Gentlemen, um it's now 7 pm. I'd like to call this uh conservation commission meeting to order this evening. The um meeting will be recorded and it's uh will be available to watch on jump to tele media as well.
First uh item agendas, I'd like to welcome back Mr. David McLaclin. David served on this commission 30 plus years in the past and we're very fortunate to have him come back tonight back on the commission again and he's it's his first meeting back. So, welcome back David.
>> Thanks, Chris. >> On the agenda, we now move on to our open session citizen concerns. Uh let's see this uh Thanksgiving forest plannings. Is this on? >> Yes. Yes, Robin is here. She has a presentation. >> Good. Excellent. Excellent. So, uh, Robin, please come forward.
>> Homeman, 38 Janet Road in Chumsford. Um, I am going to read the introduction that I gave to you all because it's it's short. I have a very short PowerPoint. Um, the project is to reindu reintroduce
native plants to the area near the pollinator garden that was cleared of buckthornne and Norway maple last fall. The elimination of those plants left little or no understory plants in the area since they were outco competed by invasive species which were mostly just
those two. The plan is to reindu reintroduce plants that would very likely be there had it not been for the non-native plants. And I think the best solution is to use plants from with within 150 feet of that site as ecotypes
because they share uh soil attributes of mineral content, acidity level, microorganisms, and they are characteristic of a Thanksgiving forest. And the plan is to introduce small amounts of abundant populations that are colonizing plants
that should spread and revitalize the soil. It's not planned as a garden or a landscaped area, but it's more of a slow reestablishment of indigenous plants. So, the first slide
is um on the left is the flagged non-native species for removal. This was done last fall. So, you can see the the green tape are the good ones, the orange flags are the bad ones. And I just want to point out on this left one, the two
the two the orange, the two in the middle, they were conjoined trees. And one is an oak and one is a maple, Norway maple. >> And they were conjoined at the bottom for for quite a bit over a foot and conjoined in the middle and also at the
top where their bark their I mean it was we couldn't figure out how that happened, but they were both thriving except one is gone now. And the one on the left is uh my grandson who helped. >> Um he used that uh uh tree wrench and he
just thought it was he had a he had a great time. >> So you remove the birch or the uh the maple. >> The Norway maple. Yeah. Just Okay. It's it's still there, but it's it's gone now except that last foot there. So we'll have to be vigilant about getting the
sprouts that come out of it. But it will there were a lot of trees and they were all dumped in a slash pile. Um I don't think you can see it on in these two. Uh there was a slash pile there. All that stuff get dump got dumped there. Huge pile and of course now it's
disappearing. >> Um okay, next slide. Okay, the fall of 2025 on the left you can see it. This is after all the trees, the the Norway maple and the buckthornne had been removed and it is amazingly open. And uh
okay, on the second one you can see the slash pile kind of in the middle of the photograph. Um but notice that whole area in the front. There is no vegetation there. There were no ferns, no moss, uh nothing. It was just and that's
because the trees, the Norway maples were so dense, there was no light. Uh they sucked up all the moisture and there was nothing there. Um but you can see it's the background of the pollinator garden. Um so it's it's an important part of this and it's also the
the path to the um the Thanksgiving forest is up there on the left. So it it's kind of there um as an important part of where the pollinator garden is. Okay, the next slide is I have a list of
plants that can be transplanted and these are all plants that there's three sections uh ground covers, the understory low shrubs, understory mid-level shrubs and annuals and these are all within 150 ft. There are some
that are already there. The maple leaf viburnum and the mountain laurel are already there and could not and before the invasive trees were removed you you couldn't see them. So now you can see them. I'll show you the slides that have them.
>> So So these are all currently there. >> No. Um the the ones that are there are the maple leaf viburnum, the mountain laurel. Um and there's a one little juniper. Um,
but most of them I think there's one woodfern, but some of them are very nearby and I think that I mean the soil would be very, you know, very similar and easy easily transplanted and what would probably normally be there anyway.
>> So, so do you have plans to do the transplanting? >> Yep. Okay. >> So, I've already picked out where these species are and their abundant colonies. If something is removed, you would never know it. And the idea is that they would be small transplants that would grow. Um
there is there's already partridge berry on the upper part on the slope part the flat part. There's nothing but the upper part has most of these except the uh pepsisawa but that's a that's in another area nearby. Um, mostly blueberries and
mostly junipers I think are would be the best ones to move because they're just great for the soil and easy easy to transplant. And we have some annuals which is jeweleed and that is um there's a lot of that uh in an adjacent area. So
we've saved seeds. Okay, next slide. Um it is a rough diagram. You can see it's kind of a it's a you know semicircle shape and you there's the up at the top is where the slash is. You can see the big slash pile there. Um so
I've just added in the brown circles are where the trees are and um so you can see where there will be addition. So it's not going to be completely filled in but the idea is that these are like starter plants. Um, and you can see at
the top be behind the slash is where the mountain laurel and the viburnum currently are. And the slide on the right is actually one of my favorites, partridge berry. And there's lots of it in the woods. You almost don't notice it because it's so tiny, but it's a great
it's a great addition to uh a woodland garden, evergreen. Um, next slide is the one on the left is um wood fern. Uh, and that also there's plenty of colonies of that around. Uh, none right
there now, but that's easy to move. It's also evergreen and extremely hardy. The one on the right um is deubberry uh rubis hpa and that is also very common. Uh, it's is evergreen. It turns reddish
brown in the winter, but um it's another great ground cover. Uh next slide. Next slide on the left is um pip sysawa which is a very common um ground cover
uh kopila ma and it is evergreen and um it's a little harder to transplant because its relationship with the soil. It needs to have plenty of soil, but there are lots of colonies around. And the one on the right, um there are not a
lot of these, but there's enough so that I think it's worth moving a small one. And that's hazelnut. You can see um the catkins are those are the male catkins that are coming down. So that's that's how you can recognize it. Those are great shrubs. Great shrub, great for
wildlife um and visual interest. They're just they're just a good sturdy um sturdy tree. Uh actually it's a taller shrub. Next slide. On the left is this is on the lower part
is where the slash pile is and the mountain laurel is evergreen and you can see it a little bit. The the green tree in the back is a hemlock. Um so there's lots of mountain laurel in there. Of course, we we didn't know this until most of the trees were gone. So,
that was a really that was a great find. Um, and the one on the right is this little tiny little juniper that I found on the corner, but there's lots of those around. And those would be those are great ground covers because they're great for stabilizing soil. Um,
and next slide, jeweleed. Um, there's lots of that, too. And the best way to get them going is to save seeds, which we have, and plant those. And they're wonderful. Hummingbirds, bees, they're just wonderful plants. Um, on the right is uh
a closeup of the mountain laurel that's already there. And it's actually I mean, it's evergreen, but it's it had rained, so it's kind of shiny, but it's really it's a nice nice healthy colony. >> So So the jeweleed is also called touch me knots, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're great plants.
They're great. I mean, a lot of people say jewel weed. It's a weed, but for a pollinator garden, it's ideal. They're easily, you know, if they get out of hand, they're easily easy to control, but they're just a great addition. Um, so mountain laurels on the right. Next
slide. This is the last slide. Um, uh, this this has got to be my favorite. What a surprise. This is a blueberry. It's called Upland blueberry um, vaccinium paladum. and it has green stems and they are really
in the fall and the winter they are really striking because they they form these colonies and they're they're just they're they're great. Um I don't know whe they have berries that we could ever eat but I I know that um animals eat them but there are lots of those and I
think there would be a great addition. Uh and on the right is maple leaf viburnum and there already is a healthy healthy colony there. Um, and I think they're and it's on the slope and so that wasn't in the area where all the the invasives were taken. You can see in
the corner there's some mayanthemum and starflower. So there's there's already um plenty of wild flowers in that area. It's just in the flat part. So that's that's the plan. So really all I need is approval to go ahead and do it.
>> Great. Robin, we appreciate the overview of the plan. appreciate your hard work. Uh does um do we have anybody have a quick comment or question before we take a quick vote? >> Peter, yeah, just just to clarify, I know you you've touched on this. Um
these are all native plants. Uh one would expect in our watershed or are already there. >> Exactly. >> Is is I think maybe that was my take away that was key is that >> I didn't want to go out and buy things from
you know, from a nursery, even if it's a good one, because you always run the chance of getting something in the soil. I have gotten >> plants from a reputable nursery, and out pops Japanese knotweed, and you have
jumping worms, all of these. So, the idea is to keep don't mess with the soil, keep it as it is, and use only plants that are from that area. >> Right? And and I'll just mention I I like to use the word uh eco restoration
which I think what the experts use but it's restoring what used to be there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So that's great. Thank you. >> Thanks Peter. Dave question coming. >> There used to be a lot of human activity down towards Mil Pond. Is that I'm sure that's restricted now somehow from the
parking lot down. >> No >> parking lot. >> Am I in the wrong? No. I was looking at a couple of your pictures. >> I mean, there there's definitely a foot traffic the places. >> Yes. Are you going to are you going to have to restrict the foot traffic in
order to have your pollinator garden take effect? >> The the pollinator garden has this wonderful awesome fence. This area is not fenced and there are people that walk through there. There are a lot of dogs and I was aware of that when I was thinking about how things get planted.
But all of these plants can handle that. >> Are you going to have to actively water them? >> Yes, I will do that. >> Yeah, because we might get a drought this summer. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. They will have to It's like all the the pollinator garden and all the trees that were planted, those were watered every day.
>> Good. This great. Yeah. >> Good. Can we have a motion then to approve this uh plantings plan? Yeah, I'm I >> I make a motion to approve the plan brought before us. >> Excellent. Mark on the motion second by Peter. >> Uh John >> John.
>> Excellent presentation. >> All those in favor? I >> Any oppose? Unanimous. Thank you very much, Robin. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Robin. Thank you, Karen. >> Thanks, Karen. Next on tonight's agenda is uh the report from our planning board leaison
to the conservation commission Mr. Chris Levali Chris you have the podium. >> Good evening uh Chris Levali chair of the planning board. Our last meeting was April 8th uh where we had a joint meeting of the finance committee and uh planning board to vote on
recommendations for revised lighting bylaw that we'll be presenting uh town meeting this uh coming two weeks. Um, we made some slight adjustments based on the finance committee recommendations. So, that'll be before town meeting. Uh,
we had a Pineh Hill Road subdivision uh, come before us and we continued working on our zoning bylaws changes for the next town meeting. Uh, we have no second meeting in April because of town meeting this this month.
So, our next uh, planning board meeting is going to be May 13th. We don't have an an agenda set yet, but we expect to continue our zoning uh bylaw drafting for the the next town meeting. Um we
will likely start discussing the Riverneck reszoning to address zoning conflicts in that area and then we will I believe we'll likely be uh opening our public hearing for Lady Slipper Lane as well. Um so that's all I've got.
>> Thanks Chris. Any questions from the commissioners? >> Thanks, Chris. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, that takes us through our um open session. Uh unless there's some sort of a citizen uh concern right now that someone wants to raise before we head into the regulatory matters, if
there's something that's not on the agenda tonight that you want to come up and speak to us briefly about, uh we'd entertain that now. Okay. So, moving on then to our regulatory section. and we do have a lot of um matters and items scheduled for this evening's meeting. Uh but let's get
right into it. So the first item under regulatory hearings is a notice of intent filing. Uh Miss Donna Aulis with respect to nine Lady Slipper Lane. Uh we'll have a legal notice that we'll have to read into the record and then we'll have a presentation from the applicants will give us the um the
commission an overview of what of the work that's being proposed. Uh we'll then have questions from the commissioners and then because it's a public hearing, we'll then open it up to members of the public who may be able to come up to the podium, state your name and address and we'll we'll entertain
public input as well too. So um I see uh let's just do our legal notice and we'll then we'll go to attorney. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, MGL131 section 40 and
the Chsford Wetlands bylaw chapter 187. The concert Chancellor Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Chancellor Town Offices, 50 Bria Road on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026 at 7 p.m. to consider the
notice of intent filed by property owner Donna Kulis for proposed work within a 100t buffer zone to bordering vegetative wetlands at 9 Lady Slipper Lake, further identified in Accessor's map 91, block 344 lock 9. The project entails
construction of two single family homes and one accessory dwelling unit with associated driveway exit uh and improvements to Chestnut Lane uh land clearing, grading, landscaping and installation of utilities and rooftop
drainage infrastructure. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. And now we'll hear from Attorney Hler. Welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you members for your time tonight. Uh, for the record, Douglas Howler representing Donna Kulis is the owner of the property
at Nine Lady Slipper Lane. Um, nine Lady Slipper Lane is being proposed to be subdivided into two lots that will have two single family homes. They are shown on the plans that have been submitted to you as
lots two and three. They're to the rear of the existing home on nine Lady Slipper Lane. It has nothing to do with the coolest farm property itself that the town purchased. Uh I think some people were concerned that somehow
Donna's name is associated with the farm project that the town bought and this is away from that. Um we have uh submitted plans that were prepared by Haley Ward. I have Brian Malissi with me this evening who did
those plans. And we had wetland delineations done by Goddard Consulting. Um and we've submitted all their uh findings and reports. Um talking about the properties exist. The lot one is the existing home. Uh the new two lots. Lot
two will contain 1.29 acres of land of which 38,000 plus square feet are upland. Lot three has 2.37 acres of land and over 50,000 square feet of upland. So we lot three will have the access
accessory dwelling unit on that. Um the access and the frontage will be coming through Chestnut Hill Lane which is a private paper street off Caner Road. Um the paper street shows frontage off Caner Road of about 110 linear feet and is more than sufficient under the town's
zoning bylaws. Um we have plenty of frontage. Um, so we're here tonight really to talk just about the the notice of intent and asking for an order of conditions to allow work to be performed within the 100 foot buffer. We're respecting the 50-ft buffer entirely.
