is uh traveling this week and we're also missing another member John as well too. But we have a quorum so we're going to call tonight's meeting to order. Um the meeting is being recorded and I do ask it's a public meeting so at some point we'll be getting public input
and if um if you if it's your turn to address the commission uh the individuals that all come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record and we'll record that. But um the first item that we have in tonight's meeting is basically looking at the
agenda is what's called the open session citizen concerns. Um and we have uh a couple items there already. Uh we've got a report from our planning board leaison to the commission and Chris if you could come up and give us a report from planning board that'd be appreciated.
>> Good evening. So this week um tomorrow at the planning board we will be uh discussing the housing production plan and hopefully endorsing it. Um this week uh the Chumsford Mall and Riverneck projects are going to be continued. We
won't have discussion on those this week. Um the new public hearings that we'll be hearing is 42 Bill Reka Road and 152 Steman. Um, we'll be wrapping up our zoning public hearings for the
September 8th uh, select board meeting where they're going to finalize a town meeting warrant. So, we'll be closing that out this week. Uh, the we'll be discussing or um, available on the agenda, probably not much discussion, is
the annual town report for the planning board. Uh so if people want to see what the planning board has done this year uh that is linked on our agenda. We will be forming the managed growth strategy uh committee uh or starting to discuss that
formation. Um we'll probably uh settle on the membership on our September 6th meeting uh and then kick it off uh the second meeting in September. Um we do not have any other August meetings. So
the second uh August meeting um we have canceled due to uh vacations. Uh but we will be having this week and then the two in September. >> And I note that you're looking for um someone from the conservation commission to join the managed growth strategy task
force. Yep. >> Could you maybe tell us a little bit more about what might be involved as far as that? The commitment, the time maybe? >> Sure. Um we're looking to appoint a task force of we're thinking around 12 people um is what we're casting a net. Um we're
trying to get represented representation from a number of different areas. There are a lot of people that overlap those areas. So the actual membership may be a little smaller. Um, we're looking for one conservation commission member, one select board, uh, one person from the
2020 master plan or master plan implementation committee, uh, two strategic plan uh, committee members, two town meeting reps, two residents at large. Um, and then we'll have one uh, I think one or two people from the the
planning board on that committee as well. Um we're going to kick off the group uh in late September. Um we have applied for a grant uh to fund this uh managed growth strategy. We're hoping to hear back uh some word on that in
October. Um if that grant does get um get granted, we'll be using that money to hire a consultant uh who will help us uh develop that managed growth strategy. And this task force will be getting
together before that um happens, come up with uh some goals for the task force. Uh the planning board will essentially act as the steering committee and the the task force will be um selecting the consultant to be working with and then
um gathering all of the data uh from the um strategic plan from the uh the master plans that have been implemented. um gathering all the data and working on a strategy for how Chelmsford wants to
grow in the future or not grow. Uh it's really about managing the growth to uh how Chelmsford uh needs that growth to be handled. Uh so that's the that's the task at hand. How the committee or how frequently the committee meets um will
be left up to the committee to figure that out depending on what work needs to be done. Um we think it'll probably be about uh 6 months to a year depending on the um the work and we're looking for essentially a document that will help
guide um a number of different areas uh in the planning board area as well as some of the work that the uh strategic plan uh has pulled together. >> Very good. Very good. Let's see if the commissioners have any questions right now for Chris on what's going on in
planning board. >> Peter, >> just a simple question. Um, is the idea that this committee would then work with, for example, representatives from the water department or sewer or finance.
I'm thinking of the things that are important relative to growth. is more than that. But is that the idea that those experts within town government would be brought in somewhere as opposed to being a regular member of the Yes. committee? >> Yeah. Uh the first task of the task
force is going to be to pull all of the information together that has been compiled. Some of it has already been done for the uh strategic planning process. Some of it has been done for other things in town. So, we're going to pull all of that together, see where the gaps are, and then pull in additional um
people to provide information on those gaps if needed, compile everything, pull in uh the experts again to provide advice and and direction on specific areas, and then come up with a strategy. >> Thank you.
