all still have about what was different and thoughts on this? It's going to be a long night if nobody's going to share an opinion. This picture addresses what we spoke about or I heard us speak about last meeting with having it specifically colored as to what's different because last meeting it was lines but it was difficult to tell what was different. So, okay. So, that was the request last meeting was to just more clarity in terms of differences here. That was what I came away with. Yes. And and I think for me that provides it. It's unfortunate that the driveways paved when it's supposed to be gravel or whatever. big difference in uh

lost the word I'm looking for, but water going in the ground. Uh but other than that, I don't I'm not going to say he has to rip the pavement up. Dana, what's the um the crushed stone bed, the the blue areas? What was that supposed to be per the plan? There was nothing proposed. Okay. So, vegetation. Um I I'm not sure. There was just nothing there. It's on the uh I don't know whe it's the east facing side of the house. It doesn't get great sun. So, not much would have grown there. the the sun kind of goes, you know, um across the house this way and so very little sun gets back there. There's never been anything that's grown over that side of the house. What's your pleasure everyone? I mean I think let let me make I think our options in front of us pretty clear. One is we issue the certificate of compliance with the deviations and we document those and and we go on. Um the other extreme and I think there's a lot in between is we say no it's not according to the plans and at a minimum it needs to go through a sort of revised permitting process or it needs to be removed. that those are a range of options. And um Mr. Gilpatrick, when was the uh the paving completed? Do you know how long ago that was now? I believe it was 2020. 2020. I'm more in line with Ed on this one where it's unfortunate that it

happened, but I'm not inclined to make Mr. Gilpatrick rip it up at this point. Yeah. Um, for for what it's worth, um, all of the way that the land is laid out, all of the runoff is away from the resource area. It's just the way that the house is up on a hill and everything kind of tilts back and away. Um, and you know, when we when we did the construction project, we had no issues with any um, material going down towards the lake. So assuming that we're not going to expect a whole new plan starting all over, I'll propose that we accept the certificate issue, I guess is the right word. to issue the certificate of of completion including the adjustments that are on the plan um or for or something. Sorry, I'm still new at this. For 26, Dear Run D file number 204884. Thank you. Is that what you meant? That was Yes. I'll second. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Oh, uh, just one quick thing. Uh, where is the septic system located here? Um, I'm just curious. Did pavement go over the septic system at any portion? Uh, part of the leech field. Do we know if port of health is good with that at this point? Um, we don't. Um it's that the leech field is entirely in outside of the buffer zone if that makes a

difference. Okay. Like outside of the 100. Yeah. All right. Is it is it shown on the plan? Uh yeah. I did mention that to uh Francis the board of health director. Um so he he is aware of it. Okay. And I I would assume that they'll follow up with Mr. Gilpatrick if they're concerned. Yeah. So, we have a motion that's been made and seconded. Uh, any other discussion? If not, Andrew, I'll have you do a roll call vote. Sure. All right. Roll call vote. Carl. Uh, Kai. Michael. Let me say I. Chase. Chase. Nay. Ed. I. Myself. I. And we have one recusal, Kyle. So that is one, two, three, four eyes, one nay, and one recusal. Very good. Thank you very much for coming in, Mr. Gopatrick. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Next up, we have the enforcement order for 33 Star Hill Road. Discussion and ratification. I have uh Mark here and I will promote him over. So, the way I'd like to run this, Tim, is first I'd like to have you describe the enforcement order. Um, what was filed, then I think we can vote on the ratification of that enforcement order and then we can engage the property owner with a a discussion of presuming it's ratified, how we we go. Sure. Uh, and I'm going to I'm going to share my

screen to kind of show the uh Ariel to best uh go over this. While you're doing that, Tim, I will note for the 76 Heartwell AB applicants, I do want to get through this item before we move on to 76 Hartwell. So, I I would imagine the 76 Heartwell will get pushed out a little bit. Um, I also see Sue Carter. Sue, you have your hand up. Is that something? It actually can Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Mark. Oh, excellent. Thank you. Uh, it's actually Mark Senior. Oh, okay. So, I'm Mark Junior and so I'm here as well, but Mark Senior needs to be promoted. He was at the most recent meeting with the wetland biologist. Give me a second and I'll promote him over. Thank you. my office was able to locate the wetland flags and all the tree stumps within the 100 foot buffer if it's helpful for me to share my screen to show the uh commission that. Oh, perfect. That would be awesome. I think it would be helpful. But Sue, I' I'd like Tim to lay it out first, but before we vote on uh ratification, we'll give you a chance to lay that out for us. All right. So, we got both marks uh moved over at this point. Um, so it was brought to my attention that there was uh some tree clearing going on that might have been within the the buffer zone. And so here we have uh Prowy uh and the trail that comes from Prrowy down here. Um the the main wetland is on this side of the the road. Um there is a culvert that goes under the road and so the wetland kind of uh extends beyond um this side under here under the road and then kind of runs u parallel with the road on this side. And so the property bound isn't really accurately shown here. Uh it shows wilderness road

actually being on the property for 33 starill road. Um, but this entire area, I should say entire area, but a large section of this area has been cleared. Not entirely clearcut, but a large sum of trees have been removed. So, that's the uh that's the gist of it. And can you lay out the timeline for us a little bit, Tim? Yeah. So, oh man, this goes back to look at my calendar. Um, this occurred I believe it was Andrew, do you remember the date that I I believe we went out there the Friday before last. So week 13 and yeah, I I met out uh the Gallaghers were very uh willing to meet me out there as soon as possible. I met them out there and we went over it. Um, and it sounds like there was uh a miscommunication and and that they were not aware that there was uh that they were within the buffer zone. Um, but I will let them speak to that and and Sue if you'd like to take it from there and and share your screen and show unless you wanted to unless anybody from the commission wanted to talk. I think that's fine. Sue, if if you've got some information to lay out for us, I'd like to keep this confined right now to the discussion we need to have to determine whether or not we should uh ratify the enforcement order. So, let's say nature and extent um presuming we ratify it, then we'll talk about restoration and and so on. Does that make some sense? Yep, that's fine. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can share my screen. Oh, here we go. I can at least show you. Oh, I'm sorry. Who are you?

I'm Sue Carter from Places Associates. Welcome. Thank you. Can everyone see the my screen now? Yes. Yes, we can. You You're probably going to have to orient us a little bit to what we're looking at. Okay. So, Starhill Road, uh way over to the left hand side of the screen is where uh Foster Street is. Star Hill Lane comes up. Um this is the large house that's currently um number well or is 33 Starill. Um so for those of you have who have been out on the site, there was a pile of um cut logs in this location and you go downhill. Um New England forestry, the road comes probably like this. uh and that's shown as wilderness road and it uh actually curls up and then right after this line, this wetland area here, it branches off. So, um my survey crew, it got flagged yesterday. My survey crew went out there today. Um I'm just going to zoom in a bit. Um sorry, I'm not used to Adobe. I'm used to Blue Beam. So you can see what I've done here is um we've got the wetland flags that were flagged by um Dave Crossman. I've shown a 50- foot wetland buffer. As you can see that doesn't even touch the property line. The property line is the stone wall. 75 ft wetland buffer, 100 foot buffer. And what I did was I had my surveyors locate every tree stump that was 6 in or greater. Um, what I have for you is it's kind of hard to see, so I gave I did it at a larger scale. Let me zoom out just a little

bit. And I color coded the trees. If you see a a 12 in S means a 12-in stump. Um, in our rush to get this information for you tonight, my surveyor did not try to identify the tree type by the bark. He just simply located the stumps. Um so what is up here represents what's shown here on the plan. Uh there's this second wetland area with a buffer and there is no work within that 100 foot buffer for that one. So once again what's up above represents a 20 scale or 10 scale zoom in and this shows it in relationship to the overall property. And I'm going to zoom out just a little bit so that you can see the whole plan. So what we're able to determine is that there were three trees 6 in or greater uh within the within 75 ft of the wetlands. And um within between 75 and 100 ft there were an additional 32 trees. And then I have a chart right here that I can zoom in if you if the commission would like that states how many trees and what size uh diameter that tree stump is. This is very helpful. Sue, I I appreciate you guys doing the work to get this in front of us now. It's going to make for a much more productive discussion. I think I'm glad my survey my surveyor could handle the heat today. So, he uh he deserves the credit. He was out there in the sweltering heat getting these located. I pulled field teams today because it was just too hot to do some things. Um Mr. Gallagher, uh I see you've got your hand up. Uh again, I want to make sure we're going

to talk right now first about the nature and extent and then we'll talk about restoration if we need to. Do you have comments on the nature and extent? Oh, Mr. Gallagher, you're muted. Oops. Um, while Mark gets that going, Andrew, I know you were out there as well. Um, anything to add from your personal observations or Tim, anything to add beyond what Sue has laid out for us here? I I'm just curious with the delineation that was completed. It's essentially saying that the wetland system is on that complete opposite side of the road and there's no spillover with that culvert. That was going to be my question too, Andrew, is if if there was not actually a hydraological connection there to the other side of the trail. I I believe uh Dave Crossman is on the meeting as well. If you could look to see if he is. Um Oh, yep. I'll I'll promote him over here. He he flagged it. So, and I did not look in great detail. So, he is the one to address that question. Mr. Crossman, you should be able to unmute yourself now. Um, good evening. Good evening. Um, we did look at that drainage whale on the other side of the cart road between