Um, uh, the plan delineates that uh, both the 50 foot no disturb area and the 100 buffer line. Um, as I mentioned in our submitt to you, this land was subject to
a prior subdivision which became known as Lady Slipper Lane 26 years, 27 years ago. And there was a fair amount of work done and I worked on that at the time. Um, and then this commission at that point in time u reviewed it to the
sidewalk and eventually did not issue or allowed construction to take place. issued a standard order of conditions with certain terms and the lot the subdivision grew out naturally. Um, and we think this is actually a lot simpler. Quite frankly, it's this meets almost
every element of our zoning bylaw. Um, we're being very consistent with not trying to disturb the land within the 50oot uh no disturb area. Um, I would like to, if I could, I'm going to ask Brian Mesi to actually detail for
you what he has uh drafted on the plans to get specific about the drainage and uh other elements of storm water. He will also uh identify to you these lots have already been previously perked so
we can put septic systems in. Um, so that the the the soil testing was done for that. Um, my understanding is there's a sitewalk scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on Thursday and we'll be welcoming you to take participate in that. And I
think you'll see for yourself that this is a pretty standard two lot subdivision with without much uh should be of relatively little significance for the conservation commission and quite frankly the planning board. It's it's
pretty standard. Um, we did send out the notices that were required. I have not gotten a lot of the greens cards back, but I will bring them over to David in the morning. Whatever we do have, I don't think it's many, have been returned to us, but I have proof of the mailing to all the abutters. Uh, it was
a total of about 25 abutters plus six towns that were involved. Um, if I could have Brian kind of go through the details of the specifics of the engineering and then we'll be happy to answer questions of the commission. Good
evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. For the record, Brian Melissi with Haley Ward Incorporated with a civil engineer for the project. Uh, as attorney Hower said, we have in front of us is a three lot subdivision. One's an existing house. There's really no work to be done there except for creating a property line. So, there's a
two lot subdivision uh being accessed off of Chestnut Hill Lane, uh, accessing from Caner Road. the the roadway, which is really a glorified common driveway for the two lots, is proposed to be a 22 foot wide gravel
road. We do have a paved apron at um at Caner Road just for some turning movements and whatnot. Um fire lanes are typically 20 foot wide. We went two foot wider such that the fire department will be able to access the roadway. You'll see at the end of the road, it's about
900 little over 900 ft long, about 922 ft long from from uh edge of the rightway at Caner Road up to the end. We have a T turnaround uh which is consistent dimensionally speaking with uh subdivision regulations such that the uh fire department could come in and
turn around at the end of that. The turnaround itself is encompassed in an easement uh encumbering the two lots. It kind of goes right down the middle of the uh middle of one of the proposed lot lines. As as attorney Hler said and as this commission's probably well aware
of, there's a moratorium on the sanitary sewer in town. Um so we went and took the liberty of applying for and performing percolation and deepold testings on the lots to make sure uh we could get septic system designs outside
the 100 foot buffer zone which is required by the town of Chid. Um the locations of the perk and deepold tests are shown on the plan. The results of those testings are shown on one of the later sheets during the plan. Um while there's not a lot of specific
information on the septic systems themselves, we do show where the primary area and the reserve area would be laid out. Um, typically what happens is following at least some initial feedback from both this commission and the planning board, we would go ahead and
design those septic systems and put them into the board of health for for permitting just in case a lot line were to change or something would happen or house location would have shift, we don't want to have to go back and redesign those. But the the areas themselves, I can sit there and tell you
I laid them out myself. They work according to title five and the town of Chford water health bylaw. Uh storm water, we kind of took a hopefully took a page from the lid low impact development page. Um and storm water is right now proposed to be
handled by a infiltration swale on one side of the driveway. The driveway, you'll notice in the plans, we we uh counter uh super elevate or slope the driveway itself to one side. Do you recall what sheet that is, Brian? >> Uh, so there's two layout sheets,
there's two site and grading sheets, and there's two utility sheets. And so it's probably Oh, go now. Uh, one more. One more. So, this would be the layout plan. Uh, it's just that that gray area shows you
the uh shows you the location of the driveway itself, the housing locations. And if you want to just go to the other end of that page, David, right there is that T turnaround that I spoke about. Go one more maybe. >> So the next one is the drainage.
>> The next one should be the site and grading plan. Oh, so we got one more. >> Okay. >> Got to fit everything to scale on this thing. So it's Yep. Right there. So you'll see that the the roadway cross slopes or cross pitches to the I believe
it's going to be the westerly side or the downhill side towards the wetlands. Uh it is an infiltration uh swale trench that will collect any of the storm water coming off of that uh off of that driveway. Uh you'll see those kind of rectangle
areas. Those are the deepole tests that were done on the lots. We need to do two in the reserve, two in the primary. So you'll see there's four tests done on each slot. That's where the soil testing was done for the septic designs. Um so the septic systems have to be at
least 100 ft away from the wetlands which they are. The houses or the structures are outside that 50ft zone and some of the return grading behind the houses goes up to the 30 foot no disturb zone. Other than that we don't have any uh impact or any alteration to
the wetland areas that are on site. Um what else? There's a there's a couple of pages of an erosion and sedimentation control plan which is typical uh on a project like this. We show hay bales. We show some stockpile areas during construction. Uh we provided a proposed tree line on
the plan to show the limit of tree clearing for the for both the roadway uh in the lot construction. We conducted a cut fill analysis. I kind of did it in two different ways. I did just the roadway and then I included the
uh field that would be required for the house construction. The lots kind of slope away from where the roadway is is uh is proposed. We've designed this as both gravity both lots are gravity systems. So there is a little bit of fill going on in front of
the houses. So for the roadway itself, we have a a cut of about 200 yards. And really that's uh we tried to mimic the existing ground out there so we're not doing a whole lot of earth work for the roadway. Um and so most of that most of
that cut will be removed and then replaced with good gravel material. Uh when we get in front of the planning board um we would fully expect a letter from the fire department saying that that gravel roadway has to meet the standard of their uh of their fire
apparatus. and we can certainly do that. Um, taking into account the construction on the houses, it's about a 5,000 yard fill. A lot of that would be septic sand and whatnot in order to uh in order to meet Title 5 standards for the septic
systems. We are proposing to bring a water line up that roadway. Uh, talked to the water department. We are proposing a 6-in water man uh which will dead end beyond the T turnaround with a driveway. We're going to terminate with a with a
fire hydrant uh to aid in obviously in firefighting and also for water quality issues that we could utilize to uh flush the the water man from time to time to keep the water quality going and so the water services will be taken off of that main. I did talk to the water
department. I don't believe we have any negative comments coming from them. Uh but that'll happen during the plan of wood plc process. Uh, Chestnut Hill Lane is a is a paper street unimproved way and we propose to
improve it with the methods I just talked about. I probably forgotten more than I should have told you, but uh I'll throw it back to the commission for any questions. We'll certainly answer them as best we can. >> Thanks, Brian. Thanks. the uh just to give it a little bit of a
local flavor of this, these properties are not being put on the market for sale. Uh both are going to go to the sons of Donna Kulis >> and Doug Kenda. Uh they have two sons and this has been their lifetime dream along with their grandfather's lifetime
dream. They're hopeful to have a fourth generation of Kulis family members living on this property that has been farmed by them previously for over a hundred years. So, you know, it it's it's true local people using their land as it's intended to be used. Um trying
to be as really consistent with all of the intent and spirit of your commission's bylaws as well as the planning board's bylaws. Um we'll be happy to take any questions that you have. Um and we'll be happy to listen to any concerns or concern
questions by the neighbors and uh kind of regroup from there. Thank you. >> Thank you, Attorney Hosler. And welcome, Mrs. Coolis as well. >> I would just like to say a few things. I was born in Chford. >> Mis, if you could address the commission. >> I'm sorry. I was born in Chelmsford
1960. I lived in Chelmsford, went to Chsford High School, uh graduated, moved away with my husband for a short period of time, and came back. Um, we lived at Lady Slipper Lane. I'd go see my mother and father all the time when they lived at 185 Pineh Hill Road. The boys, my
boys are both living in Chford in an apartment. They love the farm. They want to respect my dad. They really want to live in these houses. And uh, we respect the land. We would not do anything that we cannot do. It's just it would be an
incredible family opportunity for all of us to be together. I just want to say that. so that you can have a face to the name and see. But we're not we're not doing this for money at all. We're doing this for families. >> We're doing this for I'm so sorry. We're
doing this for family. We're doing it to keep the family together >> and I just I really want people to see the the face and the family behind it. >> Well, thank you, Mr. K. >> Thank you. >> We appreciate that. And that Kulis family has a a wonderful reputation in the town, I must say. >> Thank you.
>> Um so at this >> one last Oh, yeah. Mr. Just to follow up on Donna's comments, the ADU that's being proposed is actually for Doug and for Donna. So, they're going to be living next door to their both sons and eventually selling their home. So, it is
a true family plan here. Just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, >> Attorney Hustler. All right. So, uh we've had our uh presentation to the commission at this point and we appreciate it. So, the next phase is we're going to have the commissioners ask some questions, uh make some comments. We'll move down the line of
commissioners. uh the focus of the chumps conservation commission and I want to highlight that right now it's quite different than say the planning board uh when we have a planning board hearing later in May the focus will be on you know traffic uh impact you know visual barriers for the neighbor there's
a lot of other issues our focus as champ conservation commissions is really the environmental issues wetland uh the animal habitat the nature aspects of it uh we look at the the flood potential flooding is is something of concern for us but we've got a focus really that
that really is around our regulations and that's the authority we have in in how we make our decisions at at the end of the hearing. So with that background, we're going to go to John. Commissioner John is going to give us uh any comments or questions at this point. John? >> Uh
no, I appreciate you've kept everything out of the 50 foot no build. You know, septic systems, everything's out of the 50 foot no build, you know. I mean, looking at this and what strikes me is I know what
family's all about. I've done the same thing in town over the years, several years ago, and this is what it is. If your kids want to live here, some chose to live here, some don't, but I appreciate what Don is doing. what
everything I'm looking at right now. You know, I'm not going to start talking about how many trees you're going to cut and everything else because when you build a house, you got to cut trees. You got to put stuff back. You got to landscape it right.
Uh, no, I'm really good with this. >> Thanks, Sean. Thank you. Moving on to Bill. >> Yep. So, you're not looking Brian. And you're not looking for any waivers at all? >> No waivers from the conservation commission. We have a a list of waivers
from the planning board or the subdivision regulations, >> right? But nothing from us. >> Nothing from us. >> Okay. Um the there's a well on the house across the street. Is that far enough away from you? Is that this
uh reserve septic? >> Yeah. So you'll see we we provided a 100 ft radius around that existing well. Title five regulations require uh the septic systems to be at least 100 feet away from that. So that's why we showed the well, we showed the radius and showed where those where the primary and
the reserve would be to show that we would be outside of that. >> So it's outside is the reserve closest to that well. >> Uh I'd have to look at the plan. I do believe so. I do believe. >> But you're outside of that. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Um >> when was that flagged?
Uh, I want to say April of 2025. >> Last year. >> Last year. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, I know we're doing a sitewalk and where Lady Slipper ends and uh the main
house is on lot one right now. There's no Is the wetlands so close to that that you couldn't put the driveway from off of Lady Slipper? You have to go the other way, right? >> Yeah. Good question. So, one of the first uh concepts I guess that we did look at was trying to extend Lady
Slipper Lane in which to create frontage for the two new lots. Um between where the wetland edge is, how the existing house sits on the lot and having to create uh front yard offsets off of that and try to kind of get that driveway or
that roadway up through it. It just we weren't able to achieve that, especially with trying to keep out of the 30-oot no touch zones and and things like that. So the wetland is the existing wetlands right there is kind of forbids that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um well we're going to do sidewalk I
guess Thursday. >> Thursday at one schedule. Yes. >> So I've already walked it. I used to live up there so I know the land. Um the the lane goes down to Caner Road. Maybe this doesn't
there's no way to go out the other way on that existing lane. >> Uh >> is there a reason why you've gone the way you've gone? >> The reason would be length. It would be longer that way. Uh once you get out to Pineh Hill Road, the site distance um is
kind of prohibitive out that way. U there's a little bit more traffic on Pineh Hill Road than would be on Canther. And so just talking about some of those issues, we decided to try to present the project like this and to exit out onto Caner. >> Okay. >> And aren't there a couple of driveways
that use that part of >> There are there's a there's a gate across and someone's going to throw something at me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a gate or a chained gate across the driveway um down off of Pineh Hill Road. But the last two houses on I guess they front on
Thomas Drive um have gravel driveway access to those coming up through the other way. Right. >> Um is there any Just talking about the wetlands now behind the houses. Is there
anything you're going to add to that area to enhance the wetlands at all? Is there have you put any thought into uh more plantings or um anything. >> We haven't provided a landscape plan for
the houses yet. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I'm not a landscape architect. I never claim to be. I simply show a a proposed tree line at the limits of the uh of the house and the fillback there. Uh but we could certainly take that under advisement and see if there's something
that we could uh provide. >> Yeah. >> No, I I don't see any real issues with it to be honest with you. Um, but just I just had those questions that really aren't conservation questions, but >> I'm all set, Chris. >> All right, Bill, over to Mark. >> Uh,
yeah. Isn't the town kind of cracking down and getting rid of all the uh private septic systems that they want you to tie over? I think isn't the milstream property being forced to go with uh surge as opposed to a septic system?
Can you explain why you're putting in septic systems on these properties? >> I mean, very simply, there's there's a more I'm I'm under the understanding there's a moratorum and that any new construction cannot tie into the sanitary system. Now, with that being
said, there is sanitary sewer down at Caner Road. The way the the way the land is sloped and way topography works, we could very simply put in a a sanitary sewer system into that. I was under the impression that we cannot tie in any new
residential construction cannot tie into the sanitary sewer. And so we >> 100% true >> and so we we were I won't say we were forced nothing's forcing us but we had to go this the septic route. >> Okay. Uh this the septic systems you're showing
here that's that's the expansion and that's the primary systems on this uh on page five. >> Yep. And you said the soils are are not very good there. You said you bring in like 5,000 yards of material. Is it that you say that? No. >> Well, that had nothing that has nothing
to do with the soil type. That has to do with how we how we've decided to grade the lots. >> Oh, I thought it was for the septic. I'm sorry. Okay. >> So, that that gravity flow to the septic. It's one of the issues where, you know, if the land slopes this way, in order to meet breakout and for the title five systems, I have to kind of
fill this way. So, there's a bit of a fill. um against the foundations in the house there. But so that's where a lot of that fill comes from. Uh the soils were were typical. Um I think we had 11 minute rates which is just fine for
septic systems. I think >> estimated season high water tables were down around 60 in 5t. So again conducive to uh you know title five systems. >> Okay. >> Um I I should say that testing um is witnessed by the temp board of health.
It's not the board of health themselves, but they utilize a a third party to come out and watch us do those tests and that was certainly done. So, everything was done according to rules, regulations, and above board. >> I I took a walk up by myself and I sort of the land does kind of slope off
towards that wetland area. You you don't suspect any problem with phosphorus coming from this coming from the septic system with the wash machine. I don't want to see anything go down towards the wetland area though. >> Okay. Uh I I could bore you to tears with some
of the board of health regulations. Uh both houses have been uh are proposed right now to be four bedroom homes. There's an ADU on one of the lots which would create another bedroom. So five bedrooms. So those both those systems on both lots have been designed as five bedroomedroom systems. So you could
actually put an ADU on the other one if you really wanted to if it stayed a fourbedroom home. From a nitrogen loading standpoint, I need at least 50,000 square feet of lot area to accommodate a five- bedroomedroom home. You'll see with the lot areas, they both above that. So, again, we meet that
nitrogen loading uh limitation >> uh from title five. >> Okay. >> Uh the other my last question, Billy, is it's mostly mostly water department. They're okay with putting a 6 in line up there, dead ending it. >> So, there's an 8 in encanter.
>> Yeah. Um, so providing a six-inch line, we, you know, take advantage of a little bit of more pressure within that six-inch line. Um, and I did talk to him about the dead ending. And he says for two houses, it's going to be plenty. He said the homeowners should be aware that
it could get some discolored water, right? >> Uh, because of the lack of kind of a flow through a 6-in line, but that's why we have the hydrant at the dead end so that to flush that every now and then if they start to get discolored water. >> Okay. I'm good.
>> Thanks, Mark. I gave >> There are three buildings, >> not two. >> There are three buildings >> proposed. Yes. This >> What's the accessory building for? >> It's an accessory dwelling unit. Uh >> is it? So, it's a house. >> Yeah, it's a onebedroom
>> 900. >> Why do is there a reason you call it accessory rather than >> Everybody calls it an ADU nowadays. It's accessory dwelling unit. >> So, that's the ADU. >> ADU accessory. >> The other two are not. The other two are single family homes and then one ADU just to kind of
>> what's the uh what's the elevation on the west side compared to the elevation of Chestnut? >> So Chestnut Hill Lane >> the elevation to the west. Yep. >> As compared to Chestnut Hill Lane >> to the west of
>> of Chestnut Hill Lane. >> The elevation is it it cross slopes. It's probably goes, how do I explain it? Can I Can I go? >> Yeah. Show the map. Yeah. Go up to the uh the plan, please. >> How many feet does it does it slope or
not? >> From here to here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it slopes. It goes from about 360 uh 260 to about 250. >> So, in this spot right here is about a 10 foot distance. >> Okay. >> And should be flat to the front of the house again to accommodate that septic
system. And then like a walk out house if you could visit a walk out house. >> Okay, just bear with me. So and so what's the elevation >> on the other side of Chestnut? >> We match grades 260 258 26.