>> Good. Good. I mean, I think it's obviously managed growth is important to the town. conservation. It's important for us to have someone at the at the table to talk about, you know, managing that growth and and um having um you know, avoiding any, you know, negative
impacts on the environment or the interest that conservation is concerned about. So, does anyone at this point have a strong interest in serving yet? Want to raise your hand to do this uh yet? I mean, we we can circle back later tonight and talk about it again. All
right. We'll we'll we'll talk about it a little later then. >> Yeah. and you have another meeting or two before we do. Um, so we can always have you guys discuss it. >> This isn't just managing commercial growth, right? >> This is managing all growth in town. Um,
so part of this will feed back into a redesign of the the housing uh production plan as well. Um we're starting the housing production plan a little earlier before this um because we kind of have to. But our plan is to
figure out how much growth the town needs to have from a financial perspective. How much the growth uh the town wants to have? How much can we afford? How much do we need to um actively manage it in all of the different areas like ecology and
planning and things like that? and then let that document feed into some of the other areas like the housing production plan, the sewer production, uh things like that. >> If I could just add, this was a big question that the strategic plan
committee addressed and realized it was big. >> So, they assigned it to the planning board and we're creating this task force. The strategic plan may or may not have actually assigned it to you. >> Chain of command.
>> Very good. Any more questions for Chris? >> All right. Thank you very much, Chris. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate that. Um, this is our open session. Um so if somebody in the audience either um right here present in the room or on the um um zooming in has a question for us it's relates to
something that's not on tonight's agenda just uh raise your hand and let us know and identify your name and address for the record. U I don't see anybody in the room so that's okay. Uh so we'll move along. We have a really full agenda tonight. We have a number of regulatory
hearings and we're going to move uh forward. The uh first item we have under the regulatory hearings is uh a notice of intent um for Mr. Dylan Lee for Russell Road. Matthew Hammer of Landflex LLC is representing the applicant. If we could
just have the legal notice uh read uh into the record first and then what we'll do is we'll have the legal notice. We'll have a presentation uh from the applicant to the commission. We'll have questions from the commissioners and comments and then we'll turn to the audience because it's a public hearing and we'll have a chance for questions
and we'll take it from there. So, legal notice, please. Uh, thank you, Chris. Uh, pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, MGL131, section 40, and the Chumsford Wetlands
bylaw, which is chapter 187. The Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Chumsford Town Offices 50 Berria Road tonight, Tuesday, August 12th, at 7 p.m. to consider the notice of intent filed
by property owner Dylan Lee for proposed work within the 100 ft buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and Freeman Lake at four Russell Road. uh further identified as assessor parcel map 12,
block 29, lot five. The project entails construction of an addition to a single family dwelling. >> Thank you. Thank you, Peter. All right. And now we'll have the applicant identify himself and and give us a presentation. >> Uh good evening. For the record, my name
is Matt Hammer with >> Do you have to go in front of the mic? >> No, there's one hanging from the Sorry. uh modification. >> That's good to clarify that though. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hammer. Please proceed. >> Uh yes, I'm with Lamplex uh Engineering.
Uh we're at 60 Fletcher Street, Low Mass. Uh we're here this evening for a notice of intent filing for four Russell Road which is um at the corner the the portion that we'll be focusing on is at
the corner of Russell in Grten Road and the parcel extends back uh over to what is called Carp Path Road which consists of approximately 2 and a half acres. Uh the owner of the property is uh Dylan Lee in Lower Luna. Uh they currently
reside at 20 Russell Road and um we're here for a notice of intent. So we've been in front of the commission and we've appreciated all the input from the commission. We've had uh multiple uh meetings uh with Mr. David Coons about
this development and we feel as though we have a proposal for you this evening. uh that's going to take into account all of those uh interactions with the town. So, existing on the property
is uh a cleared grass area with wooded vegetation and there's an existing structure on the property. There's also a utility pole that's has
an overhead wire um that brings electricity into the property and there's also an existing sewer and a water line um presently for the property as well. We've come to find out that in fact somebody lived on this property
before. Um there's been um a building permit that was issued for this to for this property in that we know that someone actually lived in this building. Even though it's small, uh somebody did live there at one
time. um as as far back as as recent as 1983. We are proposing oh excuse me um we've retained the services of Norse Environmental. They've delineated the wetlands which
are shown here which is identified as wetland flag uh A1 through A6. This is Russell Road here. Um, there's a right of way here. It's private.
But what what we also did with this colored plan, the other plan that we had looked at before, it gets confusing if it's not colored. But what's shown here is the actual paved road which
comes off of the private way over here into the property. So that was important uh for us to show you that the property line is actually here.
This plan here shows you an overview of the entire property that's here. One of the um one of the tasks that was asked of us was to show to do an analysis of the wetland behind
the property. to see if that wetland qualified as an isolated land subject to flooding per the wetlands protection act. Okay. So we provided a submitt with with our
report which shows the total contributing area to the lowlying area back here as well as a hydraologic analysis of that contributing area.
And in order for a um an isol to qualify as an isolated land subject to flooding, you have to have 0.25 25 acre feet of volume and that's per section 10.57
subsection 2B.1. This area behind here has 0008. So that's 30 times under what would be classified as an isolated landed flooding. And that analysis has been provided with the report.