the wall and the road. Um the road is built up a couple feet higher than the toe of the slope and it is picking up it captures the water that comes down the hill. Apparently some people I don't know who but there was a culvert put under there to keep the uh that area from ponding I would guess. Um I didn't really see a wetland plant community. There's a lot of ferns, but other than the ferns, it's pretty much invasive upland plants and upland trees, and the soils within the swale are actually upland soil. So, I don't I think the only time it holds water is right after it rains and then it just goes into the gravel. It's very grally out there. So, it was my opinion that I really didn't have a an area that met the definition of a wetland. It was more of a drainage just a drainage swale. Not not really uh Oh, it's definitely not BBW. That's was my conclusion. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Gallagher, you had your hand up. Do you want to Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now, Mr. Chair? We can. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, um, as David said, you know, he came out and flagged everything and Sue picked it all up. Um, we purchased this property about two about 5 weeks ago. And the entire area that we went in to clean um had a ton of invasives um and a lot of dead trees. I don't believe that there was ever any maintenance done to that side of the property throughout um Mr. Kimbell's ownership of it. He was fidious and a

professional everywhere, but I think he just left that as a natural preserve area. Um the although Sue has pointed out there are three trees within the uh 75 foot buffer and between 75 and 100 quite a few more the majority of the trees and we've left them there because Sarah asked us uh to do so um had all died. So although we can determine the bark on the trees uh should should we discuss a restoration um the the the vast majority of the trees that we removed had all you know uh passed their lives and um you know we removed them when we removed the invasives. Um, so I just wanted you to know the history of of the uh removal and reason that we were doing so was to clean up the property, get rid of the invasives. Um we were not aware we we were brought Tim brought to our attention that there was a um on the GIS there's a um wetland you know 150 ft away um on the forestry property but we were not aware and as Mr. Crossman said that the closest to our property on this side of the road is is essentially a drainage area that's fed by a storm water um catch basin that's up on uh right in front of the mansion uh up on Star Hill and that's shown on the screen right here. Okay. I there is one thing I want to address there while we're talking about ratification of the enforcement order. So one of the interests under the act is wildlife habitat and it is

it is not uncommon for us to have applicants leave dead trees standing in the interest of wildlife habitat. So I understand, you know, we're certainly dealing with more than just dead trees, but I think uh it it does bear mentioning that dead or alive, there are there is ecological value and interest under the act even um even with dead trees. Um so with that, I think turn it over to the commission. The question in front of us right now is ratification of the enforcement order. And Tim, correct me if I'm wrong. We need a motion to ratify that. That's correct. Is there any debate about ratifying this enforcement order before we move on to next steps? So, are we saying this is or is not in the wetlands? Well, to to ratify it would be to say that there was an impact to the resource area and that we need to take some enforcement action. And I'll I'll tell you my take here is that there there was an impact to the buffer zone. I think we will want to understand the extent of that buffer zone. There may be some disagreement about at least right now based on you know high level field observations the extent of it but it appears to be uh no doubt that there was at least some impact to buffer zone. Well, I'd make a motion that we ratify the enforcement order. Second. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Um Ed Edi. Carl. Carl Malber. I Michael Michael Livingston. I sorry my screen just got jumbled here.

Uh Kyle Maxi. Chase. Chase I. And myself. I. It's unanimous. Okay. So now, Mr. Gallagher, what we're going to do is move on to the second part of this discussion, which is what is the where do we go from here? Um, let me put an idea out on the table. Um, I think before we go down the path too aggressively of determining what the right restoration is in terms of tree replanting and so on, um, I do think we should have a third party take a look at the delineation. And Mr. Crossman, please don't take that as anything other than we need to do our due diligence um to confirm that the line is correct. And it sounds like this one might be a little bit more complicated than normal. Um so my recommendation to the commission would be that we um we have a third party come out and take a look at that. I was thinking the same thing, Chase. I think that's the call. So I would support that. Sounds good. at your expense. So, what I I think what we'd like to do then is understand the delineation and then understand the um impacts within that delineation. Sue, it sounds like you've got a tree count within the delineation that you've got. Um I I do think it will be important for us to have a tabulation of species and sizes to the extent that we can know those. Um Mr. Gallagher, are all of the cut trees still on site or are we still they are some all are okay. They're outside of the you know the buffer there. Sure. 300

ft away. Okay. I is it reasonable to reconstruct at least a a reasonable approximation of species and sizes. There's a pile of probably 150 trees. Okay. So, we've cleared trees. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, 30. There's a pile of invasives uh that's probably, you know, 20 30 feet tall. pretty large pile. Um, and then there's the pile of the uh the trees um that were removed. We left all of the specimen trees, as many as we could. We did leave dead trees as well, uh knowing that there is a value to some of the dead trees as long as they don't create a a hazard. Um so you'll see those when you when you visit the property. Okay, Mr. chairman, either uh Bill Murray from my office or uh Mr. Crossman should be able to determine what the tree species were based on. There's probably two or three inches remaining of bark on the um stumps to determine what species they were because most of the trees have a distinct bark pattern. Oh, okay. We we have enough stump that we can sort that out. We think it's tough. Um, but I'm not an arborist or I'm not a I mean I I garden, but I don't know my tree bark. So, I would suggest that we could have an expert uh one of our experts go and try to identify what kind of trees they are. Um, is there any way to identify even though there's value to the dead trees or trees that were removed by others? Can you can you make that determination? because there were a lot of trees that were fell um that went over the wall and and and

were there, you know, leaning against their their um stumps. Is there any way for you to make a determination of how long ago they were removed? Uh my suggestion may be that we get a forester in there. Um and one of our wetland delineation people we work with, Charles Karen of Karen Environmental, is a forester. He may be able to do it. It's tough because I saw those trees and a lot of them have aged so much that there's no bark remaining on the logs. Um, I would suggest perhaps we have Chuck Karen look at it. He may be able to tell us what the species were from looking at the uh patterns of the the wood itself. And along those lines, Mark and Sue, I think we're comfortable with the idea that professional judgment is going to need to be involved here. And to the extent that it's unclear, I think as we tabulate these, we just note it's unclear how how healthy this tree was or there are clear signs based on the stumps that it was probably dead or clear signs based on the stump that it appeared to be healthy, you know, and we'll have to we'll have to work with the best information we can get. That's very fair, Chase. Thank you. Um, so that gets us down the pathway of restoration. I also think we need to talk about the scope of the enforcement order, the geographic scope of the enforcement order. Um, I don't think there's any dispute that the wetlands are sort of towards the northeastern portion of this property. Um, is there a way for us to very conservatively sort of cordon off that area mark and say, "Listen, we're going to stay well without well outside of 100 ft of what anyone would consider to to even potentially be a buffer so that you guys

can continue your work without maybe impacting resource areas or is there too much overlap here to make that possible? When will the next um when will the next meeting be Chase? June or July 8th or 9th. July. There's no reason for us to do any work on the left hand side of the road between now and the next meeting. allow the the professionals to weigh in and determine the the you know the species of the trees, you know, the the person that Sue suggested maybe we can get out there to look at, you know, whether the trees were alive or or not alive and uh that will help us towards the restoration plan. Okay. There's nothing pressing right now um for us to to uh have to go back there over the next you know month being honest with you. And if I could comment my uh in order for my surveyors to determine the lateral extent of the 100 foot buffer they brought in uh the field information on the wetlands brought it in the office and then went out and actually staked the 100 foot buffer zone. So there is something visible on the ground to delineate the 100 foot buffer as it was located. I guess what I'm saying too is I'd like to go well beyond that because we do want to confirm that that delineation is appropriate and it there isn't wetland soil or vegetation on the western side of the culvert. I I I don't think we want to do anything Chase delineation is agreed upon. We know where the 100 ft buffer is agreed upon. You know, our next step now that we know that there is a wetland on the adjacent property could be it. It's not on our property. So we know it's on the adjacent property um in two separate locations is Sue and I talked about

filing an ANRAD for the entire property so that we can get the total delineation out of the way and then we can move back in with a level of comfort knowing that we're not going to violate the buffer um you know any further. I think that's a great idea. Thank you. Um the the last thing on my list of notes here that we want to consider is whether or not the commission wants a site visit. I my sense is we can probably see it from the trail on Prrowy. You can come on the property. You can drive right up Star Hill. It's safer. Drive up Star Hill. Pull over by the logs there. There's plenty of parking adjacent. You know, please just don't block uh Star. But I mean, you're welcome to come whenever you'd like. enter the property and and visit. So, we have no issue with that. Appreciate that, Mark. Yep. No problem. So, we'll do it that way. Members of the commission, um to try and get a chance to put eyes on it between now and the next meeting, we'll work on the delineation aspects of this. Works for us. Commissioners, what else? What else do we need to do here? Did do you decide who's doing the third party? How are we determining third party? Uh, no. I don't think we did. As much as I'd like to say, yeah, we're back here in two weeks. There's Are we confident that a third part is going to get out there within two weeks to take a look at this and create a plan and have their delineation? Well, you know what? How about this one option that we could use instead of a third party? We've got Amy Green at our disposal. That I think could be a reasonable middle ground. Sure. As long as Marcus is. Yeah. As long as Mr. Gallagher is comfortable with that as well. Well, I love Amy and I I trust her professionalism. She's excellent. You know, maybe she can meet Dave out there. He has his his tools to show that it's u their uplands. You