>> Okay. So So the site slopes the site slopes >> from the up down to Chestnut. >> No slopes. It slopes from Chestnut down to the >> Okay. How about going down to Pine Hill? The end of lad slipper is higher than
the end of down where lad slipper starts. Correct? >> Lad slipper would be lower than this elevation here. >> So lad slip the the house at the end of ladies slipper is going to be lower than the proposed houses or higher.
>> Go to the next >> next next uh sheet. >> I forget which way it is but yeah it is. That's the existing goal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. for ladies slipper wedding. >> And that's higher than the beginning of ladies slipper. Correct.
>> Slightly higher. 258. >> Slightly higher. >> 58 >> from the beginning of ladies slipper. >> Yeah. You got to go way to the left >> here. >> That's the end of ladies. >> Driveway raises about six feet. >> No. No. All the way to the beginning of ladies slipper.
>> All the way to the beginning slip. I don't know that answer. >> Okay. Fine. But no, no, you that's all right. You can just say you don't know. That's okay. >> Driving that roadway, I think it's it's fairly flat, but I don't think huge elevation difference, but I can I can get that information.
>> Um, Mark or someone brought up the point about uh the edge of the wetlands and how we make sure there'll be no activity back there after the houses are constructed because there's they're not going to be big backyards.
So, one thing to consider is what we always have done in the past, which is some demarcation of where the wetland line is, either with boulders or with shrubs or trees or fence or something because what you we don't want is
somebody mowing the the the big property then dumping all the the the refues into the wetlands to get it off the site. Okay, that's all I had. Chris, >> nice day. Allie >> also. Thank you. >> Very good. Mr. Spawn.
>> Um yeah, a couple quick things. Um regarding the septic um you know this com this commission has a statutory obligation to prevent groundwater pollution. But the real rag is with our board of health and our town DPW. So I was under the impression that
our DPW is running I call it a a sewer capacity bank. Um, but I'm a little bit out of my depth here, so I just want to throw that out on the table and probably not a big issue for this commission. Um, second
question, tell me about construction impacts to the 50-foot no build zone from the wetlands. In other words, the plan you mentioned the the the intent of the plan is to respect
the at least the 50 first 50 feet of the wetland buffer which is you know what we allow. We allow building and you know my question is how much construction impact is there in either the 30 foot no disturb help me with my numbers David or the 50 foot no build
>> 50 foot no build 30 foot no impervious 25 foot no disturb >> thank you >> so we don't have we have zero impact from 0 to 30 >> so the limit of our grading stops at the 30 foot >> okay >> we have no structures no
>> imperous area if you will no rooftop top. Um, all of that is outside the 50ft zone. So, I don't have exact numbers for that. I can get those for you. >> But, but construction, excuse me, construction would be up to 30 ft from
the wetland. You know, running equipment and stock piles and whatnot. >> Yeah. Typically what we do, typically what we call for on the erosion control plans is a erosion erosion control barrier. >> And that barrier also becomes the limit of work. >> Yeah. That's that's on the drawing, but
you did. Okay. And then quickly, um, yeah, I personally, like Bill said, would be interested in a landscape plan. Um, you know, you're doing it looks like you're doing a good job of staying out of the important stuff, but nonetheless, it is still a wetland. And you know, we we talk about shrubs or a fence to
delineate it or, you know, if if if the owners were willing to put up a line of uh native shrubs, for example, like we heard about at the beginning of this hearing in a landscape plan and and minimize lawn to the extent you can. I know you're close. I'd find that
helpful. Um and then just quickly, last question. The infant infiltration swale, is that grass? Is that lawn on the bottom? Uh we we have >> it's not a rain garden, right? It's more of a >> we have it lined with crushed stone just to >> Okay.
>> kind of create more of a infiltrative barrier. But yeah, this should be there's a detail on that. Uh I'll figure that out when I get my magnifying glass out. Okay, I'm good. Thank you. >> You want No, it's me. >> Can I say one? >> Uh yeah, I think uh Bill Bill's got something.
>> I just uh all your gutters and stuff are going into the ground. >> Nothing's going over over land. Attorney Hler, >> we have our wetland scientist with us who can address the board and he has other specific comments after listening what you just asked about.
>> So let's um let's just uh go to our our conservation agent, Mr. Coons, first and then we'll we'll go that direction. But that's good to know. Mr. Coons, >> before we do that, could we build Bill? Are you are you finished? >> Yes, I am. >> So all the roof runoff is going to go into rain gardens or into the ground or what?
>> Well, I was going to ask about that. >> Oh, go ahead. Pick it up. Um, so if I can have the floor, >> you have the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, the first thing I would say is that in a couple of locations, um, these proposed buildings
go right up to the 50ft no build zone. Um, and if the commission recalls, uh, a recent filing where we saw the same thing. Um, and because it came so close to the 50-foot no disturb, the
commission wanted a peer review of the wetland delineation. So, I would recommend the same thing in this case. Get an independent peer review. Uh, yeah. The next So the next thing I I I wanted to talk a little bit more about
uh the drainage um both of the proposed road or the proposed road improvements and and the structures. So, so Brian, the way the way the plan shows is that the um in terms of just the grading, the
the flow is going the the the storm water runoff flow is going toward this the swale here, right? >> And then once it gets to the swale, where does it go? It flows down this way towards
>> goes into the ground. I mean, if there's a I did provide a profile, a roadway profiles is between like, you know, 1 and a.5% and 2 and a half%. So, the actual grade of that roadway is fairly gentle. >> Yeah. >> Um, and it's just going to go down and it's going to infiltrate into the ground. Yep. >> So, so here's it looks like here's the
low point. >> That is a localized low point. Correct. >> So, is is is there much concentration of the flow in this location that then goes into that swale? >> No. I mean, we can I can provide some numbers to that, but no, we we end up
again intercepting everything upstream >> uh into that swale, and there's just a you know, there's a fairly minor part of the roadway that goes into that part, but >> um so I think I think you said the swale so the road is gravel. >> The road is >> so so what percentage just infiltrates?
I mean, so that presumably means it's pvious at least to some extent. So you know what what percentage then um infiltrates subsurface just because by virtue of being graveled? >> Yeah. I mean a gravel driveway, gravel roadway is considered to be a pvious
surface. It's not like a pavement where you get 98% of runoff. I think with this type of soil out here, you it's probably 92 to 95% runoff. So you get a little bit of that credit. Um, and again going into that infiltrative uh or or swale
lid technique so we don't have to provide large detention basins like you guys are used to or large recharge areas. We're taking uh uh we're taking advantage of a fairly low uh low grade of the roadway
along with that swale. >> So uh so what size storm is this intended to operate up to? >> 25. So, uh, what happens after 25? >> Um, it would overflow. It would go, you
know, onto the onto the applicant's property. >> And >> so, so none none goes onto the butter's property. None goes into Caner. Um, okay. >> Very, very small. I mean, we I mentioned that there's a paved apron going out
onto onto Caner just for turning movements and whatnot. So there'd be a very small u amount of runoff from that paved apron that would enter into the can't erode um storm water system. >> Okay. And I believe that's a planning
board regulation as well that there's not supposed to be any any increase in runoff off the property right for up the 100redyear storm. Correct. Um so so yeah going going to the the
runoff from the roofs. Um so I think it's a general policy that the commission likes to see some sort of management of that. I think you know most often it's some sort of um subsurface uh infiltration system.
Seeing that I would say we've seen that probably in nine out of the 10 last filings. Um is that something you can do here? I mean, I know these systems are pretty cheap as long as the groundwater is low enough. >> So, yeah, I think I I think it would be
good to um >> uh revise the plans to show that. Um now, on one one of these sheets, um it shows you you uh it shows I think water lines where it says PWS, public
water supply lines. >> Yep. >> What I tried to differentiate PW is proposed water line. >> Okay. Okay. >> PWS proposed water service. >> Okay. So, >> so you have the main 6-in main. >> Yeah. >> And a 1 in service going to the house. >> Okay. >> So, it's not a public water supply in
any way, shape, or form. It's a >> proposed water service. >> Okay. So, anyway, um again, I forget what sheet it's on. I saw the two lines. Um I saw two lines going in each one of the houses, but I saw no line going into the ADU. Is that because then
>> uh if uh if there's no line going in the ADU, that's on me because it would be would be a service. So, nope. I will I will add that >> if you could double check that. So, so I was thinking well maybe because it's an an ADU. The water line is coming from one of the houses and you didn't have to show it. >> Um
>> my bad. I will. >> Okay. >> There will be plumbing in the ADU. So, I will show water service. I apologize. Um, so, so I think the last thing I have to say is, and I think we'll probably hear more about this from the neighbors. I'm hear a lot hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence, um, that there a lot
of frogs out there. Um, so that always that always says to me maybe a vernal pool um, or vernal pools. Now, there there there are no potent certified or potential vernal pools shown on the plan. Um but I guess what I would
suggest to the commission is that um you know when when I go out and do the site visit if if if I feel at that time that you know there's sufficient evidence to indicate the presence of a vernal pool and and the commission has has made a
decision hopefully tonight to do the um peer review of the wetland delineation need to add that in to the scope of that review h have the commission's consultant go out and um then, you know, make an assessment of whether there's a
vernal pool out there with some kind of a uh you know, at least a rough location of where it's located. Um because if if if there is a vernal pool or vernal pools out there, then of course a lot of the upland habitat is going to be lost
for this particular project with all the tree clearing that's being done. And there are extra extra protections for that habitat in the wetland bylaw, the town's wetland bylaw. So, um, you know, that's if the commission could give me
that authority to then include that in the scope of the review, um, I think that would be the right way to address it. >> Thank you, David. Appreciate your input. Uh, do we have any other questions, comments from the commission before we turn to the public and get some um,
>> the wetlands guy? >> Well, we got to talk to the wetlands guy. >> We do, but we also have to talk to the public, too. >> Yeah, but we got to talk to the wetlands guy so he can tell us. >> Yeah, but I'm running the meeting, buddy. Okay. Okay. All >> right. We're not going to short change anybody tonight. Okay. But, you know, I'm at the chairman and I kind of
dictate who's takes the podium. >> Yeah, I understand. >> Well, I appreciate your enthusiasm. >> Hi to the commission. My name >> Let's look u Let me just set the context for folks. Okay. We're going to finish our overview presentation. It's it's the
commissioners and then what we're going to do is then turn to the public. And again, we got a lot of people here. We want to give people a chance. We want we want to hear some input from the public. So we're not going to get people out there. So sir, your name in position for us. >> Hi, my name is Anthony G. I'm a wetland scientist with Guard Consulting. I'm the
one who performed the delineation on site. Uh just to kind of nip something in the bud. Um on the nearest potential vernal pool on site is over 500 ft away across Lady Slipper Lane down offsite probably separated by five different
properties. The other one is over 1,200 feet away. So there's no mapped potential vernal pools or certified vertical pools on site. The only portion of the site that holds water as we saw during my delineation which was conducted in August of 2025 uh
correction that had to be made was within the area of delineated bank and as per the wetland uh wetland protection act veriples cannot occur within bank. So even if woodf frogs do
hold some area of that portion for breeding habitat, it cannot legally be determined as a vernal pool uh under the wetland protection act in that definition. As for the nature of the wetland itself, it's a swamp. It's a maple swamp for the
vast majority of it with scrub shrubby and with a established understory for the first portion of delineation. The back half is there's a lot of defined topo throughout each with the wetlands occurring at the toe of that wetland, the toe of that hill. Um, with that in
mind, um, something that we noted is that the potential for rain gardens was something that was really noted within the commission. If that's something that the commission is really keen on, I'd be I'm sure we'd be happy to implement that into the landscaping plan as well.
As far as the site visit on Thursday, I would be very very happy to accompany and answer any questions on delineation that the commission may have or the agent may have at that time to hopefully maybe avoid the need for peer review if that may be required.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, >> Chris. Are we in the process of validating a vernal pool on the Gulas conservation land? >> Not yet. >> Do we have a group that is going to do it or that's just an act? Just something to do. >> Something to do. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, all right. Uh, commissioners,
any, uh, follow-up questions, particularly to our wetlands specialists? David, do you want to address? >> Uh, yeah, I I can resp I can respond to that certainly quickly. So, just because it's not shown there are no potential vernal pools or certified vernal pools showed on mass mapper, which I think is
what you're referring to, right? That does not necessarily mean there are none out there. It's really it's really it's really by field observation >> to jump. >> Sorry. >> Certainly not when it pertains to jumpsuit. >> Yeah. There's there there there's also the the issue of the bylaw in town is that not necessarily, you know, the st
the same criteria as under the wetlands protection act. So, it's it's a matter of going out and actually doing some field observations ultimately. >> All right. Good. Attorney Hler, anything from the uh applicants at this point? >> Happy to hear from the public. >> All right. Good. Excellent. Good. So, uh ladies and gentlemen, for the public, if
you could just come up one at a time to the uh podium, give us your name and address for the record. Uh and again I just would caution everyone let's try to stay to conservation type issues. You know look at the wetlands habitat uh flooding things of that nature. Stay away from like the planning board type
things will be handled when the planning board opens up. So sir you got the podium. >> Okay. Uh good evening. Uh my name is Wayne Dagel. I live uh d uh directly behind uh the proposed project at 21
Amble Road uh down the hill from that proposed project. I know that that was a uh a point of uh of inquiry uh earlier. I've submitted a letter of opposition with specifics uh to support my concerns
and my request. I'd like to briefly highlight two points. First, the application relies on ground groundwater analysis from 1999. That analysis was predictive in nature
created before the construction for another project and there was no evidence was ever validated against actual conditions after the construction or over time. The current proposal is much more
complex. It includes additional structures, roadway uh work, grading, sewage. To rely on a 27-year-old analysis without updated modeling or verification does not meet the standard
uh required to demonstrate no adverse impact. Second, the application references uh a short-term field observation of drainage ditch uh running between the property lines. uh during
dry summer conditions. That type of limited surface obs uh observation is not a substitute for comprehensive current groundwater hydraologic analysis.
I'm not here to offer my own technical conclusions. My concern is that the applicant has not provided the level of analysis necessary to support theirs. Based on what has
been submitted, there is no sufficient current sightspecific data to support a finding of no adverse uh impact on the wetland system or abudding properties.