Additionally, the area that we're proposing to be restored by the removal of the structure and to restore that area that was prior disturbed
here. We've retained Norse Environmental to do a wetland restoration report. That report's been submitted uh to the commission and there's a summary of that report,
the tree, shrub, and um wetland mix distribution in that area. And that area to be restored will be 1,315 square feet approximately. And that's shown here is across
>> how many square feet did you say? >> 1315 square feet. >> 1315. >> Okay. So, we'll be removing an imperous structure and we'll be restoring that area. Okay. The proposal is
to propose this dwelling here. That dwelling has a footprint of um approximately 433 square feet. And essentially that's it's going to be what you've heard of in the past out of these tiny homes. It's going to be a
total aggregate square footage of 900 square ft of floor area, but the actual footprint is 433. And that footprint is in an area that's already been disturbed. Just want to
make note of that. So there won't be any cutting of any trees to put that house where it's located. Additionally, that house location will be out of the 50oot buffer to the
wetland here. Conversely, by moving it on out of the 50oot buffer, it'll be 14 ft from the front lot line. And we'll be required to go and obtain a variance from the jumpsuit zoning board of appeals for
that setback of proposed as 14 ft where 20 ft is um required. We've gotten some feedback And we feel as though that that's going to be justifiable because a lot of those homes are close
to the right to the right of way. So, we feel as though that we have um a neighborhood setback that will be um similar to the setback that we're going to be proposing. Additionally,
since we've made the filing, National Grid has um they put a request in and I believe the conservation agent is well aware of this that because of the close proximity to the utility overhead
utility wire, this tree that was decaying and dying has been since taken down. And I think Mr. Coons can um agree with me on that that that's gone through the proper channels to have that tree removed.
>> You you've mentioned the uh how far you going to be in the back of the building. You you relocated the building forward to get it out of the 50 foot wetlands. What is You didn't give us a dimension on the front. >> Oh, 14 ft. Sorry. >> No, from the from the lake.
>> Oh, the lake. Um that'll >> 49. >> What's that? >> No, I'm sorry. We're muttering. Let's Let's see if we can hold our questions. Let's kind of >> I just didn't want to roll past it without having to >> Yeah, I will. >> Okay. >> It's 40 something. >> Okay. >> It's less than 50.
>> Okay. >> Um let's speak to that. Um because we feel as though that this house will not adversely affect Freeman Lake because of the fact that
there's a roadway between us and Freeman Lake and that the activities here will in no way adversely affect Freeman Lake. So that's even though it's within the 50 ft,
we feel as though the the wetland that's the highest priority would be the direct adjacent wetlands to the development. Additionally, the parking areas that we're going to be proposing is going to be put on a a material called geoc.
I don't know if any of the commission members are familiar with geog grid, but essentially it's a H20 loading uh material. It's uh it's plastic honeycomb shaped um
um holes that sits on processed gravel that is filled with uh 2 in of lom and then it can be grasped and you can drive on it. And it's a it's shown to be a proven uh green we call it a green uh method of
um reducing impervious space and it's a fully draining system. Secondly, um the roof runoff will be put into um trench drains so that all of the the the developed
surface will be fully infiltrated into the soils. So whatever was raining before and going into the soils will still be the case uh after the development. want to note that the project has been issued a a DP file
number. The file number is uh 129-0971. So that has been issued by uh Mass D and um Mass Dance uh related to the development uh on their review.
Additionally, as you may or may not recall, um Mr. Lee has gone through uh quite some effort to solve the drainage problem that was currently existing
down off of Carp Path Road where it intersects with Russell Road. There were years of flooding activity primarily focused in this area here and uh Mr. Lee went and had those lines
cleaned out, had those catch basins um repointed, repaired. We also conducted a full drainage analysis of that repair and we made a submission to the uh conservation uh
agents or the conservation commission for that matter to show that that that effort solved the drainage problem that was going on here for quite some time. And he took that and he did that on his um on his
own effort and it was substantiated with um stamp drainage designs or drainage analysis to show the full functionality of that system. Additionally, it's not shown on this plan,
but we know that on car path here, there's a history of people going up and down car path and wanting to dump debris and material off of car path that
affects the wetland area. Here we will install a full split rail fence with signage identifying that there's no dumping allowed. Uh per the wetlands that are
adjacent to that area and that split road split rail fence would be installed and the responsibility of the property owner to maintain that over time. and I can uh put it to the commission for any questions you may have and I can
answer those. >> Thank you, Mr. Amber. We'll um start with the commissioners. We'll start left to right here. Uh Bill, if you can lead us off, please. All right. Um let's see. The size of the house. How far is how deep is the house front to back?