know, we could coordinate that. I'm sure Dave, you can make yourself available to meet with Amy. Uh yes, I know Amy quite well. Good. Tim, does that work for you? Because I think it would be good for you to go out with Amy, but I want to think the same thing. Yeah. Okay. Let's leave it at that. And then that that saves everybody a couple bucks, too. Well, thank you. But Amy will be Amy will be paid, correct? By the town, but we've got her under contract and her current contract, right? Not Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I think uh I trust Amy's expertise also. Yeah. Me, too. Okay. So then anything else? What what what Mr. Gallagh what was the goal if I could ask that question of the removal of all the trees? Was it strictly remove invasives or what's the what was the Our first goal was to remove the inva the evasives in evasives the the the the vining. It was just I wish I took a video before we did any work, but the amount of it was choking every tree off in there. When you go there, you're going to see that we did not we were in the process of removing some more of the invasives. You're going to see the size of the you know the the vines that were struck, you know, that were choking these trees off. We wanted to reduce the amount of of death that was in there. open it up and allow the specimen trees, the larger oaks, the maples, and the different insundry trees there a chance to to grow again. Um, and we wanted to clean up the entire area. We have a a client when we started this, we we have a client that's interested in purchasing the property.

uh they're from California and um they have horses. So they could not envision, you know, anything with the amount of of undergrowth that was there, the amount of vines, the amount of invasives. It was just a mess. So our goal was to, you know, get the species, the specimen trees room to grow, do maintenance to the entire property. We we we've tried to do it on the entire property. There's over 10 acres there, you know, it's just uh it's a lot to clean up. Okay. Thank you. That gives us an idea when we go out there. Yep. Yep. Very good. Then we will I guess it's an enforcement order, so we don't need your permission, Mark. But with your permission, we're going to uh continue this to the 8th. Yeah. Good. And we'll work on we'll work on getting um Sue's person out there to u their professionals to look at the the trees that were removed and hopefully be able to give you a better report in a couple of weeks. Well, and and I'll tell you, I mean, if you guys want to start to get ahead of this, I I think you know where it's going. Unfortunately, we've we've done this dance a couple times. If you want to start to think about what the restoration is going to look like, not a couple of times. We've done the dance one other time. Uh we as a board have done this a couple of times. We, you and I have done this once, but fair enough. I think we did a good job the first time and hopefully we'll not continue to do this over and over. I think we would appreciate that. Me, too. Great. Okay. Very good. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on now to 76 Hartwell Lab, Mass E file number 2041021. Tim, before we turn this over to the applicants, anything you need to fill us in on this? Uh, so this discussion that happened where this hearing was, I'll

call it unofficially opened. Um, so the it was brought up to my attention after the meeting where this was discussed that the legal ad did not run in the newspaper and so technically it should not have been opened and no discussions should have been had. Um, and so that was reflected in the minutes. Um, so if Bruce um would be able to kind of just restate everything that was uh discussed at that meeting um so it can be on the record that would be uh great. Good evening. Bruce Ringwall from GPR representing um Mark and his wife Nathansson at 76 Hartwell App. Um, on behalf of the applicant, um, we apologize for, uh, the wasting of your time last time around. The applicant didn't understand the timing that he had to get the bill paid and he was out of town for work. So, uh, we apologize. We can forgive a lot of people for being confused about why we still post ads in newspapers. There's a there's a procedure here, right? Arcane though it may be, Tell me about it. All right. Um, with your pleasure, if I may share my screen, sir. Please go ahead, Bruce. All right. Good evening. I'm going to scoop about just a whisker so we can see the whole property. Um, everybody is familiar with Hartwell Lab and where 76 is. If not, let me know and I'll zoom over to the locust. Um but uh this is uh the existing property here. Um the property itself is just under an acre. Goes back and up the hill

and is all wooded behind us. Um this is an existing Cape with an existing twocar garage. Has walkway, patio deck and pool put in some time ago. Retaining wall. This is two different sheds, one here and another one built off of it, but there's two sheds here. Some trails. This is all fenced off in here. And the wetland line was delineated starting off the property here and coming on out and terminating where years ago that hill that I mentioned behind us here wraps into um Hartwell AB just just north of us, one and a half lots I think it is. And if there's any valley or swale at all, it's all piped to this point. And then here it kind of opens up and a couple lots south of here, plans south of here. Um it's piped across a couple more lots and then it opens up into a bigger body of wetlands. Having said all that, the wetland line right here, 50ft line comes through the back side of the pool that exists. underfoot line is through basically the front of the house and the driveway. Uh the side of the garage over here has an extended driveway that already comes out to retaining wall here and a walkway. Um a planter off the end of the garage here and then this walkway that goes all the way on and ties into the back to allow them to connect front and rear. This is all landscaped with a stone mulch rather than mulch mulch. Um mulch up in here. nice yard and such. Uh the plantings that are in this area and are going to get disturbed, the homeowner is going to want to replant up here outside the buffer in the front yard um to maintain all or as many of those as possible.

There is one tree here that will need to come down right is this one right here. And we're proposing basically to widen the driveway and put an addition on so that this um adds a third bay to the garage and it's going to add living space up and above. We're actually going to take down the garage that exists and the dash line is um pushing the foundation back. No, I'm take that back. This this is the line of the foundation right here. And the line the foundation comes to the front of the building just a whisker. The dash line is the roof overhang. Um, we have erosion control instal proposed to be installed around the edge. Um, I have photos, but we were about to set up a sidewalk. We did set up a sidewalk at the last time before our timing got all messed. And just as a 10-second aside, so many commissions I work with love sitewalks before they open anything, so everybody has a feeling and understanding of what the site looks like. saves time, too. But neither here nor there. Um, I'd love to schedule a site meeting with you folks now because I have seen one thing on site that I want to address with a modification to the plan, but I don't want to do that until you guys have all gotten there and we can all have a conversation. So, if we can go for a continuence to our sidewalk, I'd be happy and obviously take any questions you might have, but we went through that step, folks. And uh Chase, I totally spaced on this at the beginning of the hearing, but I just realized that the cemetery department um we have a new area that was just donated a couple of years ago that actually abuts this. So, I'm um going to recuse myself from this hearing. I should have done that at the beginning. Sorry about that. I don't think you need to recuse yourself from a cemetery commission to doing another public job. Uh Andrew, I appreciate it,

but I appreciate your opinion as well. Yeah. Andrea, I'm I'm actually I if you think it's important for you to recuse yourself, go go for it. But um I think that's a a conservative approach. So do do whichever way you like. But certainly we value your opinion a great deal, especially since you know the area a little bit. I haven't uh with the sharing of the screen, I can't see who all is on. Do we have a quorum otherwise? Yeah, we do have a quorum, Bruce. We're good. Thank you. A and I'm going to guess I I might be a little more recalcitrant, Andrew, with your recusal if um I thought this was going to go on for a long time, but I don't think this will go on for a lot of meetings. So, yeah, just I can't see anything here and I've done a few things. We'll uh you know, we'll have a sidewalk and we'll close. I hope I I think that sounds perfectly reasonable. But before we get to scheduling the sitewalk, Bruce, one of the things that we that I want to make sure we haven't tripped over here is the addition of imperous area and our wetlands protection, our local bylaw. So, everybody knows our local bylaw for the 50ft no disturb, but there is a additional imperous area piece. Yes. Have you looked at that? And if you have and you wrote it down and I didn't read it, then that's 100% on me. And in our project narrative, um, our garage living space at we had 420 square ft of impervious area. So within your your uh percentages and realms. Okay. Sorry, I didn't. Um, okay. It looks like we're looking to schedule a sitewalk here with the Fourth of July in between. I mean, what's everybody's pleasure? Could

we do it early next week so that Bruce and his client have a chance to sort of process things and be ready for the following meeting? Or should we do it after the 4th? I can tell you I will be out of town the first two weeks of July. First two weeks of July. Yes. When's our next meeting? July 8th, I believe we said. Yep, that's correct. So, I'm going to be missing the next meeting to see aware. Hey, Chase. I'm going to be out next week. Okay. What does this week look like for folks? Do you tuck something in Wednesday, Thursday, this week? Tomorrow, or the day after? I could do uh tomorrow or Friday. Thursday is impossible for me. Yeah. Okay. I can probably do Friday, but I won't be here for the next meeting. So, I'm not sure that I'm terribly high on the priority list. I'm sorry. I didn't see who who's not here at the next meeting. Ed. Oh, hey Ed. Sorry, didn't see it. That's okay. Can I stop sharing my screen so we can see everybody? Yeah, go ahead, Bruce. That's Thanks. That's much better. Um, what do we think of just trying to rip the band-aid off and do it tomorrow? Tomorrow afternoon. Would that be Michael? You said you could do that. Yeah, I can do tomorrow afternoon, but if you guys are comfortable doing it without me, by all means. What time are you thinking of? Michael, any thoughts? I I can uh pick a time anytime. I am home rehabbing from total knee replacement. So, this is going to be my first outing. I'm excited. I'm going whenever.