My request to the commission is simple. That review and approval be deferred until the applicant provides updated comprehensive technical analysis as outlined in my
letter and prepared by a qualified independent party and subject to peer review. that would allow the commission and all the stakeholders to evaluate this project on a complete reliable and um uh
understanding of current conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you sir. >> Okay. >> Good evening. My name is Deborah Nurra. I'm also a volunteer chumpsided
volunteer and uh producer host chef of Kuchina Cuisina at Chamchun TV. So I too this is I live on 61 Thomas Drive and that is a fam that is a family home as well. Um I took care of both of my
parents at that location. Um I'm not sure and I also want to present the letter which shows the saturation and the what's happened in the woodlands to the trees currently. So
there is it's very sensitive to to water right now. So I and I'm not sure we're we're addressing this properly because approximately 30 years ago this the U
area was reviewed uh for construction which was scaled back and abandonment of the Chestnut Hill Road going into Caner Road. um and other areas were sold to the town for conservation open space clearly
demonstrating that the town values the sensitive area. Um the current current conditions already demonstrate that this area is highly sensitive to water and it's highlighted by other speakers. Um, I also want to just address short uh
short shortly the uh proposed use of the paper street uh that paper >> m that's that that sounds like that might be a planning board type issue. >> Okay, >> maybe it just sounds like you're heading off towards planning board. >> Okay. Um and the other consideration
which you've already talked about is why can't the um the access be through Lady Slipper Lane or the other side of Chestnut Hill Road? There seemed to be some discussion about that and the intention of the original developer
Hicks was to leave a forested area in back of the homes of Thomas Drive, Caner Road and Amble Road. So, and he didn't clear cut and that's why those properties are desirable. He didn't clearcut all those trees
and then also the impact which we discussed about the peepers and the root the wood frogs. My backyard and the wooded area behind it also um is designated the national wildlife habitat which was recognized by Marty M and he
was the congressman at the time. So specifically, I asked the commission to consider in addition to the previous points raised and others to take into consideration the introduction of harmful chemicals from the lawns,
driveways, roadways, i.e. the paper street like fertilizers, pesticides, salt from the plowing. Um modeling of extreme storms, not just average and update the measurements taken during normal conditions, not drought conditions. Chsley is still experiencing
moderate drought and then impact on water quality. I don't know if that has anything to do with it at this location. Um but during October December 25 time period the drinking water has exceeded standards for PAS
um which in increases the health risks risk for Chford residents. If the commission is inclined to allow this project to move forward, I would strongly encourage that they scale back reflecting the site's limitations, saturated conditions, and high water
table and history. This should include reducing the development footprint, increasing setbacks from the wetland and considering expansion of the adjacent conservation area to include the paper street um which the abutters have been
maintaining um for years. So it's not really a private way. It's something that is there. There are a lot of trees on that and I would hate to see the clear cutting of all those trees all
the way down to Caner Road. >> So anyway, >> thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your input. >> Uh good evening uh commission members. Thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for allowing us to uh voice our concerns. Uh my name is Matthew
King. I live at 23 Amble Road. I've been there for about 14 years, so I have firsthand knowledge of seeing the conditions of these wetlands and what has changed over time. What I'd like to do in my comments tonight, if I may, is focus specifically on the health of the trees in the wetland resource area and
the overall stability of the canopy, which I think is a topic that is important that hasn't really gotten enough discussion yet. It's important to note that the proposed project in the process of clearing and grading a substantial tract of land will open multiple new forest edges ups slope from
this wetland resource area. So, as you all know, like most wetlands do, this resource area has shallow groundwater, very high uh um very shallow groundwater table and saturated hydric soils. So, the trees here naturally develop very shallow root plates that depend on
canopy protection to survive storms and high wind conditions. And uh it's also important to note this wetland serves an engineered function as it receives storm water directly from most of Amble Road, trotting road, and some smaller side roads. Um I've talked to many neighbors
and after several years of receiving record rain and snow, many of our neighbors have seen rising saturation levels. They've seen water uh encroaching into their yards and they've seen uprooted trees happening recently even under normal wind loading. So I do want to emphasize all of our observations suggest that this is a
wetland that is already under hydraological stress before any construction even begins. I would also like to enter into evidence for your consideration that we already have a real world example of how this wetland responds to edge disturbance.
would call to your attention that somewhere in the in the range of uh late 2017 or early 2018, a clear cutting of trees was conducted in the buffer zone next to the house at Lady Slipper Lane. The conservation agent confirmed to me that this work absolutely should have
come before the commission, but we were not able to find any record of any filing or approval. uh when we did a due diligence search uh over the course of a few years since that clearing a clear directional corridor of windthrone driven structural collapse has developed
within the buffer zone and the wetland resource area. Field photos show classic mechanical root plate failure in saturated soils. These were healthy trees. They were uprooted by wind because they lost their canopy protection. We know from this that the wetland is fragile and sensitive to
disturbance. Add to that that the deposed project will open new forest edges on a much wider scale over a much larger area. I want to point out the land that's under the paper street is not empty. It is currently forested upland that is
serving as an easterly windbreak that this uh wetland has adapted to over decades. To build that road, that entire corridor must be clearcut and terrace. So that's one layer of disturbance and and brand new edges. Then very steep house sites must be fully cleared,
heavily graded, septic leech fields and presumably retaining walls all built within a terrace above this already stressed wetland. These new these wide new edges open up the wetland to increased wind loading and the elevated terraces make that wind stronger and more turbulent. So given that this
wetland is already under stress, it is already proven to be vulnerable to wind throw. I respectfully request that this commission require a professional assessment specifically of edge induced wind effects on the trees and canopy as part of your review. I would respectfully ask that before you
consider any approval you it's critical that you have a clear understanding of how new edges will affect the trees and in turn the wetland's ability to perform its statutoily protected functions. And I will be I have prepared a detailed document with all of um these analyses,
pictures to back up the uh the assertions that I've made that I will be mailing to the conservation agent after this hearing to share with all of you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. >> So I just have I just have one question. >> Yes. Uh Mr. Kums. >> So Matthew, you you said you said early on that this area has a a shallow
groundwater table. >> Yes, sir. >> Has that been established, Brian? I can speak for the soil testing we did for the septic systems. >> Okay. >> And it's not a shallow. Again, those test those testing was done up near the uh near the right of way and not down
into the wetland area. I'm sure Anthony can discuss u augur augur holes I guess for lack of a better term when he was delineating the wetland. But as far as my work is concerned, it was not a shallow water table. No.
>> Can can you give an estimated depth to groundwater where you >> 60 in estimated seasonal high water table? >> 16 inches below the surface. >> Correct. >> And and what's required for a septic system? >> So septic systems just need to be 48 in above that. >> Okay. So that means bringing in a lot of fill.
>> Well, that means that means the systems itself are within the ground. >> Yeah. >> But we can talk about breakout grading, right? top of the systems 15 foot out. That's where the fill that I explained before comes from. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Okay. Good.
>> Yep. >> We're off to you. >> Okay. Next up, please. Thank you, Mr. King. >> Hi. Good evening. Thank you for the late night in this very hot room and for hearing us all out. Uh my name is Kate Ranis. I live at 25 Amble Road. Uh many
of my neighbors have already touched on several of the points I'm concerned about. So I will try to be concise with time and stick to just some areas that I don't feel have been covered yet um sufficiently. If you don't mind, I'd love to just point to one area here to provide a little context to where my
remarks are coming from. So um my property is right here at 25 Amble. The wetlands property as illustrated on this map stops at the property line of the proposed development. Um the wetlands do continue
as it should have onto my property. Um and the so does the grade um down as well. So that's just kind of some of the context. Um as my neighbor Wayne said, right, this is all uphill and the wetlands continue downhill onto my property. Um, so I'm sure you're all
well aware under the Massachusetts uh reasonable use doctrine, a land owner cannot artificially concentrate and discharge water onto a neighbor in a way that causes harm. I would argue that by replacing the 100 foot buffers natural vegetation and in some areas going all the way to the 30-foot zone um with
these two houses, well, three houses um and a driveway as well as landscaping. Uh the developer is converting what used to be and currently is a passive natural runoff into an active water trespass. Um I would request that the board require a zero net increase runoff to mandate to
ensure that the property and the wetlands do not become a deacto drainage basin for this uphill development. I appreciate that the um research has been done that we do not appear concerned um but that is not guaranteed and my property and the property of wetlands
that I am responsible for on my property will be directly impacted if we cannot make this guarantee. Um I would also like to speak to the vernal pools um specifically the notation that there are none uh as all the site visits that were done stopped at the property line. Um,
as I mentioned, the continuation onto my property is where there are several areas where I do believe that there's a high possibility of these vernal pools. Even if if not certified, we do know that these areas are a habitat for many wildlife. Um, and the pools rely on a
precise hydro period. Um, that's the timing and the duration of standing water. any uphill drainage. Again, if we cannot guarantee that is not flowing onto these properties, whether it's an increase in volume or a change in the timing of the runoff for very specific
excessive storms that have not been studies, constitutes as a biological trespass. Excessive runoff from uphill construction could flood out these pools, destroying the ability to support any obligate species um as well as the issues um that my neighbor Matt
mentioned around the trees um and the um broader wetlands environment. I would be interested to know if the developer has conducted any hydraologic studies specifically on how their drainage will alter the water levels um and sure that there is some peer ecological engineer
reviews not only to the lines of the wetlands but the impacts to the wetlands with these um potential water concerns. Um secondly, water trespassing isn't just about volume, it's about pollutant loading. Um, so my neighbor Deb commented on um chemicals, but runoff
from new lawns that are all the way up to the 30ft um marker on the wetlands uh will have fertilizers. Um driveways uh that are you can see in these particular units um do surpass the 30 foot I mean the 100 foot area and well into the 50
foot um can have oil and salt. That is all directed towards um my property with excessive storms. it could continuate the wetlands there and as I mentioned the vernal pools earlier um in Massachusetts adding any point source pollutants to a certified or
jurisdictional wetlands is a violation of quality water quality standards um I've lived in Chsford for 28 years not consecutively consecutively but I moved back here to raise my family in this area as well um and highly am concerned about the increase that we've seen um in
the water quality um or the decrease in the water quality standards as PFAS have increased over time. Um, so I would ask the commission to deny any drainage plan that does not provide 100% on-site containment as any overflow onto my land where the wetlands reside um primarily
would constitute um an illegal chemical trespass into a protected habitat. Um if the proposed uphill infiltration systems fail or clog, which I think we comment commented on and even the developer has himself did say can be happen in certain um storm conditions. Um it's also common
in general in residential developments. Had the same problem um myself in recent years. Uh the resulting overflow will be a direct physical trespass again into the wetlands area. Um I would ask the committee to consider um a documented maintenance bond and a notice of
responsibility to be attached to any deeds of these three new homes, even the adjoining um unit. Uh this ensures that future owners, not me or my neighbors, are not held liable for the physical environmental damage that could be caused um by this water trespassing from
their lots onto the protected wetlands property. Um I appreciate your time. I'm sure this is not what you had on your bingo card for a Tuesday um evening. I certainly did not. Um and I really consider your careful consideration of this matter. Um, I just want to have it
noted for the record that I am formally objecting to any unreasonable interference with the land's natural drainage um, and the degragation of the wetlands habitat. Um, which I feel when I signed my real estate documents was entitled to protect under the wetlands
protection act and you know common law trespass principles of course also apply here. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. All right. Um, so I would like to uh limit the public input to one more speaker. Um, we have a number of
other public hearings that we still have to get to this evening as well as uh a number of of items on the agenda as well. So we could have maybe one more public speaker. Um, for the public out there, if you've had something you're dying to do, I mean, we can we'll, you
know, certainly take input to our agent and and we're going to be coming back to a future meeting. So, we'll be open again for public input at that stage of the game. But, um, and then I'd like to have, uh, attorney Howler and his team have a chance to rebut or respond to some of the questions and comments or
concerns from the public as well, too. So, I want to work that in. So, if you could come up again, name and uh, address for the record, please. Um, hi, my name is Christine Mloud. I am an abuter uh to this uh project. I'm at 29 Amble Road. Um, much like the
culuses, my family have been in Chumsford for generations. Um, and I have spent much of my life living in town. Um my concern is that uh we're talking a lot about the the buildings themselves
being um outside of the um the the 50 foot um range. But what we but sort of what we haven't addressed much is retaining wall structures. This is a hill and it's a it's a steep enough hill that there will need to be um erosion
control structures. uh those will be within the 50-foot um line of the wa um of the um of the wetlands. Um and my other concern also is that while the septic leeching fields are
outside of the 100 foot zone, they are uphill from the wetlands. And um having lived in town uh long before we ever had septic tanks, they they fail sometimes. They overflow. They have issues. uh any issues with those will go downhill
directly into the wetlands. Um so again, I would I would like to see um more detail about what type of uh erosion control structures they're going to have, how close to the 30-foot line are they going to be um and uh more talk
about about how any um potential uh septic leeching field failures would be handled um and what the impact to the wetlands would be. Um and and much like my neighbors, I would also um like to ask for a uh a
peer-reviewed um evaluation of the wetlands um by an independent party. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we'll go back to Attorney and his team if you want to make any any further comments uh this evening or or just reserve your rights. Uh but um
you've got the floor if you'd like to take it. >> I'll be brief. Um we certainly don't intend to trespass on somebody's property. We Brian will do the engineering to take care of water storm water drainage and >> yeah folks folks just okay
let let attorney kind of have a say and you know >> we'll just we're going to address the concerns that I've heard tonight have taken notes from the people have spoken and we'll address them and when we come back before the board we'll present you with answers to a lot of the comments that were made the unsubstantiated
comments but thank you. >> All right attorney hustler. >> All right. Uh, yes, Dave. >> Could I ask Brian question? >> Yeah, sure. >> Hey, Brian. Dave McGlaughlin. Um, I'm looking at sheet number five. I'm trying to understand some history.
Is the edge of the wetlands right along the property right on street five? Is that on the property line of all the houses >> that are on Aml? >> Correct. >> So, historically, that must have been created >> correct >> by man. Anecdotally, I don't know if this is Oh,
you can't tell because it's too it's too property line that that rear property line was placed along that drainage. >> Some portion of amble was probably filled in. >> Some portion of AML was probably wetlands. >> Correct. >> And looks like it was filled in to
create this thing. Okay. Thank you. >> And and as as the commission knows and just to answer one of the questions is we don't typically go on other people's property and flag wetlands. We do know there's a a wetland line on the other side of that property line, but I'd be put in jail if we go out and start
hanging flags on other people's property. So, >> we have to worry about the same thing ourselves. >> Correct. >> All right. Thanks, Brian. Dave, Daniel, >> commissioners, anything. >> All right. So, um yeah, we have a sitewalk coming up. Um the commission's
next two meetings, we have a meeting scheduled for April 28th as well as May 12th. Uh I know you I think May 11th you're in front of the planning board. Um >> May 13th >> 13th. Okay. So either way anyway. So we're going to we're going to need a motion to continue. But then I get back
to Mr. Coons's point. I think he was looking for some authorization from the commission to um to proceed with a peer review. >> A peer review. A couple things. Yeah. Peer review of the wetland delineation. Number one. And number two, uh, based on
the site visit, uh, and what I see out there, commission gives me authorization to include in the scope of the wetland delineation, uh, an evaluation of whether there are vernal pool or vernal pools out there. Um, include included
that in the scope. >> Okay, hower, >> I I think in part we're putting the cart before the horse. Why don't we have the sidewalk first? Let's determine what needs to be done or not need to be done. Let's not get into peer reviews 100% yet
and let's see what your results are of the sitewalk and then we can have the discussion about it. But I don't see the need for a peer review immediately. That's all. >> Well, my recommendation for the peer review of the wetland delineation again is just based on the plan that you know
the these buildings are coming up right up against the 50 foot no build. I don't think that that's I mean I I don't on the site visit I don't intend to do uh a review of the wetland delineation. I think that's outside the scope. >> So I think ba based on that my
recommendation yes a pure review of the wetland delineation just like what was done on a recent project. >> U now now if if if we go if we go the route Doug is suggesting that means that decision will have to be made at the
next meeting. can't can't can't make that decision at the site visit. That's an illegal deliberation. >> Mhm. >> Um so I think I think that decision needs to be made now. Yeah. I think I think I think it could wait until the ne the next meeting um to make a decision
on the vernal pool, but I think that's when the discussion would have to be held. On the other hand, the further we get into vernal pool season, you know, the I mean I think we're still well within the window, but you can't delay too too long. If you want to authorize the peer
review, then so be it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. >> H. Could I have a motion then? >> I have a question. >> Well, yeah. Question first >> for Brian. Brian, do you have the house the houses marked out the corners of the houses on the lots for the sidewalk? >> We do not, but we certainly could do
that. Uh, that's Thursday. Probably not till I'll try >> just the back. Yeah. >> Couple corners, I guess. >> Yep. I could try to get that done tomorrow before 1:00 on Thursday. But yeah, we can try. It would just help out to see. >> Absolutely. >> Are the delineations out there? Could we
possibly follow those? >> Yep. The flags are there. >> Flags 1500s are already there. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I get you. All right. >> Again, if that's if that's tickfested, that's not something I'm going to do. Let's go out and start taking a tape measure. Measure the distance from flags to corners. Commission members are
welcome to do that if you feel like it. >> Yeah, >> I don't blame you. Not with this new tick. That's >> We get those special fans. All right. Uh so uh yeah so uh so our agent made a recommendation and what I heard was he's recommending that we have a peer review
of the wetlands line and uh maybe we'll just do it one one step at a time. Does somebody want to make a motion that we we authorize uh that per >> so move we authorize >> review of second >> of this project. Excuse me Dave. >> Okay and we have Peter on a second. Okay. So any uh discussion before we
vote on that motion? >> All those in favor? I any opposed unanimous. Okay. And with respect to the um uh to the um deal with the vernal pool aspect of it, u are you suggesting that we have that authorization now or wait until
>> I I I think it could wait, you know, again pending the site visit. However, if the consultant goes out there twice, that could potentially be more expensive, you know, and although then again, maybe the wetland delineation could wait until that decision is made.