>> It's 12 feet. >> 12. >> Yeah. Thank you. This is uh Dylan Lee. Yeah. When you speak, you have to get up to the podium. >> Um so 12 approximately 12 feet. Yes. So you would require a waiver for us from
the lake, right? >> Correct. >> The of how much how many feet >> um I will have to get you that exact dimension, but I believe it's going to be about uh eight eight feet. >> Eight feet. >> Yes. >> The that's dependent on board of appeals
allowing you to be how many? Six feet closer. >> 14. Yes. Six feet closer. >> Six feet closer. Correct. They require 20 feet. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So that would maybe change. >> Yes. >> It's going to depend on that. >> Yes.
>> Um Okay. >> You've got the It shows here the house is 32 feet tall. Is the >> Yes. >> Can you show us what how do you get the 32 feet >> to its tallest point?
So is it on is it a foundation under it or is on peers or stilts or >> It's on stilts. >> Yeah. So, can you drive under the house or >> No, you cannot. You cannot. >> So, and was what's the first floor?
Seller basement. >> There's no basement. >> So, the first floor is living space and you've got >> Yes. >> And then the 32 ft. >> Yes. >> There's something above that, >> correct? >> Living space or just this three floors of living space? >> Yeah. So, I can I can work through this.
So, this is the first floor. The entrance is down at the end here. >> Yeah. >> There's a set of stairs that goes up to the second floor. There'll be a crawl space underneath um probably 30 in in order to for the utilities.
This is the second floor. And then this is um coming up to the the roof. And there's a side section on that shows on the elevation on the side. I have uh some other elevations that view.
>> So how would you construct the foundation of the peers? How is that? >> Those will be dug in um with sauna tubes. >> Sauna tubes. >> Yep. And brought up and then there'll be a frame put on top of that. >> All right. Have you done any testing yet? Deep hole testing out there to see where the water
table is. We know down a couple feet, right? >> Yeah. The water table's only down like 2 feet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, you need to do watering plant and stuff, too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um let's see. Let's look for So, for now, we can come
back to you later. >> Okay. uh the the way it looks, the way it is now, it's just uh functioning wetland behind it. Correct. And
you're looking for a waiver in the front to bring it within uh 8 ft. I I don't see any advantage to making this land any better by putting a house on it. It's It's functioning the way it is.
It's it's going to be a structure isn't isn't a problem. We can't get involved in that. I get that for height, but I I don't see we have to be consistent because we refused people that came with waiverss within 50
ft and just our last meeting and I don't feel comfortable approving this even though you did a tremendous amount of work on it. I get that and you've taken every consideration It's just not something that I feel comfortable with right now. Chris,
>> can I ask just >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Come come back up to the mic, please, sir. And just again, name address for the record. >> Oh, here. I'll try not to hide behind you too much. Uh, so Dylan Lee, 20 Russell Road. Um, and yeah, I know
there's other there's other projects you guys have had move out of the the 50 foot buffer. Um, you know, I think there's a lot of betterment to this and, you know, I'll kind of go down the list. The first is anytime there's a vacant lot, it just attracts
trouble, right? So, one of the issues lately is that since they station a cop at Vney Park, when the teenagers get chased out of there, they run through the pathway, they open the fence, they come down Russell Road, and then they'll go and drink behind my shed and leave beer bottles, trash. You're welcome to
go back to that shed and see the carvings of all the names of who was here. And it also goes the same for the people that drive over from LOL. And nothing against LOL. I own properties there as well, but you know, the people selling drugs in LOL used to park at Varnney Park, meet there, exchange and
go. Now that there's a cop sitting there, they see a perfect open lot on a private road and it puts me in a position where, you know, I'm asking these type of people to live to leave and it doesn't go that well. And I don't think I should be in that position. I don't think any of my neighbors should
deal with cars just slowly cruising down the road and looking at everyone's property. Um, nobody has to deal with that. Thirdly, you know, I the VFW, a lot of people go and fish over there. Obviously, it's grown up tremendously, right? So, there's not as many spots
left to fish. And I happen to own two areas of almost 300 ft of beachfront that are probably the most clear places to fish. One of which is right in front of this house. And it's I've got signs up. People don't listen. They leave fishing lures there. They get caught in
my lawn mower. Get in my I had to go to the emergency room to get a fishing lure out of my calf. The teenagers that drive by since all of them vape now, they see it as a great place to toss a vape, which again will get caught in my mower. And you know, one of these days I'm
going to lose a limb. And then aside from that, it does benefit Freeman Lake because everybody, well, I don't want to say everybody, but a lot of people walk their dogs down Russell Road. And that's fine, but they don't know who owns that lot and it just becomes a public bathroom for everyone's dog. And Freeman
Lake has a phosphorus issue. And one of the issues, well, one of the sources for phosphorus is pet waste. I can't tell you how much I drive over from my first mow of the season. There's no way for me to pick it all up. Um, and so putting a
house there, I can put a stop to all of that. Um, and so that's why, you know, in my opinion, it it it is a betterment. >> All right. Thanks, Mr. Lee. Mark, you got any more questions right now? Comments. Bill, can we hold you for a second if that's all right? Give everybody else a chance.