Uh, aside from a 1:30 to 2:30 meeting, I'm available tomorrow afternoon. So, Carl, is there a time that could work for you? Probably after after 2:30 would be better. You want to set it for 3:30? Yeah, let's do that. 3:30. Okay. So, it looks like we'll have three commissioners that can make it and maybe more. And we'll we'll plan on seeing you out there at 3:30 tomorrow. Bruce, tell Andrew to come, too. It's it's good for this. We got to get him out of the office, especially where it's so old. Sounds great. We We'll see you there. Um there's a fair amount of parking in the driveway. I mean, we all know Heartwell's gotten faster with the paving, so there's a fair amount of parking on site. All right. Thanks guys. Tim, one other question for you, Bruce, before I let you go. Um, Tim, I do think it would be important for you to go put eyes on this if you haven't. Bruce, is it generally okay with your client to have Tim just stop by and put eyes on it? Definitely. Because when Tim was there before, he was look, I was thinking it was winter and he was looking at the other side when we're going to do the stuff on the other side. It's a whole another ball of wax over here on this side. And Tim, give me a yell if I can uh I can make it. I'm I'm uh I'm a little bit further away now, but I'm you know, I'm a half hour away, so I can be there anytime. Just give me Okay, sounds good. Appreciate it, Bruce. All right, guys. Have a good night. Good night, Bruce. Bye now. Hey, Tim, can you send a quick reminder out on that one? Definitely. Thanks. Okay. And then Tim, you said we had some people withdraw for it tonight, but not 65 Bruce, right? No, we do have 65 Bruce here. I will uh move over John Boardman and Randy Miller. Very good. Good evening, gentlemen. Can you hear

me? Yes, we can. John, how you doing? Yeah, this is John Borman here with Randy Miller to talk about uh 65 Bruce Street. Uh just a brief recap. Uh we started a couple meetings ago requesting a addition within the 50ft buffer uh and a septic system that was outside the 50ft buffer. Uh since then we've been trying to work with the commission and we have moved the addition outside the 50ft buffer zone. We have moved the erosion control barriers to the 50ft buffer zone. Uh we've added some drywalls. Uh we provided a planting plan. We feel like we have done our best at this point to try and meet all the commission's concerns. Um, and we would like to move forward tonight and hopefully get to a point where we can get an approval from the commission. Uh that being said, we're still open to discussion with the commission and we are certainly interested any input uh that the commission might have or any conditions that the commission might have that would make this plan amendable to them uh so that at the end of the day we can move forward uh with the project. I think Ry's grabbed the screen and is showing the our planting plan, but I will let him discuss that. Uh good evening, Commission. um where we left off from the the previous meeting. Um so apologies on uh that one. I was uh at an active training base and uh in hindsight probably shouldn't have had the other meeting between helicopters and a bunch of other things. Uh um I was pretty pretty much lost in that. So uh going forward, uh what I have here is uh basically just kind of recapturing the last few meetings with uh what I originally did for tree plants. Um and then uh this current one uh so at the second meeting uh created this plan um and this one showed the trees that were

being removing with uh the red sun valley maples and a black spruce. Uh at the conclusion of this meeting, the uh commission determined uh or it it seemed like uh a we needed to adjust erosion control uh and I needed to add more trees um and do something with the the shrubs to indicate how many shrubs were uh going to be planted. Uh so to move on for the next meeting uh I created this plan and uh this plan uh was basically I tried to up the tree count uh as best I could to try to meet the 2:1 ratio. Uh in doing so um I I picked the green giants. They weren't necessarily my favorite tree to pick but u able to put a lot in a small amount. Um however during the the course of that meeting um it seemed like the uh the commission didn't really uh agree upon the the green giants uh which I can agree upon as well. Um uh but in light of that as well the issues uh that were brought up were 11 12 13 and 14 uh for the trees that were being removed. uh we did talk about the the arburous uh that came in for uh 13 and 14 and then with 11 and 12. I just want to point out uh that during the course of um create need the plan for the septic system itself there were test holes that were dug. Um so if you do look at the um the screen there you'll see that 1112 uh they did have test holes that were dug next to them. Um and as a result there there was uh some roots that were uh dug up uh with those trees. Uh so my concern for those trees still exist uh with potentially them falling onto the septic

system itself. Um and then with this current plan, uh this was a little bit more of a a hybrid between uh the first two. um what you see for the other circles is basically that that represents um it's a pretty good um scale model of what a mature tree of those species uh will be. So I spaced them out as best I could uh with that scale. Um so in here basically the the tree count now um there's 18 trees I added uh from the uh previous number two slide I added three more maples three more spruce uh two more dog woods um and then also there's 12 shrubs. Um so basically at this point I'm looking at the commission to see what I have here. Um, and if there's uh something that you uh disagree with to have a conversation, see how we can uh figure something out. Um, I do want to mention as well that uh I put these white circles down here cuz those are trees that are still existing. Um, so the one I'm currently pointing at now is a very large maple. Uh, this one right here is a a very large uh pine. Uh, and then also I have a ceda tree here as well. So, u the whole area isn't getting clearcut there. there's still going to be some uh trees remaining. And then as well, this entire property um is heavily wooden um even around the house itself. Thank you very much, Randy. Um I I will point out for the commission as well, we also have I think related to doing this off memory trees 13 and 14 I think a revised waiver request because that would be work within the 50. Yes. Uh uh I believe that was submitted with

the new notice of intent. Yeah, correct. That was submitted last week. um that outlined those two being removed via crane. Uh stumps being left in place so that uh there wouldn't be an erosion issue. Um you know, if the commission felt you needed erosion control around it during that operation temporarily, you know, that's something we would certainly uh allow or accept as a condition. I didn't want to move the erosion control down and around those trees because then the contractor is going to feel that's their place to to continue to excavate and move. So I' I'd prefer it on the other side of the main erosion control. But if if the commission feels strongly that you need something temporarily there while the activity is taking place, again certainly would approve of that as a condition uh or agree with that as a condition of approval. And to be clear, John, when we talk about removing trees, um, when we talk about removing those trees, we're talking about removing the trees, but not the stumps. Correct. Correct. Yep. Okay. Yep. And that's in writing in both the the cover letter and the waiver request that the stumps will remain. So, very good. Okay. Commission, what's your uh what's your pleasure here with the revised planting plan? I appreciate uh Randy and John, you know, bolstering this with, you know, the additional trees and uh I think with the uh waiver requests for safety, I'm comfortable with the uh 13 to 14 uh pine trees uh being removed at this point. I think I'm with you too, Andrew. I I will continue to voice I'm still a little grumpy about the idea of removing trees in reserve areas. Um and I don't intend to make it a practice in this particular site. I can see the logic of

it. Um but I I do think it's something we need to be mindful of in the future. I'm on board with those questions. Okay. Um, anyone else or should we should we entertain a motion here? I'm liable to take silence for consent. Um, before we get to a motion, Tim, I think a couple findings that we need to make sure are memorialized, even though they're in the the written components here. Um, one, the removal of the trees within the 50 VA crane. um memorializing the findings that those trees that are in the naturalized areas of the site won't have their stumps removed. I think we want to make sure to memorialize that and and make it clear even though it's written down. Um these things can get lost. Any other findings you all want to see? I will tell you, John, you entertain, you know, the idea of moving the erosion controls down. I I'm not sure it's necessary. What what we're going to end up with around the tree is a bunch of mulch. Like that doesn't doesn't seem to justify moving erosion controls around. I don't want to move the line. I would I would be or new erosion controls around it or whatever. Yeah, we I don't want to give the contractor additional room to play. That's why we moved it back to the house anyway. Um and I agree. We I think we approved some tree removal at our last meeting, right, without with the understanding it was going to be top down via crane and we didn't require erosion controls. So feel a little awkward asking Mr. Miller to do that now. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with that remediation plan though. I'll make a motion then um that close public hearing and issue a note of notice of intent for 65 Bruce Street DP number 204-1016

with a waiver. With a waiver second second made and seconded Andrew. Roll call vote. Carl Carl Melberg Edi Chase Chase Michael Michael Livingston I Kyle Kyle Max and myself I it's unanimous very good luck guys um you will see standard conditions as well notify conservation commission before you work you know things that I think John you'll you'll find very normal and yeah I'll chat with Randy and let him know we need to record the order and uh post the sign and let let Tim know before we get started. So, all the usual, I assume. Yep. All the usual stuff. I appreciate it. Thank you much for your time. Take care. Thank you. Good night. Okay. I think now Tim, we're going to circle back to administrative items. Yeah, we have a little bit of time between now and the 8:45 agenda item. Um, so where we left off was uh the Cloverdale Abutter complaint and uh mowing authorization. Um, so the town received a formal complaint from an abutter um about preferential treatment um towards another, Jim O'Neal, who who most of you guys know, if not all you guys know. Um, and I believe this was recently spurred from me authorizing Jim to So, so Jim Mows a fair amount of Cloverdale um towards the the entrance and then we also have somebody who mows the um open field meadow area um towards