But again, that might then delay things. So, so you know, there's kind of upsides and downsides, but but I I don't I don't think it's critical um you know, that that decision be made right now to scope out the vernal pool. Um and and if the
applicant and his representatives would prefer to wait until after the site visit, I I I'm agreeable to that. >> All right. So, does the commissioner want to take a further motion or are we satisfied at this point? with just having the the um the action of the peer
review of the wetlands line. >> I would just point out if there is in fact a vernal pool and I'm not saying there is. I have no idea. That would really impact the course of this thing. So I would look to the applicant. How big a hurry are you in? You know, >> you're right. The sooner it's done, then
the less delay would be later. That's right. >> It's not my call, but observation. >> The agent if the peer review is going to be done, let's do it in one shot. Yeah, I think that makes sense honestly, you know. Uh, so let's So, Peter, if you could make a motion then that we we
include the vernal pool uh per >> potentially potentially based on potent based on >> based on what we see out at the site. At least we got the flexibility and we're not going to delay things weeks unnecessarily. >> Yeah. So, so I move that our agent obtain a scope of work and procure
uh a qualified consultant to uh take a look at the wetland delineation and whether or not there's a vernal pool within 100 ft, >> right? >> Could be plural. >> Vernal pools. Thank you. Within 100 ft that would affect our deliberations.
>> All right, Peter with a motion seconded by second. >> All right, any discussion? All those in favor I Okay. Uh any opposed? Unanimous. Point of order back there. >> I just wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the site visit um
>> to the uh podium, please? >> Sorry. >> It's okay. Take your time. >> Um is the site visit that we're doing, it's only marking the side of the wetlands that's impacted. So, are we looking at the vernal pools on our property? Do we need to formally submit permission to do that? Cuz that's still
within the 100 foot zone. Oh, no. This this is this is restricted to the property. >> Okay. So, there's a slope to these wetlands. So, how can we make sure do I have to hire my own lawyer and ecological engineer to prove that that properties because that's my property is still within 100 ft from these houses.
>> Um, >> can't she grant permission? >> She she certainly could grant permission. Um, but I um >> I just think that like it's very dry in the area that we're looking here. Gets
very wet once we get in that area. So that I just don't know how you you are going to I want the Chums I want Chumsford's taxpayer dollars to be well spent with this review. >> On the review actually the applicant will be paying for the review. So
they're going to be paying for the review on the property they own. >> Yeah. Um, so I, you know, >> so I would have to hire my own engineer in this case. >> Is your concern where the wetland line is on your property? >> Is that your >> I know where it is on my property. I'm concerned that like, you know, the it's
like everybody's eyes closed when they get here. >> But what if there's a vernal pool right here or here, we're here. We're here. That's still within 100 ft of all of this development. So the motion was yes >> for a consultant to see tell us if there's a vernal pool within 100 ft because that's what we have legal
authority to look at and I just assume we would deal with access to other properties. >> Okay, that makes sense. I just wasn't sure. >> Are you because you're you're suggesting David that maybe we're not going to look within 100 ft. >> I I um I mean yeah the applicant is paying for that. So I I'd at least like
to know how they feel about >> or I won't go past that. I don't I I I I don't know that the commission has the legal authority to require the consultant to go off the applicant's property. I mean, they can they can they can certainly look at like aerial photos
and, you know, other sorts of data. >> I would just like to request that the board would consider, you know, doing their own review in that case because there's many neighbors who will be impacted by that. >> So, >> I mean, I'm I'm willing to go out as the agent on your property and take a look
at it. um you know just for whatever that might be worth. >> Um but I I I don't know that that would going to make a big difference. >> I hear you. I'm just saying from my perspective like I deal with a lot of you know corrections departments and we
always say like crime doesn't stop at state lines, right? And I feel as when we're talking about all these you know conversations about the wetlands, the wetlands don't stop at the property line and our eyes and you know thoughtful review should not either. And so I would go with every what you recommend. Um
David, >> send me an email. >> Yeah, yeah, just follow up with David. >> Yeah, we'll follow. Thank you. Uh okay. So we've uh got the peer review studied. We we need a motion to continue to our our next meeting. Uh the 28th of April is our next scheduled meeting.
>> Applicant consents to that. >> Yep. Very come get an update or or whatever. >> So if we have a motion then to continue to our next meeting of April 28th, this hearing. >> Move. >> Moved. Second >> one little thing. >> Yeah. Mark, >> you don't feel confident you could have
any of those markings or house location corners by Thursday, right? >> No, no, I'm going to do my best to take a quick question. Thank you. Apologize. >> Uh, you know, just just one procedural question and I know it's come up some other times. Um, generally the commissioners are only allowed doing the
site inspection at one. That's typically the uh what happens in these things. Occasionally the property owner will allow other parties, but that is totally discretionary with the property owner. So at this point, um it's commissioners only going out for this this sitewalk.
Um and we again need permission to do that. So that's u but I do encourage people to to uh contact the applicants representatives and they very well may want to address concerns that people have raised. So um I bring that point up, but um let's see. Did we vote uh on
the motion for the continuence? >> We got Bill on the motion and John on the second. And all those in favor of that motion say I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. So we're all set. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for your time. If may if I may may ask Mr. Coots through you, Mr.
Chair, to get copies of some of the letters that were >> submitted from the just so we have >> Absolutely. We take notes, but >> yeah, I'll pick them up in the morning. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks for your time. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your time, John. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Thank you. Chris.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Yeah. Now, we'll take a brief uh break here. John's going to go and we all have to stretch. Everybody is uh Hold on. We're missing one more. >> Where's Mr. Travis? >> Yeah. >> Where's our Mr. Right.
>> Goes down to the Travis's little building, right? >> Yeah. >> Just one sec. We need Mr. >> On the right. Right before that. >> Oh, >> he goes up and that's where that that's where the that's where the trying to go to that water sampling training paper on that email
>> right before the meeting. >> We haven't got any updates recently on whatever reached out to you about this couple. But I mean there was a street being. >> So ladies and gentlemen, we're coming
back into session here this evening. >> We have our next notice of intent filing. >> This is a notice of intent. Brian Wedick 96 Park Road. Susan MacArthur who's at the podium from MacArthur Environmental Consulting LLC representing the
applicant. And now we have to turn to our legal notice to be read into the record by our vice chairman. Uh, pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, MGL131, section 40, and the Chsford Wetlands bylaw, Chapter 187, the Chsford
Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Chsford town offices at 50 Bilera Road on Tuesday, April 14th, 2026 at 7:05 p.m. to consider the notice of intent filed by property owner uh Brian Wedick
for proposed work in the 100t buffer to bordering vegetative wetlands at 96 Park Road further identified as assessor's map 117 block 449 lot 8. The project entails construction of an accessory
dwelling unit ADU with associated parking. >> Thank you Mr. Vice Chairman and now over to Miss McCarthy. >> Thank you. Um, again for the record, my name is Susan MacArthur from MacArthur Environmental Consulting, Brian Wedick,
first row. Um, I just want to note that the D issue file number um, which you probably know, Dave, right? Um, 129-0981. Uh so again, we filed this notice of
intent for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit at 96 Park Road uh within the state one regulated 100 foot buffer zone and the locally regulated buffer zones uh all within previously disturbed areas um buffer
zones to BBW. Uh so we are requesting a waiver to work in these locally regulated areas. Um so the property is 93 acres. Uh consists of a twostory um woodframe single family home, a back
deck uh U-shaped paved driveway, a detached garage, and the foundation of a former garage slashshed and landscaped yard. um a forested wetland associated with a perennial
stream. Uh Farley Brook located over 750 ft away. Um the brook is is located at the rear of the subject property. Uh the boundary of the forest of wetland was delineated on December 12th of LA uh
last year with consecutively numbered pink flagging um 1-100 to 1-106. Uh this past Tuesday, David did come out for excuse me, a site visit and we did agree to move a few of the wetland flags
upgradient. Um I can't tell if that is the Yeah, that's the revise. So, um, I did revise the, you know, I took measurements, uh, of the new flag locations and did revise with a red line
where the new flagging is, but we haven't had a chance to, um, since that was just Tuesday, we haven't had a chance to get that over to the um the engineer to revise the plan for the buffer zones and whatnot. So,
but we will do that. So, the proposed project consists of constructing a one-story 860 foot square foot ADU um with a 50 square foot portico within the backyard of the subject property
partially within the footprint of a the former shed/g and um further away from the wetland resource boundary. So, um it will also have 144 square foot
raised deck um constructed on peers off the side of the ADU. The driveway will also be reconfigured so that the grassy median that you see um up near the road will be removed and five uniform parking spots will be
created. So overall, the project will result in a reduction of 23 square feet of imperous area within the locally regulated 30 foot no imperous area due to the removal of the existing foundation
um and moving the proposed structure away from the wetland. So we recognize that you know it's it's within right now. We're proposing to move everything forward and then get rid of that um concrete
foundation and restore it with uh you know lman seed and um so prior to any ground disturbance we are proposing an erosion and sediment control barrier uh which will be u I think it's a dashed black
line um that's at the downgradient limits of work and as mitigation ation. Um so again I said we're mitigation will be restoring that area that where the foundation is. We also are proposing for
to plant for arborite along the edge of the disturbed area and these plants should provide uh food and cover for birds and and small mammals. And also because there is a high groundwater table
um in this area, drywalls are not being proposed. Um they wouldn't they'd be sitting in water all the time. So um instead the applicant is proposing rain barrels to capture the clean rooftop runoff and reuse it to water the uh
restored area and the arborite. So, um, does anyone have any questions? >> Let's start down this end for a change up. Um, Mr. Cullins, anything preliminarily? >> So, um, and and and I did speak quite at
length with um, Mr. Wedick and Susan uh, at the site visit. Um, I I I did in all honesty say that this is going to be probably a really hard sell with the conservation commission. Um given that especially now with with the revisions
to the the wetland line that virtually the uh entire building is within the 50 foot and no build setback. Having said that, I think that I think there's a serious possibility of doing an
alternative design whereby um I think don't know for sure, but I think that there would be a pretty good chance where where it could comply, especially if the applicants were willing to make uh maybe I think to my mind some minor
concessions. Uh the the first thing is and I believe you you've established this with the building commissioner um the engineer uh see seems imply from this plan that the front zoning setback
is 40 ft. Uh but my understanding is and again hopefully you confirm this with the building commissioner that given the age of the house given that it was um uh built before 1938 the front setback is actually 25 ft uh from the road not 40t.
So that right away gives you 15 ft under zoning to be able to move the building uh 15 ft closer to the road. Um now you all al also recall recently um and I forwarded this information to Mr. Wedick
that uh of of a recent project where the applicant needed a variance from the zoning board of appeals for further relief from the the front uh setback. So I think if it's if it's a matter of you know then moving it an additional five
feet to get it to get it out of the 50 foot no disturb and that would require a variance uh from the ZBA. I think that's a reasonable thing to do just in my opinion. Uh the other issue is okay showing five parking spaces um in in
between the road and the house. um if the applicant could live with um four instead of five, I think that you know two two of the parking spaces could be put to the left in in between the
existing house and the ADU uh proposed ADU and two parking spaces could be put uh on the right. Now, I know we we did discuss there are some util utility poles there that may present a problem with the parking spaces. um they would
have to be moved which is probably highly unlikely but but but but but I think the point I'm trying to make is is I think that the engineer it's reasonable ask the engineer to go back and take another look at this you know see see if if a design can be prepared
that's more in compliance with the setback requirements. So that's mainly what I have to say. Do you think I described that accurately? >> Yes. But I also just want to reiterate
that the the proposed ADU is almost entirely within previously or impervious area. So um whether that be a little piece of the existing foundation or the existing pavement of the um of the
driveway that it is now. So and no trees are coming out or anything like that. So um technically we're not creating in fact it's a reduction um of impervious uh so I just want to
reiterate that. >> Thanks Susan. Thanks. Okay good well let's move just move along see where the commission's at. Uh Peter >> um yeah let me make it quick. I I I mean, at first glance, it's kind of hard for us to approve of a building almost
entirely in what we call the 50 foot no build. So, that's the fundamental problem. Some of the alternatives David was suggesting, I don't know if that works, you know, for for the owner, but that might help, but it's still probably going to be a major building within the
50 foot no build zone or a piece of it. So, we have to talk about that. Um, I echo the feeling of the parking. Uh, it'd be great if it could be non-pervious or rather pvious pavement. Also, the parking looks really big. I
mean, it's more than just one vehicle, I think. So, we might take a look at that. >> Um, and uh well, a couple more little things, but why don't we move on, >> figure out the big picture.
>> Thanks. Thanks. And Ally, >> uh, just a couple clarifying questions. So, you said the ADU will be put on um peers or part of it or >> No, there um there is not going to be a um a foundation, you know, it'll be like a slab. Um and it'll be the side deck
that'll be on on Pierce. >> Oh, the side deck. Okay. Of the ADU? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And you're putting the ADU on the current existing slab in there, removing part of it or >> Well, it'll have to come out. So the existing will come out and then it'll be
reddone because I think in Massachusetts building code is like a six six foot frost wall or 4 foot frost wall or something like that. So they'll have to take that out and you know redo it. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then I guess my last question is more for you guys, not so much her.
Um the deck being on peers, you said that there was high ground water out there. Um well it doesn't come up to that area but um it it definitely would not accommodate a dry well um because there
I I believe drywall uh from the bottom of the dry well to the seasonal ground seasonal high groundwater needs to be at least 2 feet. So we won't have that depth. >> Okay. Yeah, that was my question for you guys about you know the peers for the deck. I was under the understanding that
it was the whole ADU, but it's the the deck there. So, uh, you know, in terms of >> effects on groundwater and erosion control with putting that in, but it doesn't look too big. So, >> thanks. Good Dave. >> So, this is my first exposure to ADU, so
you're going to have to educate me. >> You before us there was an ADU. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I I don't know anything about it. Okay. Because this is my first meeting since the law was put in place. What authority does the conservation commission have in before with an ADU to
require them to follow conservation regulations and bylaws? >> So, we still have our our full authority. >> Full authority. >> Full authority. Okay. >> Yeah. We do not give up anything. >> Okay. >> Is this unit going to be a rental or an ownership?
>> No. It's going to be used uh for family purposes. My wife and I are expecting another baby. So, the intent is to build it. So family can come out for extended periods of time to stay with us. >> So it's part So it's not going to be separate. Okay. >> It will be a standalone building. >> Yeah. No, >> but yeah, it will be used for family
purposes. >> I think to ask for a waiver on all three of our major requirements, 25 foot, 30 foot, and 50 foot for the second ADU that we've seen. We were talking earlier.
I'm a great believer that there is something to be said for president setting. Although I don't think we have to necessarily go away. I think it's a mistake to consider three waiverss on our second application.
And as as I think David has said suggested there may there there appears to be enough flexibility to work around the situation. >> Okay. >> If if I may, if I could just follow up on one point. So, as far as the design,
this is what >> Oh, go ahead. >> Oh, sure. >> To follow up just on I can't remember who brought it up. This is what it used to look like. This is what was there before. And what we're propo proposing to do is essentially uh it was built
back. So, it was built down slope and then brought up to grade to be flush with this concrete pad that's flush with the driveway. So essentially what we're trying to do is essentially plop the ADU right where the carport and workshop were and restore the
wetland in the back where the concrete was. So we would dig that out, restore it to the board's um you know standard and then we would essentially drop it right where the existing structure was. So the thought with this and I understand the setbacks and and all that
and the buffer zones, but really this structure has been here probably for close to a hundred years. I mean we have our neighbors here who grew up in the home who could tell a little bit more about the history than I could, but the structure has been there for a very long time. The ground is disturbed. Our concern with bringing the project
forward is that we'll be creating a new disturbance when in reality we're going to have to disturb the the existing ground anyways to get the concrete out of the ground. So rather than create a new disturbance, we would be repairing the old one and then putting up our structure uh at the same time. So that
was the intent with proposing it this way with those buffers in mind of course. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks, Dave. Uh Mark, >> yeah, I'm I'm in the same school of thought on uh being in the between the 30 and the 50 and then going into the into the 25.
I I don't think you're creating a pinch point there. that your problem shouldn't be ours. Uh you also say that the water level is the groundwater is fairly shallow. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> So you you can't install any kind of cult chambers to get rid of the water, let it go into the ground and you how are you going to treat surface water from the uh imperous areas? Yeah, we were proposing rain barrels, but we
could look at something else if the conditions. >> Yeah, that's not going to >> Well, that would be from the roof. Then there's also >> the water from the roof areas. >> What's that? >> The rain barrel is going to have to leech out. It can't just sit there. >> Well, right. They were going to use it
to water the um arborite and the new restored back lawn there. >> But there's also the runoff from the parking area to do it. Yeah, they're not good. Anyways, um >> Stephen, could you put the existing like
um if you pan over it so they can see? >> Yeah, it's a different plan, but so you can kind of see the existing structure, >> right? >> Where where it falls within the um 30 foot, 50 foot,
>> right? >> Uh >> so it's not like we're creating something, you know, that already within the notice areas. >> Uh that's pretty much what I my concerns
are right now. I don't I'm I'm not really in favor of this, but on to the next person. >> Okay. >> All right. U Bill, questions, comments? >> Yep. Have you been to the planning um board of appeals yet for this plan?
>> No. >> No, you just Okay. I didn't know if he had been there yet. >> No, we've gotten signoffs from the water department, DPW, fire. Um, I've talked informally with the building department. They just need a couple more documents, but nothing that
>> I know David had mentioned uh splitting the parking, but I'm not sure you can that would create another curb cut. You're not you're only allowed one curb cut. >> So, the the driveway as it is right now is is a U-shape and then there's grass in between the two entry points. So this
drawing is just proposing turning that grassy area into parking spots to make more. So that's already part of that as it's drawn on the screen right now is already paved. >> Okay. >> So the middle three spots would be the grassy area that we would just be paving to create more space for parking. >> Yeah, that's not up to us anyways. I'm
just curious. >> Just one one thing. I think I think another curb cut is allowed for Navy. No, >> no, just one >> for just a parking >> the existing curb cut. I I just want to say one concern we might have is um there does appear to be some ledge out
in that area. David saw that as well when you're >> uh on the site visit. So we don't know if it's going to be an issue or not, but um it might be. >> Yeah. Um David, the fact that there uh
is something existing within that 50 and 30 foot, does that come into play at all? As far as us >> there's there's there's nothing formal in the regulations about that. What I explained to um Brian and Susan during
the site visit was that I think all that's been true for other filings where the commission has not only required that um you know the set the setbacks be adhered to to the maximum extent feasible but also require restoration.
That was certainly done on the Russell Road project, >> right? um where where again he went to the ZBA and also proposed a massive amount of res restoration right >> now now if here let's say he he could he
can get it to uh you know 45 ft so that five feet of the building is within the um you know the 50 foot no build I think it's certainly the commission's prerogative to say well you know if if you do do a complete restoration of that
area now that's currently where uh the foundation the old foundation existed you know tear up most of that that existing loop parking area I think it's the commission's prerogative to approve the plan for all of that in >> we're not suggesting that
>> right not suggesting that but >> right >> I was just asking if there was any leniency because there's something already there >> no there's again there's there's nothing formal in the regulations so if there's nothing formal in the regulations ations. Would the board have discretion
to approve it? >> Well, but but there is an explicit um requirement that new structures be outside the 50oot build. That is explicitly in >> Right. Understood. But where this is an existing structure or an existing
foundation of a former structure that was destroyed, >> my just my opinion and I'm certainly not an attorney. I don't think that's in keeping with the the letter of the regulations. the first one. >> That's just my opinion. >> All right, back to Bill. Bill,
>> uh, I think it's a hard cell. I mean, I I think maybe you'd want to take another look at it with the board of appeals and maybe get some relief in the front and if maybe uh the way it is now, most of the building's in the 50 foot, >> right?
>> Maybe there's a compromise somewhere there if you do the due diligence on the getting it close to the street or something different. Is is there a hard hardline rule as to how much I have to move it up?
>> Yeah, 50 feet. >> 40 somewhat feet. >> That's the problem. >> No, there's no like hard lines. >> No, >> just I'm just trying to think in in the sake of efficiency going back to the engineers, going back to the surveyors to to say, hey, this is what the standard is. >> I would start your thinking with the
hard line. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and and I and I I would personally recommend exa exhaust exhaust every possible legal option you have. >> Um and then see where that gets you. >> What does that mean? >> Well, yeah. Yeah. I would I would say
zoning. I would say curb cuts, you know, even even if it means putting the parking a little bit farther away from the structures than you want. >> Um and and you know, see see the best you can absolute do. And then if you
want any relief from that, have to ask the commission, but commission might say no. >> Okay. >> All right. Bill, you're good. >> Yeah. >> John. >> Yeah. Well, the problem is is we've had so many close to that 50 foot line in
the past several meetings, people have accommodated just outside that 50 foot line. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that it was a real hard cell, you know, old Westford Street there,
right? You know, Sunny's land, they brought that house, cut the garage, they did whatever they had to do. They moved lot lines all over the place. I mean to build in the 50 foot no build even with an existing structure.
Well, let's say somebody lived in that structure at one time and you could prove it. It'd be a whole different story. It'd be a Russell Road, right? >> So, don't say that. >> Well, we had that cell at Russell Road. >> I'm glad I wasn't on the commission.
>> Well, we had that cell at Russell Road that somebody lived in a shed, >> but it it ended up being bogus, too. It was bogus. It was a bogus claim, you know, and we got taken on it. But >> So, and I and I and I think Brian, you had mentioned you're not willing to
downsize the size of the ADU >> of the ADU. No. >> What about not a design build, but make it more of a ranch design? Long >> like they did on Russell Road. >> They made a long skinny house.
>> That's what they did. We could definitely go back and and see. I think >> we're not going to design this house. >> No, I I said we're not designing this. >> So, you know, I just I heard in the last the last meeting that was just here a minute ago, they, you know, talked about
just being really close to that 50- foot buffer. So, if we put the and again, I know we probably can't speak in absolutes here, but if we put the back of the building at the 50 foot um >> Yeah. Right. Right. As the 50 foot comes
away from the wetlands, would that be an issue? Because we do have to do construction. We have to dig. You know, there's a lot of stuff that goes into that. >> We've approved. >> It's It's the building. It's the building. >> It's the building. It's the foundation. >> Okay. >> You found Exactly. So, you'd have the
line, right? We pin the foundation, right? >> And that'd be like right there. That's the hard stop. >> So, theoretically, the back of the building could be at that 50 point or 50 foot mark. Okay. >> At Russell Road, we gave them what? How many feet off the lake? >> A few. >> There was some discussion at the prior
hearing about activity behind the building. >> Maybe that's what I misunderstood. Construction. Got it. Right. We understand that, >> right? But we know you got to do construction and >> Right. >> But >> yeah, that's understood. >> But especially if you're proposing a a really um you know significant
restoration plan in back that >> of course. No, that's that's always been part of the plan is to clean the area up, get the concrete out. I mean, I'd imagine that's allowed to to dig that out even though it is in the >> That's encouraged, honestly, to to restore it, clean it up. That would be a plus. >> That's always been part of the plan.
>> Yeah. So, >> uh, it's a public hearing. Anybody in the public want to add anything at this point in time? Sir, come on up. Name, address, >> Jim Reed, 100 Park Road. I live right next to Brian and I have no problems with what he wants to do. And as far as
sleeping in there, I slept in that building a couple times. Does that count? >> I knew that was going to come out. >> Were Were you in trouble? >> I knew that was going to come out. >> If you knew my father, it would be in trouble. >> But he is. He's cleaning the place up. If there was a building there.
>> Yeah. >> And you know, I live right next door to him. >> And I have no problems with him. >> Well, we appreciate the your neighborly input. And another speaker, >> John Reed, 90 Park Road. Basically the
same thing. They have no problem with what he wants to do there. It was a chicken coupe a 100red years ago. It's uh you know, the building's been there forever. So I don't think I ever slept in it, though. Sorry.
>> Thank you. >> Now with the chickens, huh? >> Well, the chickens slept there. So does that count? Oh, >> did it have run of water? >> What came first? Yeah. What came first? >> What came first? >> Came first. All right. So, I think we've got uh kind of gave you some, you know,
good feedback input kind of where the commission's at, right? >> As our agent said, it's it's a tough sell. Sure. >> But, but, you know, I detect some some flexibility uh maybe there to work something out that could work out. So, >> Okay. So, if we cut can we come back then in two weeks with a new plan, new
design, and have it >> for you? >> Sorry. It's two weeks enough time for you. >> Oh, yeah. We we could get a turnaround very quickly. >> Yeah. >> So, we're motivated to get the project done. So, we will I'll work with the engineer and the surveyor to to make the adjustments. >> Yes. >> Is there anything else that I need to be aware of as far I obviously, you know,
the buffer zones. I mean, is there anything else I need to be thinking about while we put the plan together or make the edits? >> Think you're good, but talk to our agent. >> Yes. So, I think Susan mentioned this already that that the new wetland line and buffer zones need to be added to this plan. We'll fix that. First thing I would do
>> as far as the restoration behind the uh where the building was. I mean, is there anything I mean >> I'll I'll think about that. >> Okay. >> I'd like to see the restoration done before anything else is done. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry I missed that. >> I'd like to see the restoration work done.
>> Before you start anything on >> Yeah. prior to construction. >> Oh, yeah. >> Demolition and that can be put in as a condition in the order if you end up issuing one. And I as well like >> I'm sure Dave will tell you like where where are your your uh piles alone going
to be or your dirt when you all that stuff Dave knows about. >> Yeah. >> So our our schedule as it is now just in informal discussions with the excavator is to dig the area out. We can then back fill it however we you know the board decides and then we would start digging
the new foundation for the building. So that that would happen for >> you can provide all that at a later date. Okay. Have to settle on that. got the details right now. >> All right. Yeah, John, >> I have one question, >> John. >> Now, I'm not really 100% up on the
>> the sideyard setbacks with the ADUs and everything. >> Do they follow the same sideyard setback and everything else? So the yes the zoning district it's saying >> they for the ADU
>> because I was told that they follow a different sideyard setback >> and everything else. >> I haven't heard that. >> I mean we got the expert on that whole thing right there. >> Crystal Valley, please take us.
>> So the setbacks for ADUs are the same as single family homes. Um, the only thing is you can't have an ADU in the front yard of a single family home. >> Okay. So, that's the only closer than the existing >> you >> home right to the road.
>> There's some some interpretation of that, but >> yeah, primarily it can't be in the front yard. >> Um, and you're correct. You can't have two curb cuts. >> It has to be from the same curb cut. >> That's good to know. Thank you.
>> Right. I know it's a whole set of rules with these ADUs that maybe >> Well, John, in your rehab period, you can get up to speed with them. >> Rehab. >> And could I just >> Yeah, physical rehab.
>> Yes. >> I might take this upon myself to ask some of these ADU builders. >> Right. >> So, we have two more hearings. Just a reminder. >> We're gonna probably be doing seeing these a lot. >> All right. So, um, could we have a
motion then to continue this hearing until our next meeting of April 28th in two weeks? Moved by Bill. >> And Peter raises his hand to second that motion. Any discussion before we vote? >> All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. We're all set. We'll
see you guys in two weeks. >> Thank you so much. >> Maybe you could put us before the other. >> That's That might be a good idea. >> It might be. Can you commit to make it like only 10 minutes long? >> The name is a friendly. Yeah.
>> Yeah, that that's uh no comment there. >> Okay, that gets us through our second regulatory hearing the evening. It's only 9:14. >> Plenty of time to go. >> Plenty of time left. I mean, heck, >> start a new hearing if it's 10 o'clock.