the right once a year. Um Jim approached me and we discussed him mowing an additional area. So, for those that are familiar with Cloverdale, there's sort of a finger that goes in between the back of uh Jim O'Neal's property and then the property um that comes off of Oh, man. is it uh old farm road. Somebody can correct me. Um but there's a little finger that goes back there that is uh Cloverdale property. Um, and the idea was to mow it to suppress the invasives that are back there. Um, and so I authorized Jim to do so. Um, and that seems to have spurred this complaint. Um, at least that's my speculation. Um, and it was I don't know if you guys got a chance to look at it. It's a 30-page complaint with a bunch of photos. Um, a couple minor encroachments. Um and then also worth noting that the town also received a separate complaint or not necessarily a complaint but letter um from that of butter um stating that they're going to be revoking access to their property um from the town. We met with uh town council um to discuss the fact that highway department has a drainage easement on that property and so they will still need to maintain some some sort of access for that. So uh I spoke with Jim Dugen and he thought it would be best to get a formal response from the commission on the mowing authorization as well as the complaint in general. Can I ask a couple questions, Tim, before we get to that? Um, one of the comments within that was that there were

trees that DP I think DPW was going to take down that were maybe mixing these up on town property but were alleged to to pose a threat. Is that Can you fill me in a little bit on that component of it? Yeah. So, Amy, I Amy, myself, uh, Steve Whitten and I think Steve Yonley went out. Gosh, has to be year and a half ago at this point. Yeah. Um to review some of the trees that they that that butter brought to our attention about being a hazard to their property and highway went in and they actually removed a bunch of them. Uh apparently not enough to the um a butter's liking. Okay. So trees were removed. That that's what I was trying to piece together because I thought trees had been removed but reading it read like none were. So Okay. Understood. And Tim, about that same time, I thought I get maybe she just never put it in writing. I thought we had also talked at that time about Jim maintaining that swath of property back there that had the invasives and, you know, not mowing it every week, but keeping it cut down so that we definitely might have. Um, but it seemed like, yeah, we it's it's entirely possible that we did. Um, I just I don't know if he was not consistently doing it, but if you ever took that on. So Tim, is is the town administrator asking us to more formally document the scope of work that we've assigned a volunteer to do or to directly respond to the abuter's complaints? Because I think those those could be two very different things. I

think both. Both. Okay. Yeah. Okay. which I I believe I sent around my so when I authorized Jim to to mow that area out as an out of an abundance of of caution, I documented that and and threw it in our file. And I think I I passed that around um to you guys last week. Yeah. And upon reading that, what I think we want to do is just build out the basis for that a little more completely. I think it's it's really clear to you what the basis was, but I can understand how someone member of the public might read that and go, I don't I don't actually know what this means. Yeah, it is a little vague. It is fine. I'm not faulting you. I If we write everything to a extreme level of detail, we just end up with tons of memos in the file. So, not a big deal, but like let's build that out a little bit more with with the bases. What is a typical, you know, mowing frequency? Why what invasives do we have? How is why is this the best way to control them in lie of herbicides and things like that, you know? Yeah. I I I can tell you now that I know for a fact there is burning bush and bittersweet back there. Okay. What What exactly is the complaint about doing that mowing? Why why are they unhappy with that? I'd have to pull up the the complaint and and look again. Um, I I believe it might have been um that it was in I think they claimed it might have been an effort to extend Jim's property or the appearance of That's what they they felt Jim was extending his property. Yeah, I'm reading the letter and if he if these things are true, there's a lot of stuff here and selling structures, animal

enclosures, and so on and so forth. Um, it's quite a history of kind of pushing the boundary a little bit. I'm looking at I'm looking at the map and trying to just get a oriented as to, you know, where everything is. I think we we did a walk there some time ago and, you know, talked about the trees that needed to come down and and what have you. I I just have a hard time seeing what what the what the real uh disagreement or the real complaint is cuz I've read through that too and yet there's a lot of stuff there and I just might not understand where they're coming from. I would think at this ca at this point in time it's probably not a fruitful endeavor for us to try and read between the lines. I think our response should be a call-in response, right? Like, okay, here were the things you're concerned about. Here's here's why we as the commission are comfortable with those or maybe there are things that we're not comfortable with and and we agree do need to be adjusted and what that adjustment would be. So, I guess my ask would be that we authorize Tim to draft a response um that we could take a look at together. Tim, I don't think you need to belabor it, right? But just here here's how I understand your concerns. Here's where the commission is. And then if you could provide us with a draft of that to to to consider in response, I think that would be helpful. Sure. And we can we can go over that at the July 8th meeting. Does that sound okay to everybody else? Because I think there's a lot of pieces there that I don't I don't know the individual facts of like whether or not a stake was removed or whatever, you know? I think that sounds good. There's a lot of different points to kind of look into and I think for us to put together

something tonight would be a little premature to One question though with them removing access through their land. I assume that how do we how do people get to the conservation land now? So to my knowledge, I don't know of anybody who's accessed the pro Cloverdale and the trails through their property. Um they specifically noted in the um letter to the town restricting access for treatment of fragmitees. So, I am going to clo I'm going to confirm with um Chris Pollitan who's doing the herbicide treatment of the fragmitees that um that's he must access it from the the main parking lot. I don't know if historically he was accessing from their property. Um I can always check with Amy on that as well. And honestly, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to to talk with Amy more about this because she definitely has more of a history um on this than I do. Yeah, the Fragmighties are tucked back further in that corner, right? So, yeah, they could have parked on Old Farm Road and tried to go through the yards there, but yeah, if that was the case, I don't think it's much more a lift for them to go into the main parking lot now and take the main trail, right? because there's there's so many pockets of the fragmitees that they're treating. It's it's they're all over that open meadow or wet meadow and and it's certainly a property owner's prerogative to withdraw our ability to access things through their property. It's maybe a different issue with respect to a a deed easement, but that's that's on the town side of the house. So, we're saying to get to it. There's three town loan town land parcels over on Great Road.

Say that again. To get to the to the land for getting the fragmitees and stuff. If someone just wanted to go in and walk around at Cloverdale, yeah, they can they can access from Great Road. That's where the main parking is. That's what I was trying to understand. um Tim, would you like a member of the commission to sort of work on this with you? Uh like one one person to work on it to bounce ideas off of kind of thing. Yeah, that that might be helpful. It is getting really busy at town hall at the end of the fiscal year right now, so this week's kind of like crunch time. Um so that would that might be helpful. I I would recommend because it's going to take us a little bit of time. I I would like us to respond in short order to just say we got your letter, we're preparing a response. Non-communication is not going to be as helpful as we we heard you. It's just going to take us some time. Do you is everybody okay with a letter going out that says we received it and we're working on a response? I think that'd be the respectful thing. Absolutely. just to say, "Hey, we've received your letter. It touches on, you know, X, Y, and Z. We're just looking into this for you. We'll respond in due time." And I I wouldn't even do the touching on just we we got your letter and thank you for your correspondence. We're working on um understanding the issues or some non-committal thing like that. I think that's right. So, does anybody have some bandwidth to help Tim with this letter? I can help. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Michael. Sure. And the target, Tim, I I know things are

busy, but let let's still target to at least have a draft in two weeks. And if you don't have a draft in two weeks, let's at least be prepared to understand how we get to the finish line. in a you know reasonable time period. Yeah. Okay. Oh, Chase, I do see a hand up in the audience from Dan Severs. I don't know if it's regarding this or another Oh, thank you very much. Um, could we promote Dan to a panelist here so he can ask his question? Good evening. Sorry, I'm actually for the next uh next thing on the agenda. Oh, okay. This sounds good. Why Why don't you just stay um here as a panelist? Then we'll uh give you a chance when we get there. Okay, Tim, you want to take us to uh beaver permit ratification? Did you want Did you guys want to uh It is 8:45. if you wanted to move ahead with the next uh scheduled public hearing. It is 8:45. Wow. Okay. Um yeah, let's do that. Let's take up 97 and 99 Mill Road. Dave, is this your uh your project here? Hey everyone. Um yeah, sorry, some connection issues getting promoted to the panelist uh position right here. Um yeah, so yes, this is uh my project. I'm Dave Ketchin, uh assistant general manager for the Littleton Electric Land and Water Departments. I've got Dan

Severs with me from the Morren Cameron Cameron Group and Steve Burn again from uh the Citizens uh Energy Group there. Um and Dan is going to kick this off um from our last meeting and last site visit. Okay, great. Thank you, Dave. So, u for the record, my name is Dan Severs with the Warren Cameron Group. Um I am going to give a couple updates since the last time we met. Um first update is there is no update from D. Unfortunately, we don't have a number yet or technical comments. So, we're going to have to wait on that. Um since we last met, we have going gone in front of the planning board and they have approved the project. Um as well as we had resubmitted to both DP and conser Wilton conservation um the notice of intent WPA form 3 with updated fee uh stormwater checklist including on and m uh plan as well as a construction pollution prevention plan and as and a revised site redevelopment plan. Um, I can run through some of the updates on the plan. One being the applicant's name, which is Littleton BDSS instead of Citizens Energy. Um, and our last our last time we met, we we talked about some things we wanted to see on the plans and in documentation. One of some of them being I'll run through them. The proposed material stockpile area, proposed concrete wash out area. We have some additional erosion control along the property to the north and as well as we have um been in communications with the fire department

and they have told us that it would be advantageous to propose a fire hydrant on on site so that in the event of worst case scenario of a fire breaking out which is not to be expected but if that were to happen there there would be a fire hydrant on site that would allow for the street to not have to be closed down in the event. Um, which we have proposed right here. Um, we have um kind of a um a note to that it's the final uh location is to be coordinated with the fire department and water department. Um yeah, so I think that's all the updates as far as the plans and submittals go. And I think the main other um concerns that the commission has has uh brought up is the chemical makeup and the actual system itself. Um Steve, are you on? Would you are you available to talk further about the Y this? Yeah, I'm here Dan. Awesome. Uh so go for it. I I think that when we were on the sitewalk with Chase and Ed that um Ed had asked about the the liquid coolant system and I think that we uh we sent over some of the documentation either earlier today or earlier this week. Uh the liquid coolant is actually uh I sent the data sheet. It's ethylene glycol 50/50. So it's uh it's got a relatively large content of water. So it's uh environmentally, you know, considered to be environmentally safe. Um there's a total of 190 L of coolant within each um module cooling plate per battery container. And the site has four containers each

individually uh they're not connected interconnected with that coolant. Um it's a closed loop system. So there is no storage tank. There is no refilling the system. Um once it gets uh you know filled during the manufacturing process, there is no um refilling needed. Uh so there's never any opening of the tank and anything like that. And there are alarms as part of the uh overall um battery energy storage management system that would provide alerts if there's a loss of fluid or a leak. Um and the containers are weatherproof. So if there were to be a leak, an alarm and a leak, uh it would be uh within the container and it would not be uh spreading outside of the container. Um lastly there there are other coolants within the system for the HVAC but that's R32 um which my understanding and what the manufacturer manufacturer sent to us that uh the most common refrigerant used in the HVAC industry. Um and there is nothing there that's planned to be banned or anything else like some other refrigerants that are uh under question now. So that's that's what I got from researching what the was in the liquid coolant for what Ed had asked. Steve, you said there's going to be I don't think these were your words exactly. I can't remember exactly what he said like spell control or some sort of containment. What I think what did you mean by containment or maybe I misunderstood. Is there like, in other words, I think you said containment. Is it containment within the equipment or do you mean containment like um like a berm around the structure or something like that to to contain fluids? Oh, no. Tonight I was

just referring to the containers themselves. So, this liquid coolant, the modules and the cooling plates are within the the 20ft containers. And if there were to be any leak, then since they're weatherproof, it's not expected that that would leak outside of the container. That's that's all I meant there. Okay. Um I think we had talked previously about, you know, maybe some sort of containment or BMS, but I don't think that's what you're referring to here. You're what I what I was mentioning was just the containers themselves. So the four containers on the left of the site, those are weatherproof. The cooling plates are within there within the the racks and the modules um for the batteries. And yeah, if there were to be a leak, and you know, Samsung, who's the manufacturer, indicated they weren't aware that they've ever had a leak. Um, but this is this is in place in case there is ever a leak. So, on top of everything, all the safety measures that they have for the batteries, they also include that for uh the liquid cooling plate if that were to happen with a leak within the system. Gotcha. So, containment within the system. Correct. Um, given that we don't have a mass D file number, I I think and we don't have comments back from Mass D, I think we can go down the path here of addressing any questions or comments um to the extent that it's helpful to you all. But, um, I'm not sure we also need to draw this out either since there there's no way we could close even if we wanted to. Um, commissioners, what other comments do you have here? I'm actually wondering about the uh light poles. Are those intended to stay on all the time or only when uh humans are accessing it? Um, and my concern is just light

pollution in a spot that's, you know, right by the uh brook there. Yeah, we we haven't come up with anything. We we weren't expecting these to be large lights or anything like that. The ones that we have at other um projects are motion detected. Um but you know, however, Littleton Electric or you guys prefer us to have this, they they could be motion detected. Uh they we could have them off the side of the container instead. We don't want to have them aiming towards, you know, any of the there's no residences or anything like that, but it would be, you know, kind of focused on on the site itself. Um, not not to be over accentuating the the site itself. They wouldn't be on all the time, right? Um, no, they don't have to be. Yeah. They would be bad if they were because any nocturnal animal would be severely impacted. Yeah. Yeah. We would certainly prefer to see something that's just motion activated as long as that's consistent with your design. Is is that something that could be um a condition for um approval once we get to that point? I I I don't have any problem just conditioning it. Do Do you guys Or do you want to see it specked in the design? As long as it gets done, I don't have a problem with being in the condition. Yeah. No, you know, it just it just seems to make sense. So, whatever way we can get it in, that would be great. Yeah. Other comments? I have a couple that I

wanted to run through with you guys. If nobody else has any um I I don't think and maybe you've sent it over and it just hasn't made its way to us or it hasn't been posted on our project website, but I would like to and Tim if you haven't maybe you can just forward them to the safety data sheets for these. I mean ethylene glycol is a good answer from a environmental impact perspective. Um, but I would want to see those. I also don't think we've heard yet, one of the things that we've wanted to understand is what would firefighting look like here, like what would need to be done if there was a fire. And so I think my understanding is you guys were interacting with the fire department a bit. Obviously, there's a a hydrant coming in here. I think if we could understand what the fire suppression measures would would be so that we can account for those from a resource area impact that would be very helpful to us. I don't think that needs to be a big long drawn out thing. In fact, if you want to summarize it in a quick memo or even just have a a member of the fire department here, I think you know we're representing a town department in multiple contexts. That that might be the most efficient way. But I that's one of my biggest concerns here is we've got a big electrical fire with a battery station. What does that mean if there's a fire? Yeah. I Yeah, we we we need to we'll have an emergency response plan with the with the fire department. Um the industry standard, you know, these days is not to flood uh if if one of these containers were to have a thermal event is not to flood that container. um any use of water would be to um you know to

keep the other containers cool. So the the water would be limited. Um but again we haven't had these discussions with with the fire department themselves based on the area or anything else. But that is part of what we expect to go through um a pretty extensive fire narrative and emergency response plan with with the fire department and uh with Littleton Electric because it's their site. Okay. We've talked a couple of times about this topic and how to contain any potentially contaminated water that's used to put out a fire or home or whatever it is that gets used. I don't know there's been any real answer for that though. And it's it's something we've been actively working on um trying trying to get a clear answer from the fire department. Um and we haven't gotten an exact response back yet, but we will work towards that for Thank you. Otherwise, as far as reporting, what I saw at the sitewalk that the the whole area is severely degraded and so to the extent that this project goes in, it it's going to be an improvement on what's there in in many regards. So, I'm generally comfortable with this once we resolve some of these details. We'll see what Mass E has to say. Any other comments for um Dave and team that they need to think about so that next time they're in front of us, they don't get blindsided by anything. Okay. Um Dave, I'm going to suggest that it may not make sense for you guys to come back until you have mass comments. Yeah. Um but happy to see you if you want to spend your Tuesday evening with us, but um I I would suggest you can just work it out with Tim if you don't have comments by our next appreciate that.

Okay. So, we'll continue this to the ETH. Is that okay, Dave? Yep. Thank you, sir. And I don't I don't want to belabor this. I know you guys are moving on to the next one, but we have a very similar uh setup in Welssley, Massachusetts. So, if anyone ever wanted to see what this actually looked like, um, we're open to that. I offered it to Dave and others. Um, but I just want to offer it to you guys if you ever wanted to see it. We can actually open up a container so you could see, you know, the liquid coolant, the coolant system, and what what it actually is rather than what we've shown you on paper. So, just an offer and nothing you have to do. I just wanted to make sure you guys are aware Welsley's not not too far. Um, so I just wanted to offer it out there. Appreciate it, Steve. Dave, sorry, Chase. I was just gonna say, did you mention or I want to say you mentioned that when we did the sidewalk, but didn't you say it was a much larger system than what's going in here? Uh, so so the the system that we're doing in that we're proposing in Littleton is, you know, like the next generation. So it's the the Welsley system is six containers versus four containers, but it's the it's very it's almost the exact same size. Okay. And there are different inverters that we're proposing in Littleton, but the the container setup itself is is the exact same thing. So you can see the, you know, the suppression, the coolant, everything else that was that was there. Just if you want to ever see it instead of, you know, just pictures that we've sent. That's all. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes people are more visual. That's all. Dave, maybe if um if Light and Water decides to take a field trip down there, why don't you let us know through Tim that you guys are going to go down there and and Tim will circulated and if somebody can link up with you guys, that'd be great. But if it doesn't work out, what Okay, yeah, we can plan on that and I can extend that to our board as well. Try and try and make a trip of it. Cool. Sounds good. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. So, back to our administrative agenda. Yep. So, we're on to the emergency beaver permit. Um so, Board of Health received an application um for the breaching and removal of a dam over on um Mil Pond. Um, this particular area also received a uh emergency permit. I believe it was last year. Uh, the same exact location. Um, I believe the permit that got issued was for breaching the dam and and possibly if they needed to uh installing a uh a beaver deceiver, which doesn't appear to have been done um by the uh photographs that were submitted this year. Um, I spoke with DP about how to best go about this since these uh applications and and permits are emergency permits, right? Um, and they should be issued in a timely manner and sometimes um it's not the best idea to have them wait until the following commission meeting. Um and so what they recommended is to talk with the chairs um and see what they think if they're comfortable with it uh sign off from conservation side um board of health can issue the permit and then uh at the following commission meeting vote on ratification of the permit and if there was anything outside of the the norm um that would take place for uh breaching and removing the dam that triggered the need for them to come back in for a with a notice of intent that would be decided at at the the