>> Yeah, that used to be the rule, Dave. Right. >> Okay. >> Or not quite there yet. I only got one more. >> All right. Uh, third up is we have a notice of intent. >> Oh, I got to do something. >> New England Power Company K137ELL138337 transmission line rights of way. Allison
Millerman from the BSC Group, Inc. was representing the applicant. And we also have a legal notice which our vice chairman will now read into the record before we hear from Alison Miller. Uh, Mr. Chairman, are there any rules on
how fast I read? >> No. >> All right, here we go. >> I can only tell you my personal experience was the later in the evening and it's like the third or fourth time I usually sped up rapidly on legal notice, especially the kind of the legal ease stuff. Pursuant to the provisions of the
Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, MGL131, section 40, and the Chford Wetlands bylaw, chapter 187, the Cherford Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Chsford Town Offices, 50 Biller Road,
Tuesday, October 28th, uh uh 20 uh >> something. There is a typo >> at 7 Yeah, I got a glad we got a lawyer on board. at 7:10 p.m. to consider the notice of intent filed by New England
Power Company for proposed work within the bordering vegetative wetlands and associated 100 foot buffer riverfront area as well, River Metobrook and Farleybrook and bordering land subject to flooding River Metobrook and
Farleybrook uh in the K137ELL13837 transmission line rightway. The project entails general maintenance and improvement activities along the K137EL138E 337 transmission lines including
structure replacements, access improvements, and overhead work. The work is necessary to extend asset life and provide high-speed communication between substations. >> Apologies for the incorrect date, but does not does not validate this. It does
not invalidate this proceeding. Right. >> That's good. That's good. All right. Um, now we'll hear from the applicant. Alison. >> Hi. Good evening. My name is Allison Millerman. I'm with BSC Group. I'm here on behalf of the applicant New England
Power Company. Um, to present this um, transmission maintenance project and upgrade project. Um, the project is associated with a long linear transmission line. We filed in six towns. So, this uh, project is about 16 miles in length. Um it starts the
project starts in Ayer Massachusetts and continues uh Tukesberry um is the northern part as well as there's a leg that that shoots down a spur on the transmission line in Bill Ricka. Um so all six towns have been provided a
filing um in this pro um in this town uh large majority of the work is is exempt utility maintenance and that's for the replacement of existing structures placement of temporary construction matting the overhead work um I'm here before you tonight is that there um access road improvements work pad
improvements that are necessary in order for this the um the larger um more robust uh steel structures that they're replacing these these towers with um in order for the cranes and the work there to to to install those new structures. Additionally, we do have some structures
that are now going to be considered what they um what they call concrete queson. So that's a larger footprint um that's typically necessary for those structures that need to be um engineered, structurally engineered to they usually take the the brunt of the structural
load from the overhead conductors. So those are usually at corners or what they consider dead ends. So they need to just kind of have a firmer base, a larger base. Um so that that um so the the new steel structures and the larger concrete structures um they're although they're being replaced by you know
they're replacing existing structures, they are providing permanent impact to to some of these resource areas. Um specifically we do have about 707 square ft of permanent fill bordering vegetative wetland. Um and in fact to compensate for that
>> 700 >> 707 square feet sir. Um and to compensate for that we've developed a wetland replication area of of 2 to one um to be put into the right of way um to compensate for that loss. So we're looking at 1414
square ft of replication of BVW. We also have some larger structures being installed within bordering land subject to flooding. Um, and that's 64 square feet of permanent impact, which is based on the assumption that there's there's going to be about a one foot reveal um that I confirmed through the
engineering, we're looking at 64 um cubic feet. Uh, and then we also have a proposed um flood plane replication area u provided in the package here to compensate for that loss um within the right of way. uh other impacts associated with the
riverfront area, the 100 foot buffer zone, as well as your local um setback or your local buffers. Um mostly there it's um access road improvements um widening and up kind of upgrading the existing stone access roads out on the right ofway as well as I mentioned um
some work pad construction. Um so the plan for those is not to kind of the plan the company is planning to consider those being temporary features. um which means they'll allow them to naturally reveate over time. Um and if necessary,
you know, they will do some restoration work such as loming and seating in order to kind of get these areas back to um the existing conditions on the right ofway. If you are familiar with the rightway and kind of what it looks like, the company does go out and um regularly maintain the vegetation. So it's pretty
much managed in a low growth um you know herbaceious and then that's what the the the goal is to get it back to that kind of existing conditions after this work is is completed. Um as far as schedule is concerned I that's always a question that comes up. Um there's some early
work that the company has identified in Chsford. Um all this early work is more like um you know road refreshing, road building, work pad building in order to get ahead of u the the larger you know infrastructure uh work that's that's planned to happen next year. So some of
this early work is potentially to start this summer and fall. Now, since we do have project activities proposed with a natural heritage endangered species program priority and estimated habitat and we are currently working with um our reviewer to um finalize a conservation
management plan um because of work that we have in um state listed reptile habitat and mostly it's because of just um their major concerns even though large majority of pretty much all the work um in NHSP habitat is temporary in
nature we pretty much just using matting for everything um in those areas, but it's more of just a concern of of being in being in that right of way and in the temporary or or short-term impacts. So, um the early work will not happen within Habitat because we're still working
through the CMP process with natural heritage. Um but it will but it will be um in upland areas and in some in some areas subject to the jurisdiction by the commission. large the large brunt of the wetland work will not start until next year.
>> Okay, good. Thanks for the overview. You're welcome. >> Appreciate that. Let's start with commission down here with John. John, any comments, questions at this point? >> Well, I got your letter in the mail the other day. >> I live about your meter.
>> No, no, no. About this job. >> Is it isn't a butter? Isn't a butter? I was going to say I I can see I can barely see the polls from where I live >> and and I've lived here all my life. >> Yep. >> And I know that you do work out there
all the time. I remember when they put the big green poles in >> years ago. So, uh this is something that's going to happen no matter what. I have a feeling >> that's what I'm looking at. You don't Sandy Pond to Tukbury.
>> There's a public need. There's a >> I understand that. Yeah. >> And this is a formality. So, I'm going with the formality issue. I've worked on plenty of New England power jobs. So, I'd like I'd be concerned what everybody else thinks. I know the water department
might have something to say about it, you know, because all the wells are right there right behind my house. So, >> hey Sean. Yeah, >> that was pretty short. Pretty short. Pretty short. >> Short. >> Thank you for keeping it short due to the late time. >> I'm good, Chris.
>> Bill, he's even shorter. >> He kept it real short. I just want to fluff it up a little. >> All right, Mark. >> Uh I I don't know what what's means anything for the Wells, but uh there's there's a lot of information
here. My goodness. >> 300 pages. >> You read it all. >> There's a lot of information. Yeah, I was tired. Uh, do we have any control over this, David? Do we Is there a peerreview that keeps this thing honest all the way through? I don't
>> Well, our experience I I >> I guess my my bottom line recommendation to the commission is to hire a U peerreview consultant to do a comprehensive review of the of the notice of intent. So, you you filed the same notice of intent with
six towns, correct? Yes, sir. The exact same notice. not the exact same notice of intent. All impacts are specific to what's you know realized in in your jurisdiction in your town. >> So, so obviously the scope of the peer review would be just for what's happening in Chumsford. >> Yeah. Chsole
>> that that would be obvious. But but nevertheless, I I I think it is it is such um um you know a large geographical extent. Um there's there's there's a lot of uh resource areas involved. That's my
recommendation to do a peer hire a peer review or do a comprehensive review of the NOI and >> and they they give a they they give information back to us. >> Yes. >> But h how do we >> how do we keep them that keep them
honest? I I don't know. >> You have to watch what they're doing. >> Well Well, it would it would also well I mean it would also request recommendations for specific conditions to put in the order. you know, ultimately enforcing the order. Um, that's something we should talk about,
>> right? But you obviously you're not going to go out and do that and you shouldn't have to, >> right? Um, we, you know, and, you know, like some some of the larger commercial projects. Yeah. Certainly. Um, there are, um, you know, u site compliance monitors that go out and look. I mean, I
think that's certainly something the commission should >> and that's all on their dime. >> Yeah. Yeah. Definitely something we should >> Okay. As long as you know it, it could be monitored and Okay. No, I'm I'm good. >> Good. Dave,
purpose of the project is maintenance and improved distribution or increased distribution. >> It's a transmission line. So, it's the um the higher voltage. >> So, that's to to provide more distribution. >> Yeah. It it feeds electricity between
two large substations. um when >> there's no maintenance in it per se. I mean, you're going to do some maintenance, but the primary purpose is to provide more electricity. >> Um they're not increasing the capacity or the voltage of the lines. Um they are
basically replacing aged antiquated infrastructure with Yeah. Yeah. >> How long is the project from start to finish over all those communities? >> Uh it's a long one. So um I think the they have to work around out uh planned outages that they have scheduled with
ISO New England and you know they kind of manage what when lines can be taken out of service making sure that you know doesn't result in any brown outs blackouts outage. >> Are we talking 10 years? >> Um so they're going to start they want to start this this summer. Um so that's 2026 and I think all the restoration
everything should be buttoned up by 2032. >> What role will natural heritage have in the species? Are they going to be working with you that whole time period? >> Yep. The the applicant's prep what we're preparing with the applicant is what's called a conservation management plan.
Um and it basically is all the commitments that the company will make in order to basically offset the potential for a take um during construction activities. >> I would I don't know if I can do this. I would ask you to have someone in your
firm connect with with Zoo New England because they have done significant work in this area for turtle populations >> and they've done it with natural heritage as well.
>> We are going to be working with Yeah, that that was one of the recommendations. We are going to be I'm not sure if it's going to be Zoo England. I think it's going to be a researcher from UMass. >> Yeah, it could be. And my the only last question I have is I just remember the work that was done out off of Riverneck Road.
>> Yep. >> By the power company and the site was left in the in a disaster. That was my I mean that you guys well you guys you guys made a real mess out there doing that work and left it in a terrible and
that can't happen here. So that's all I have. >> Thanks Dave Ally. >> All set. Thank you. >> Good. Peter, >> yeah, given the past experience that Dave mentioned, I would strongly urge just a standard peer review to identify
permit conditions that are reasonable to everybody because, you know, and uh make some recommendations on what critical areas might be worthy of uh some field inspections. We've done that to Mark's Mark to your point. We've done, you
know, independent observer a couple of times in the last year or two. So, you know, and not not crazy. I'm not, you know, just whatever is reasonable. >> Y Peter. Yeah. David, anything more? >> So, just a couple of more things. So, um are you requesting any waiverss under the local bylaw?
>> Yes, sir. We are requesting from the um the note the 50 foot and 35 or 30 foot and 25 um local buffers and it's Because the structures are they have to get to the structures and they're already there. >> But it doesn't meet the definition of building.
>> No, but there are some you know access building permanent structure which I think this probably qualifies as I mean >> no disturbance might be more apt. >> Yes. >> Than 50 foot no building. >> Okay. >> However, there also is a provision in
the local bylaw when it's something that's for the public benefit. >> Yes. That >> that's right. >> A commission can grant wage to that. Um the is the only the only other thing. So yeah, we got to you forward me a couple of letters from natural heritage.
>> So one one one letter uh and and just want to make sure I understand it and the commission understand it. So one one letter says >> says that there's no problem in the commission's jurisdictional areas uh like you know the wetland resources
wetland resource areas that so but then but then there was the other letter that said um that that this project does uh constitute a take and so there does have to be a conservation management permit. So, so does that mean that the take is
only in upland areas outside the commission's jurisdiction? That's a little bit confusing. >> It is confusing. I think those I, you know, the letters came in late last night and I I I found some some of the language very confusing from me, too. Um, because we do, you know, we are
working with a a reviewer. We've been working with her for a couple years. I I do need to ask these questions. Um, I do need some clarification on some of the language in that in those letters. >> Okay. So what I'm really getting at is that I think the standard process is that in this kind of situation, the
commission can't issue an order of conditions until the conservation management permit is issued. >> Is that correct? >> That has not been my experience in the past. >> Okay. >> Um so >> well I think I I think I need to understand that a little bit better. So which says if that's not the way it
works then the commission can issue an order of conditions while there's there are still you know these other permitting u you know discussions and um you know deliberations going on and that doesn't quite make much sense to me. So so I definitely do need some clarification.
>> Okay. Understood. Yep. So do I. So >> okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And and the important thing is they could do the work needed this summer. >> Right. Uh yeah, but again I don't know how I don't know how that works from the standpoint of the commission's order of conditions. I mean usually an order of
conditions, you know, authorizes the entirety of the project, >> you know, I guess the commission could put something in there about, well, this is this is only for phase one or whatever. >> But so again, that's what I need to have a better understanding of, >> right? I mean, if if if the applicant
went forward and did work unauthorized work and in natural heritage, it it would it would be very bad. >> Oh, oh, I'm sure. But, you know, the commission absolutely does want to do things right. >> Okay. >> You know, >> next time we meet with her, I'll I'll I
have questions, so I'll just make sure I we under we all understand what the process is going to be. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> If you have anything more? >> Uh, I don't have anything else at this time. project. >> Very good. Uh any public uh input from the public? Uh we do have two people in
the public still out in the audience. No, no public >> in sleep. >> They're still with us. Thank you. >> All right. So, we um we need to have uh continuence of this hearing until our next meeting of April 28th. >> Okay.
>> 2026. I hear that we're going to be requesting um so I need a motion that we continue to our next meeting of the April 28th as well as a condition of a a peer review be performed >> and hopefully we'll have that set >> this fall. >> When do you expect to start work?
>> I thought I heard this summer. >> This summer. So all of this all this stuff's going to have to be done before you start work. >> Yeah, they want to start August for the early work. >> We'll do the best we can. >> All right. So we have a motion then to Uh yeah, I make a motion that uh our
agent uh obtain a peer reviewer to identify the critical parts of this proposal that we ought to be paying attention to. >> It's a comprehensive review of the NOI. >> You want to do it that way? >> All right. Well, let's be specific and and recommendations for perfect
conditions. >> All right. Want me say that again? >> Yeah. Repeat that one more time. >> All right. So, I make a motion that um our agent obtain a peer review uh of the NOI >> comprehensive peer review. >> Comprehensive, thank you. Peer review of the NOI and make recommendations for
appropriate permit conditions. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Peter, second by Dave McGlaughlin. Uh any discussion before we vote? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. Okay. So, we've got that. Now, we just need a motion to continue to our next meeting of April 28th.
>> I move we continue the hearing until the 28th of April. >> Second. Again, motion by Peter, seconded by David McGlaclin. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Unanimous. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> See you in two weeks. >> I'll see you in two weeks. I have a quick question for you. Um I think last
time I presented to the commission, it must have been during CO. I don't believe I've ever been to this building before. Do you have additional parking besides what's in the front? >> Back down by the ball field. There's like another entrance coming in from Chomps Street. >> Chomp Street. Okay. Can I take that one
way down by the um firehouse? >> You can go down, but you can't come up. >> Okay, but I can. Okay, thank you. >> One way. >> I was a little stressed out today cuz I >> to leave you go out. You'd go out on >> street. Where'd you end up parking though? Are you in the big lot in the back?
>> No, I parked in the front. I didn't know that there was >> So, you come down Bill Ricka. Bill Ricka Road. Okay. You go just past the town hall, past the fire station. Then there's a left right there. >> Yeah, that one way street. >> Yes. That takes you down to the back. >> You do that. Just keep going to Wilson Street and we're on the corner. >> Yeah, I think it's easier to
>> It's right It's just behind this building. You'll see it. >> Thank you. >> Glad you made it. Found parking >> that transmission line. >> All right. So, that um takes us on to our next uh public hearing which is a notice of intent continued from January
27th, 2026 by New England Power Company uh with respect to 100 Ecuador road. and we had Vaness Hangen in Brussel was representing the applicant. What's going on with that? >> So, so I'll be brief. There's still some back and forth going on between our pre
our peer reviewer and the and the applicants engineer. Um, today I I authorized our peer reviewer to meet directly with them. Um, well, I mean, maybe a Zoom meeting, but you know, meet directly with them, see if this can be
resolved. Um, so, uh, I I don't think I don't think so. That's what's going to happen. You know, they're they're going to schedule that and and hold that meeting. >> Uh, I don't I don't know if the applicant, you know, had the time to actually then request a um a
continuence, but that's what's understood. So, uh, there needs to be a continuence voted to April 28th. >> All right. So, can I have a motion then to continue to April 28th? >> So, move. So moved by Dan McLaclin, seconded by Peter.
By Peter. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Unanimous. >> Thank you very much. So that takes us through our regulatory hearings now at 9:36 p.m. moving right along through the agenda.
>> Just to tell you, Chris, that >> Yes. Dave >> Bishoff's watching tonight. >> Really? >> He must have used Zoom. >> Who's watching? >> Carl. >> He's out there. Oh, he sent me a text. >> He didn't ask. He didn't ask to be admitted. >> Oh, to the he jumped in, huh? >> Maybe he just assumed I'd be here, but
he sent me a text. >> Oh, wow. Oh, nice. >> That's good. That's funny. Okay. Um, so let's see. Any continuum business we need to talk about, David? No. All right. So, we move into land management. So, land
management. Um, let's see. We've got a lot of things going on out of Kulus. Uh what's the update on the site? >> First of all, uh Oakill. >> Oh, the Oakill. Jump into that one. >> The dam's gone. >> The d the dam is gone. >> Gone. Both dams are gone. >> I wonder why.
>> They removed it because they were worried about uh eroding the uh the dump the cover on the >> So, the rod and gun club, they removed it. >> No. Who? >> Town did. >> Town did. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Did we agree? >> We gave permission.
>> Okay. the the the the the Beaver Dam is is eroding the toe of a closed landfill full of junk. >> Exact Exactly. So any that would it for Oakill, but uh as far as cool, I don't know, a lot of things are going on out there. We had a little glitch with the granite sign which is going back in
tomorrow. All a brand new sign. >> And you uh proof read it. >> I didn't. >> Not yet. >> She is petrified. It's going to happen again, aren't you? That was an honest mistake. I'll tell you I'll tell you
>> using reputable people that were town works with >> they as soon as it was noticed it was changed. There was no >> you didn't have to fight over >> no fight. There was >> they wanted to do the right thing and and uh it'll be installed tomorrow. So
>> that'll be done tomorrow. Huh? >> We should absolutely. >> So >> and they've been really responsive as I remember over the last couple years. Right. Pardon me. >> They've been very responsive. >> Oh, yeah. They're a great company. >> Great company to work for. >> Great company. Um, the other thing was the town DPW is phenomenal. Those guys
uh have built the completed the handicap walkway out to the field and uh put a pad for handicap table. >> It's still at coolish, right? >> At cool. Yeah. >> That's that's completed. Uh today they
hydro seated the field and the uh any disturbed areas are hydro seated today. Um the they're going to come back after the fence is installed and the guardrail that's going to be done uh week after next. After that's done, they're going
to pick up some rocks where the fence area is and hydro seed that area. And they're going to uh build a handicap parking area for a van and a car and install handicap signs. And they're going to put grindings on the parking
area, the whole parking lot. So, the town has been phenomenal. The DPW has been great out there. Um, and this the volunteers were there last weekend, too. pulling >> what are they spraying for for uh see vecule like putting in >> I'm not sure what the mix is
>> whatever they normally use. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but uh yeah, a lot of things been going on out there. David was out there couple weeks ago with me. I walked the uh the fence line with him just so another set
of eyes on it uh and showed him where that was going. showed them where the uh at that point the handicap trail wasn't completed. >> It's going good. >> Am I okay? >> It's going good. So, uh I haven't done any work out there, but the town DPW has
done. No, they've done everything out there. They removed uh all the rocks from the field. They took them out and uh dump truck loads yesterday. All those rocks are gone. >> Everything burnt out there. >> Everything's burnt out there. >> Great. >> Uh it looks good. So,
>> right. >> Good job, Bill. >> It's coming out good. >> Yeah. >> And the fence is going in. The fence is going in next week. >> The fence is going in next week. Next week, you said >> week after next. >> Week after next. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Anybody else? Land management. Any uh
issues, problems, anything you want to talk about? >> One, I won't tell one question on Russell Mill. When the guy from Nimber was here talking, they undertook a project for us five, six years ago to
put markers at all the major intersections that actually were numbered and colorcoded. And they were going to deliver those to the fire department so that if somebody was ever hurt out there, they'd know their approximate location. The fire
department could get to them. I don't know if that project was ever finished. Remember bought this the markers themselves? They spent a couple of grand. >> I believe the markers are there at least when you walk through there right >> because we should also have them on our web page if the project's done. The fire
department should have the >> to where the markers are and we should know where they are for our map. >> What do you think, Peter? You've been out there, right? >> Uh there are markers installed. There's a lot of markers, but there's no >> Maybe that part of it's not. >> Yeah. or I'm not sure about the fire department knowing how to
>> Well, Donahue was involved in it and he's retired, right? >> Correct. >> So, maybe they dropped the I don't know. >> I don't know. Maybe it's been Yeah. So, >> go ahead. >> We should follow up. >> Yeah, maybe we can follow up. >> Chris, I got one more thing. >> Yeah. >> Uh, go back to Kulus with that handicap
area built. >> It needs a handicap picnic table. So, >> Oh, yeah. I need some They're pretty pricey for one that's going to last. They're in the $2,000 range. So, I was wanted to see if the board could approve
some money if we have it to spend on a picnic table and and uh >> among a couple of sources. Yeah. >> Are they chained to the ground? So, no. >> It's so heavy. the one the uh Joe Ericson from DPW uh researched it with the wreck people
in the town and they sent me a picture of one that they thought would be a good table for out there. It's uh it's very heavy pipe. I mean to to move it out of there it takes six guys to get it out of there. So whether and it's it'd be up to them if they want to secure it to the
ground the DPW and >> I don't want to damage I don't want to damage the handicap area that they've done >> and they put it in place. Yeah, >> they they install it. >> Yeah. So, um >> So, >> if I could get
>> It's just a regular picnic table. >> It's a handicap, >> but it's Is it Oh, so this seating is different. >> Yes, you can you can drive underneath. >> Good. >> Wheelchair under the into into the table. So, uh I'd just like to get an okay to
>> we got money. Um yeah, I I I think not only the annual appropriation budget, but also the land maintenance fund. You know, I I think actually we we should work on spending. >> We will we authorize an amount not to exceed >> how much 2,000 you say
>> 2500. >> Make say 25 and we'll do it as we we're not going to spend 25, >> right? But you don't want to come back. I don't want and I'll go I'll work with David on that and and Joe Ericson from >> Yeah. If if they can put in the purchase order and just then send me the invoice,
that would be the easiest from our perspective. They could do that. >> All right. So, we'll work on that because >> Okay. >> We've got the beautiful things they've built. We need to finish it off. >> Okay. Yeah. So, motion by Dave McLaclin not to exceed $2,500 for the special picnic table. >> Second. >> Seconded by Peter. All those in favor?
I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. >> Thanks, Bill. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh any other land management topics there? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we've got one, right? the uh the uh the dog uh uh >> well well yeah I'll get to that but but even before that so so Carl Carl was the
commission as contact for three you know reservations that was Cranberry Bog Warren Pole and what was the other one um I don't I don't remember but now that he's gone he needs to be replaced now Peter I think you've taken over Warren
Pole right >> I think he did a cranberry bog too or didn't he >> oh you're taking over cranberry bog >> didn't he Cranberry Bog. >> Carl did Cranberry Bog. >> Carl did. Yeah, >> he did Cranberry Bog, Warren Pole, and >> forget what the other one was, but he had three. And you have three right now, Bill. >> Right.
>> So, so I think three if that seems to be the maximum amount. So, so if you if you So, you have two already. Um, if you take over Cranberry Bog, that'll be three. Or we don't have to make this decision right now, but but let's think
about it. But I'll but I'll send out the reservations that Carl had and if you could let me know which ones now you want to take over. >> Yeah, let's think about that. And one thing I might mention as everybody thinks about what they want to do. Um our open space and wreck plan that was approved by the select board and the
state calls for us to create what's called land management plans for each parcel. And Carl actually did that. Um, and he sent me the the copies. So that to me, that's one of the tasks that we probably ought to do.
>> They don't have to be >> they don't have to pardon. >> They don't have to be extremely specific. >> They're like one page. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> So my my hope is that, you know, we could start looking at those over the next year. I've got one with Warren Pole I I'm working on with Steve Mat and David. >> Well, and that will that one will
probably change once the CR is >> right. But they're fairly they're fairly simple. So that would be a task for whoever's keeping an eye on these properties. They're already drafted. They just need to be finalized. >> Okay. So I'll send out an email. So just
on the problem about the uh the dog poop being left on reservations. Um I uh a lot's actually happened uh since then. So I got a call from Christine Clansancy at DPW. Uh, I don't know if she had seen the meeting or not, but she said she had
tak Yeah. She said she had taken her daughters up to Southwell and she said it was just awful. >> Just She said >> Southwell Park. >> Yeah. She said she said you could not walk. You literally it was it was it was just that bad. She said
>> people have a lot more dogs today or >> uh Well, I I I think so, but I think it's also the the winter. >> Yes. >> Really snowy winter that contributed. But so so um she um I had a long telephone conversation with her. She reached out uh well she did she googled
um you know companies that addressed this problem. She reached out to one uh one local company. We had a zoom meeting with I think it was the owner and what was decided was that we do a pilot project here. Um it's a real problem.
>> What's that? >> It's a real problem. It it is so so we for this this person for this company is going to submit a proposal a pilot proposal uh focusing for now just on three properties one being Southwell I
think another being L quarry because that's where >> yeah that's been really bad >> and then and then Warren Pole as well because Carl said that was bad >> if it works they can hook up with the dog park too >> um >> a separate separate entity >> and and then so that that I think We
haven't completely decided yet whether that's just going to be for initial um cleanup, you know, followed by then, you know, monitoring every couple weeks and addressing it as necessary. I can I can see that that may very well be within the scope of the proposal. But but
anyway, so um I mean she has she has she Christine has a good feel for South Park, but what I need is if commission members could walk Lime Quarry and Warren Pole so that we can have a better understanding of the scope. Is is the problem focused just at the trail head
or is it throughout the trail system? Um I I think we really need to have a better understanding of that for the scope of this proposal. So, if members could do that and let me know how bad it is. >> And and if I could just throw out just we'll talk offline, but I don't see that
much at Warren Paul. I see a ton at Russell Mill. >> Okay. >> Of not just uncleaned work, but unclean poop, but but bag baggies all >> Well, if you think Russell Mill is worse, I mean, we can certainly >> Well, remember you got a lot of people playing soccer, so you got
>> different groups showing up, too. Well, you can maybe we do want to focus on that one instead. >> So, >> well, we can rec we should Russell Miller should recruit the soccer association because they're responsible for the parking lots. >> Yeah, but it's on the It's on the
trails. It's along the trails, too, Dave. >> Yeah, it's not just the trail head. So, so if if if consensus is that um for Russell Russell Mill um and Lime Corey, if it's the whole trail system, then we we can just forward the trail maps for
those parcels to this company. >> Yeah, Russell Russell Mill's big though. >> Well, right. So, you know, >> it's a lot of work. >> Um >> well, then that's just going to be a more expensive cost, but that's that's what I'd like to narrow down as we can. >> The help of Nima,
>> I don't know what they can do. >> Yeah. And then the other thing, David, if I could ask, I did a deep dive on what other communities are doing. And from what I've learned is not much of this works unless you're willing to do enforcement, meaning, you know, tickets, but how do you do tickets? You're going
to have somebody standing there watching you. So, that's the real that's why it's hard. >> Well, it may be the town just have to spend some some money on this, you know, like have an annual appropriation. >> A lot of it's education, >> Peter. You got to educate the public.
You're right. When people pick up after the dogs and put in a baggie and then leave the baggie and don't take it home, that's education, right? >> I think Dave, it's right. >> Yeah. >> But but if there's no receptacle there to put the baggies, you know, put it in the backseat of the car, they're going to drive 10 minutes.
>> No, the receptacle is also considered best practice. >> Oh, but we've had terrible luck with receptive. >> That's the That's why we have a problem. >> Yeah. >> Why it's a problem? >> Used to collect a lot of TVs there. >> Okay. So if again members could do that and let me know, I'd appreciate.
>> All right. So we'll just do that and follow up with David. >> Yes. Uh moving on to the next um item. So call there were two enforcement orders. Um and uh so uh the the first
one was was 233 uh Mil Road and I I spoke to Chris uh about that this afternoon. And at that time, um, I told them that I hadn't heard a peep, uh, out of, uh, that one.
Um, that they required, I the enforcement order required a wall removal sequence, >> uh, um, you know, by April 1st. Hadn't received that. I sent him an email reminding him um, and hadn't heard anything. But lo and behold, at um, 4:43
p.m., I got an email. Hi, David. I'm sorry for the late response. We will meet with the masonry crew at the site this week and discuss a way to remove the wall from the 25 ft uh buffer zone to start immediately. We will just need to brainstorm this a bit since no heavy
machinery is to be used. Also, would a small mini excavator be allowed for the removal? So, would it be >> I think that's okay. >> A small mini excavator, >> you know, small heavy blocks. I don't know. >> Well, they look like they're >> Well, they got to remove the dirt they
put up against the blocks, too. I I think they're standard size blocks which would be you know >> but there's dirt up against the blocks >> but Right. But remember >> the block remove the dirt. >> But there's also those concrete sauna tubes that you were wondering why. I don't know how deep those are.
>> Concrete filter. >> They'll need a machine. >> I think they're going to need a machine. >> Did they have that marked out, Dave? >> Have what marked out? >> They have it marked out how far they got to move it. >> Uh could they have a >> Well, somebody come in and do that. They're they're saying that um they're
they're going to remove it. They're they're going to store them they're going to store the the material away from the 25 ft buffer zone until a permit is approved. But I think the enforcement order requires that it be um removed maybe offsite. Let me let me
double check. >> Yeah, I think you're right there >> quickly. Um the wall back. >> We we wanted them to clean it up for us before we go give them the give them a go ahead to
>> keep on building. >> It's a big help. >> So, um >> they're just going outside the 25 foot, right? >> Yeah. >> With a with a wall. Yeah. With the wall. >> They got to pull it all back. Then they >> Yeah, just pull that one corner. >> Yeah. So it says no later than April
1st, 2026, submit to the agent for approval a detailed written chronological wall removal sequence for removal of the retaining wall from the 25- ft buffer zone. No heavy equipment shall be used for removal of the retaining wall. No further work is
permitted in the 100t buffer zone prior to the agent's approval of the wall removal sequence. So there is no requirement for um you know removing it you know the blocks from the buffer zone or whatever. Um I I think probably what
they're hoping is that they can then reuse those uh for the new wall um when that gets approved. So is is is it okay with the commission that they store you know the removed
blocks you know as long as it's more than 25 feet? >> Yeah. As long as it's outside the buffer sometime. >> Yeah. So, so I can certainly have them mark that mark the 25 foot. >> I mean, they're going to have to do that anyway. >> Um, so, uh, so, so is the the mini
excavator. Is that >> Yeah. >> Is that okay? >> That's fine. >> Okay. So, so I I'll tell them that's acceptable and, uh, just tell them to get me that plan as soon as they can. That's fine. >> Yeah. Um, so then, so then the the the next one, uh, I I forward a copy of the
EO to the commission. There's just a huge amount of junk, slash, and debris that's that's in the wetlands and buffer zone right next to UPS. Um, it's it's there's little doubt that most of it's from the employees just throwing stuff
when, you know, they get out of their car, they have a morning coffee or something. Although some of it, I think, does look like it's been dumped there. It looks like maybe there's also some partying that's going on there. Um, I think it's it's it's it's really, you know, a very good example of what happens when you allow large parking
lots right next to wetlands. So, uh, Mark of the health department and I met with an an official there at UPS um, and he was he was very very cooperative. Say, you know, sorry, sorry about this. You know, we'll definitely
address them. So, um, you know, I did I did the the enforcement order requires that it be um I think it was removed by May 6th. I can double check that um because because at that time when we
were out there, we saw uh some some snow um that you know, a lot of the stuff was all mixed up with. So, um, but then I, so when I I emailed him the enforcement order, I asked him to reply to confirm receipt, and I haven't heard from him,
but I'll call him, make sure he got it and that they're working diligently on removing the stuff. >> So, he he he again, he was very cooperative, very very agree, >> checking with legal counsel. >> When you went driving up to that parking lot, this is the one you drive. It's all
the way to the left. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Did you notice a pile of building construction material there? It was right behind the the guardrails because that was up there right after you mentioned that in one of your emails and there was a pile of layout. >> Um yeah. Yeah. I I I that I'm expecting that will be removed.
>> Okay. As well I'll make sure uh that it is. Now now he did tell me that they they used to do a cleanup operation a couple times a year and for some reason I guess the last couple years it didn't happen. He didn't say why. Maybe he doesn't know why. >> Budget
>> change in leadership >> could be. So, so hope hopefully this won't happen again. >> Good. Good status. Thank you. >> So, that's all I have for tonight. >> Great. Thanks, David. >> 10 o'clock. You did a good job. >> 10 o'clock. Here we go. 10 o'clock. Look at that. >> Good job. >> Anything else tonight?
>> It's nice to have Dave back. McLaclin. >> It's great. Just like you like we're gone. >> Like you never left. >> Never left. >> Is that good or bad? >> I don't know. It's not good. >> It's all good. I miss talking about willow trees >> about trucks and stuff. Remember truck
talk? >> Tractor talk. >> Tractor talk. Tractor talk too. Yeah. >> You want a motion to adjurnn? >> Yes. A motion to adjurnn. Please move >> we adjourn the conservation. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Dave, second by Ally. All those in favor? I. Any oppose? Unanimous. Thank you very much and good
night everyone. Have a nice night.