following meeting as well, which would be this meeting. So Sarah and I, Tim contacted us what, a week and a half ago and we signed off on it. So now Tim, you're just looking for a ratification of that from the full commission, right? All they're doing is have they done it or are they doing it? They were issued a 10day permit and that timeline extends until the first week of into the first week of July. So, it's it's possible that they haven't done it yet. Um, but it sounded like they were ready to move on it as soon as it was issued. So, it's there's a good chance it's already been done. So, they're just breaching the dam. They're not doing anything else. No, they they are removing the dam manually, right? But they're not like taking the beavers out or any of that stuff. They're trapping the beavers. Um but that is outside of our uh purview when it comes to to beavers. That's a a board of health um issue. Any other issues with ratifying the uh permit? Can we get a Can we get a motion to ratify it, please? I move that we ratify the emergency uh beaver permit or Mil Pond. Second. All right. Roll call vote. Uh Michael Michael Livingston Chase Chase Cara Educt Bai

Carl Kyle Melmer guy Kyle Max and myself I it's unanimous. All right, moving on to discussion of conserva conservation parcel U72080. Um, we had previous discussions at the last meeting with um, Saul Marini from Parks and Wreck uh, about the idea of installing racks that would store kayaks um, where the public would pay a fee to store their their watercraft there for the the year. Um, and then those the proceeds from that would go towards lake management issues. Uh, I think we left off with the commissioners were going to uh take another look at the property and and we're going to follow up with discussions on what we thought about the idea. Yeah. So, I did drive by the spot and it's uh a lawn right now. So I I think one of the arguments last week or the points was, you know, if if we give this permit, it will never be what it used to be. Uh but it's a lawn right now. So I mean, I don't really I don't see a problem with doing it. I think it actually might, you know, be better in the long run so that people aren't driving their watercraft in and out and having to uh to manage that. Um if they're on racks and they can just walk them into the pond, uh so much the better. So, um I'm very familiar with this site. you know, I've been going by it for

hundreds of years and, you know, it's it's just one of those mode fields that uh has been maintained uh for feels like a thousand years. Uh I just feel like in terms of public safety, people crossing there, you know, moving boats in and out, that's going to be an issue. Parking could be an issue. I know that parking is already at a premium right now around the frog ponds. Um, and like Ed had mentioned last time, once that field's gone and that's in use, I'm just afraid that it's going to be gone forever and we're going to lose that resource. And I know kids use that field for whiffle ball and all kinds of other activities during the year. And uh I I like the idea of getting revenue for the lakes, but I just don't like this particular site. I I I think that in terms of public safety and community use right now, it's just going to be a little disruptive. Um but um yeah, that's uh essentially where I stand. I I wouldn't be in favor of uh putting it on on that particular parcel. I think I've made my position pretty clear of being dead set against doing this. We're not here to provide park and wreck additional revenue and I just think it's going to be bad long term. Okay. So, it looks like a lawn, but a lawn looks a lot prettier than ugly car uh racks and boats and that may or may not be well maintained and, you know, opportunity for junk to be there. Uh trash potentially if nothing else, different lutramont that go with the boats will be, you know, dumped all around. And why would we introduce this to our program? I just I'm dead set against it.

Carl, Kyle, do you guys have thoughts one way or the other? Yeah, I'm not I'm not particularly in favor of it either for um all the thoughts have just been shared. Um these racks can get um unwieldy. um from from what I've seen of these types of racks in in use and um yeah, I don't think it should be changed from what it currently is. That's my opinion. I I mean I I guess I'm not for this or against this as certainly not as strongly as others are. Um it's the way it's being talked about. It sounds like we're expecting to see 70 kayaks stored there. Um, and I feel like we have control of that. First of all, we've never seen any sort of proposal on what we're just we want to do this, but there's no clear path on what they want to do, how they want to do it. Um, but yeah, I I can fully support not using town own to help somebody else. As far as the I could see the public safety side of it to play devil's advocate, it would also alleviate traffic and other public safety at the beach or at the boat launch. Um, you know, the local residents would have a spot. I assume that's mainly who would use these, the more of the folks in the neighborhood already. Um, but I Yeah, I know there's been a lot of talk about changing that intersection, that corner for for years and just traffic management down there. But, um, Mike, you made a good point. Mike, you made a good point about it's it's a lawn, right? I I get that we have to protect our lands. Um, but every other time we talk to homeowners, we're trying to get rid of

lawns. Like, it's we're seem a little counterintuitive to the conversations that we've been having on now we're protecting a lawn. That's not in the resource area either. Correct. Like I Or is it is it in the buffer of frog bombs? It whatever that is. I'm not sure honestly. I'd have to I'd have to It might be probably close. Yeah, pretty close. Yeah, I I I do want to know. Um I did see we have Rob Browns here and Yeah, I promoted Rob. I figured he would have something to weigh in on too. I just to close this out, I'm I'm very much comfortable with really for the reasons that Michael laid out. Like it it makes sense to me to do a trial run. We work very hard. We have a lot of volunteers who put in a lot of time and effort to maximize accessibility to our resources. Um, right. We have dual missions here and one of them is um in so many words holding lands in the in the public trust and doing our work for the benefit of the public. I see how this could fit into that. That said, I if we did it, I would only ever want to do it on a one-year trial basis, but Um Rob, you had raised your hand. Did you have a particular comment to make here? You should be able to unmute yourself. Go there. Uh thanks for the opportunity. Yeah, a few things. Um I agree with the I'm very dead set against it. folks that I speak within the neighborhood I don't think really know that this is even before Kanscom that park and wreck is proposing it. Um uh I've lived here nearby. I live on Juniper Road which is one part of the the lot uh for four years. I've not seen

vehicles on the property as Saul mentioned during your last meeting. Um, so that's not been my experience in the last four years. Uh, maybe they've been there because I'm not there all the time, but I live pretty close by. Um, the property is used extensively by the neighborhood uh, walking their dogs through through that area. Um the I do have significant concerns with regard to placing uh watercraft there that would be going across lake and lake shore to get where I think park and wreck is proposing to put a fishing dock. Uh the area was just successfully had its speed limit reduced to a 20 mph safety zone out of the concerns for the public with regard to those that walk that area. putting on additional watercraft on the roadways. Uh combined with the existing walkers that go by and the vehicles that go through that quite frankly led me and and many many overwhelming uh number of residents signed petition that the select board received and acknowledged and signs are now up for the 20 mile per hour safety zone. I'm very much concerned with regard to watercraft and a car coming around corners and the potential uh incident of a horrific accident which has led to my involvement in this area a great deal. Having said that, another aspect that um I see a lot of in the open space and recreation plan is working on invasives. I'm in my second year of removing invasives as well as planting natives on that exact lot. There's behind that lot. Uh couple of properties, couple of homeowners that have a fence. Uh I'm removing the invasives uh about 20 ft in front of that fence line. Um and I've been doing

it and in addition received permission to plant natives there. And so two years underway with that. The lot, as I think Andrew may have mentioned, maybe it was somebody else. Apologize if I correctly said it. It's periodically used by people with regard to informal play, if you will. It is without without doubt the most level lot in the Long Lake area. And also unique is that this is the lot that does not require a park and wreck seasonal pass. because I don't know if you're familiar, but as I've been here in 4 years, there's a lot of unhappiness with regard to the locals not being permitted to utilize the beach without paying for a pass. That's fine and good, but now we're seeing park and wreck trying to, you know, move into the one space that doesn't require uh compensation paid to park and wreck. Uh Andrew I believe mentioned the parking uh issue along Lake Drive. There's also five spots along Lakeshore. Uh I've the last two days all five parking spots are already utilized. I'm not proud to say this and don't have any personal stake in this one, but um it was mentioned that locals might be using this for their watercraft. Uh if you take a tour around Lakeshore Drive, you'll see that the locals just pile and utilize their watercraft of all various forms in various haphazard ways um along Long Lake Park extending from the beach area to Prrowy Woods. So, there's um a series of of those things u that I just want to bring to your attention if you were to um consider this um and if it

were put to a public hearing that I'd probably get a number of local residents involved. The Long Lake Neighborhood Association has already heard about the issue once. I'd probably look to get them involved in order to get really their opinions. Uh, I'm not aware of public sentiment um looking for this type of utilization. I know that a park and rec commission member is interested in it, but uh that's the only time I've heard this come up. And with that, I'd like to just finish by saying I don't know why um they couldn't use their own existing park space or their existing space next to the um either the snack shack or the, you know, the bathroom area. I don't see why property has to be taken away from locals when in fact I think existing space stays there. that would not create public concerns with regard to safety issues. Uh or if the issue is that um they need, you know, property, move some of their existing many sailboats, many many pieces of infrastructure. have them move some of their stuff off to 36 King Street where they now have a much bigger expanded parking lot available to them and then utilize the space where it could be right next to the boat ramp. So appreciate your time. Um happy to answer any questions but appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thanks for coming in. Thank you Rob. So right now we don't have a formal anything in front of us, right? This is just a discussion. I think Tim, if if you want to point Park and wreck and the park and wreck commission to this meeting, they can get a sense of where we might stand. And that's probably the best way because I I would not dare recommend you try and summarize

all of that. Um, okay. and then if they want to come forward with a formal proposal, they've heard what the concerns are. Uh they they can propose what they would like to propose and they would be wise to take this feedback and and we would want them to do that as a a posted public hearing. Oh. Oh, 100%. Absolutely. Yeah. and a well advertised one is at that because this is definitely as Rob was making this sound definitely a topic that would get interest and even though like you know I'm I'm generally supportive of it I would want them to come in with a fully thoughtout plan right like how many where how much right like there's there's a number of concerns that have been laid out that I I think that would be wise to to respond to if they just came in with a plan that said, "Hey, we want to put this rack here, then might not want to waste their time doing that." I gota I think we can probably move on to 300 Foster access to Webster Woods. What's uh what's this one about, Tim? Uh, okay. Um, so I've been in talks with um the landlord of 300 Fosters, so this property of Butts Webster um sort of up back on the hill, right? Like Right. Yeah. and uh been talking with them about if there's a way that we can figure out um whether it's you know an easement or um utilizing some of their existing parking spaces basically getting some sort of

access from that property to to access Webster. Um even though we don't have a formal trail system there yet, there's there's some trails. Um those are hopefully going to be that trail system is hopefully going to be um designed. Uh I'm going to be working with LCT um and I believe a member from the historical society on that this summer. Um so trying to get things moving, thinking about uh access. I've got into contact with them and what they've come back with is they're not fond of the idea of of an easement because they don't want to hand over permanent rights to the town. Um what they do want to put on the table is um the idea of them allowing a certain amount of existing spots to be utilized for accessing um Webster. Um but they would like to see they want it they want there to be some sort of structure to that agreement where there's a a fee which they admit it can be nominal. Um, but they want something kind of holding holding our feet to the fire there. Um, so I wanted to see what you guys thought of that idea. There is a gap between um that parking area that they uh proposed those existing existing parking spaces and where Webster actually starts. Um, so something to think about because who owns that who owns that that gap? It's it's still 300 Foster. Um, okay. In terms of getting from the parking spaces to the the actual Webster property. I mean, I don't know if we have to have an easement for for there to be access there. Um, or if we don't have to. Um, but I I spoke with Amy

about this actually today and she mentioned I I'm unfamiliar with that area. I haven't been out there, but she said that area is actually uh fairly steep. It is steep coming down from up on the hill there for sure. It's also one of the coolest parts of the property back there. Yeah, I I hadn't been back in that area. Um when I've accessed Webster, I've always accessed from uh Bulkley Road. There is enough area for about maybe two vehicles to to pull off mostly off the road and and park on the side there where there is the existing trail head. So maybe instead of paying this person for access to their parking lot, we think about using whatever that money would be to improve the the off-road parking trail head. We've got a lot of trails where in recent years we've putting uh a couple of pocket spaces off the roof for people to be able to use the trails. So maybe maybe we think about something like that there. Yeah, that that area where there is the existing parking um for maybe two cars. That area is pretty close to sensitive wetland areas. I think there's a vernal pool over there um not very far away and I don't know if there's a lot of area to expand uh into formal parking area with formal parking spaces. So when when they said nominal fee, would are we talking like a dollar because we need to have some financial exchange here to make this legal or were they talking about something that's actually like a real sum of money even though it's not big? Didn't get that far into discussions with them. They did give an example um and and not to say

that this is what they were expecting from us, just an example of a similar agreement they have with um and I don't even know if it was a town for access. It might have just been, you know, a company to to use those spots in their parking lot was $75 a month, which I don't think they they expect from us. Um but I did I didn't get that far into discussions with them about that. That helps benchmark it though, right? like that. Cool. That's $1,000 a year more. That's doing that myself. No, but it if we could make it $200 a year because, you know, they've got some signs. Sure, we we could live with that. Um, but at that point, I'd rather just make it a dollar a year and they can feel good about how they're helping support the community. when you said nominal key I guess that's where my head went like oh you're doing a favor here letting us access this link I mean I think it's a really interesting thing that is worth exploring Tim because access to Webster via Bulkley is a challenge um and this is I think there are a number of solutions and that's why when we acquired it we felt like it wasn't necessary to have a specific answer but this is I think the best answer if we can make it work. Um and I'm really excited that you are working on trying to find an answer to it that it's really a very good use of your time. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's it's you know it's certainly I feel time for for people to get out there and and actually see what we you know purchase for 100%. It that builds the next conservation voter in my mind. Right. Exactly. So what do you need from us right now? Are you just updating us or

do you need particular feedback? Seeing if if you guys are inclined to, you know, with this idea of maybe talking having me talk further about this uh structure of an agreement to pay a nominal fee to use these parking spaces. How many parking spaces was he willing to give up? or you haven't got that. I'm not sure if they gave an exact number, but I think we'd really only look be looking for maybe like three. It's probably only a few. And the the real interesting thing is the times when residents want it are not always, but they don't overlap a ton with when businesses are operating, right? Yeah. Neither weekends or evenings, right? Yeah. Right. Not all of us can be retired, right, Carl? As he sits back. Yeah, I I think Tim, you're working on the right track here. And the the more reasonable we can make the the fee, the better. But, um, you know, try as hard as I can to get that number as low as possible. Sure. You know what? I'll triple my offer. We'll make it a dollar per spot. Per spot. Per year. They'll be happy to hear that. Um, no, they've they've been a good partner in and things like that and other things. So, I think continuing the dialogue is is great. All right. Um, I just had one other quick thing and just just really uh to note that the the assistant conservation agent, Lauren Redsh, she did start up yesterday and we're very lucky to have her office. What is she in the office every like five days a week right now? In other words, if I bop in tomorrow to introduce myself, is it reasonably likely that

she'll be around or reasonably likely? She's taking the um the MACC courses. Um and that's why she actually isn't here tonight cuz she's got one of those uh classes, but I think they're at the time of the year where they're they're really pumping those out like multiple for a week. Um, so she's kind of taking a couple hours away from, you know, the daytime hours to to to do that. Um, in the evening, but generally speaking, I believe, um, she's looking for kind of a consistent, you know, like maybe 9 to5 Monday through Friday. So, she'll be around during the majority of office hours. Great. Well, my wife will kick me for tossing this out, but I think we should do like a um end of summer like conservation commission, conservation staff kind of barbecue or something like that. Just social gathering. Give her a chance to get to know everybody a little bit. So, um you host it. I I am offering to host. That's why kick him off. So, well, maybe uh I'll show up in a couple weeks with some proposed dates and times and we'll see if we can put something together. Perfect. Sounds good. Oh, wait. One more. I I will keep this quick. Um and I was I was talking with town clerk's office that, you know, we can't talk about this right now, but I can just mention it. Um about the enforcement order. Um as you guys know, I emailed you guys. I think it was was it yesterday at this point of the enforcement order that went out for uh Zero Fort Pond who has an existing uh order of conditions with us. They will be coming to the following meeting on the ETH to uh discuss and and we'll be voting to ratify at that meeting. Very good. I I will say Tim, one thing that may be a really good use of Lauren's time is sites that are in active construction. It may not be the worst idea to just send her out to put eyeballs on certain

things, right? Like we've seems like some folks are hitting stumbling blocks and as part of her training, but also as part of our oversight and given that all of our orders of conditions guarantee us that the right to access that property, might be worth like teeing up a couple that you want her to just go put eyes on. Yeah. Oh, definitely. Yeah. So she actually she was there yesterday and and first day enforcement order. So right we do what three four a year maybe at most. Good. But yeah that's a good idea. Another thing um get I got an email today. I guess the select board approved my reuping for three years. So you're stuck with us for the next three years. Good news. Congratul Congratulations. Thank you. How many what is this probably your sixth term? Seventh maybe sixth term. Five. Me? Um I've been a full member for 12 years and 12 years. Okay. So this will be your fifth official term. Wow. Bravo. And Carl and what term? I I don't I don't even think about it. Andrew. He's retired. He doesn't have to think about it's it's been a long time. Well, we appreciate you guys coming back. Yeah. Very good. Uh I think we need one more motion though. I move that we close the meeting. Second. All right. Last roll call vote. Uh Kyle. I should. Carl Carl Melberg Ed Edi Chase Chase Gerbig Michael Michael let me say

I myself I it's unanimous we're adjourned