>> Could I could I add one? Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Um uh one thing we felt as though was a benefit was removing and restoring all the property that's being currently disturbed over towards the wetland
which is all in here. So we believe that this is a betterment by doing by moving all this and restoring this and putting this modest home. The other thing is is that we we felt as though because the the roadway
is between the lake that that could be unique enough to differentiate that waiver being granted from other from other submissions that have been put before the commission. >> All right. Thanks, Mr. Hammer for your comments there. Uh let's move on then.
Mark, you're good. Alexandra? >> Yeah. Um, like Mark had just said, obviously there's a concern about the the front edge of the property and I can understand your plight about the issue of people cutting through and things like that. Um, you know, it's obviously an issue on Mallalerie and Shore Drive
as well. Um, in terms of moving that and then setting that up in the front, I mean, would it stop people from cutting through? I don't know. Uh again, I can understand your plight from the public safety side of it, but again, this is, you know, conservation
commission. So, um that being said, I do appreciate the split rail fence over on the cart path area and, you know, taking on the responsibility of cleaning that area up. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you. Thanks, Alexander. And Peter,
>> um well, well, thanks, Ally. You summarized some of what I was thinking. Mark, I understand what you're saying, but um I was going to ask a question, but you answered it. The phosphorus from the dog poop, if one was to look at
scientific literature or do some measurements, I think that probably is a big deal. Not for the whole Freeman Lake, but you know, we got all this lake study and town money being spent on treating the lake. And the biggest problem is phosphorus. I mean, when you strip it all down, it's phosphorus
coming into that lake from different places, not just dog poop. So, to me, that's that is a big environmental improvement. Uh, I like the wetland improvement and I like the I'm familiar with the uh geo grid for parking. We
should talk more about that. It's not new, but it's not commonly used. So, that may not be an improvement, per se, to Mark's point, but you're not paving that area. So, that's great. Um, I like the wetland improve improvements and that leads me to two questions. Um,
again keying off Mark's comment, the betterment question. Uh, trees that are there presently on that sideyard. What is the plan for those? I don't see them on the plan.
>> That's one of two three questions I have. Yeah, >> there's zero trees being removed. uh most of the trees behind. So the prior owner um uh the Davenports told me probably cut somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 80 trees. >> I remember that. >> Um and so you know, one of the things we
haven't talked about is I'll probably be planting more trees along Car Path Road as well to fill it in cuz it's a bit of a stump farm. Um and it's eroded their property. But part of the reason I did go with this design is so I didn't have to remove any trees and they're all
really healthy. And Dave, you were there with the site visit. Like the trees around there are actually doing really well. The one that was by the power lines was just, you know, destroyed by carpenter ants, woodpeckers, and then when they snow plow, they would basically when they're coming down Groten Road and they would cut onto
Russell Road. That was a choke point. So they would push the snow right up onto that tree. And I think between that and then paving more and more onto the root system year-over-year is probably what killed it. Um, but you know, part of the
plan is to fill that back in with trees because if you do go back there, you can see the you can see the stumps and stuff like that. So it'll only be addition trees, no no uh subtractions. >> Yeah. So that's not this particular property. It's your other property, right? >> Uh, it's technically the same.
>> Oh, it is because of the way big lot. Yeah. So we kind of zoom out. This is actually a 2.7 acre lot. >> So back to this this betterment question. Showing those on the plans and making a firm commitment to do that would be good. >> Sure. >> And then the other tree question. There's a couple I think of you saw them
David when you were out there. A couple of big tree of heavens that >> you know we don't really know what to do with those because the trouble is they take over but >> you know think about removal. I had an arborist come out and um I can't
remember the the name they gave me, but they're they're actually not tree of heavens. >> So, I've got that wrong. Thank you. >> Yeah, they're just commonly mistaken. Like from 10 feet, they look like tree of heaven, but the leaf pattern is different. Yeah. So, they're they're okay. >> Super. And then my last comment again on this whole Betterment idea because I do
think you you've done a lot of good things. Um, you mentioned that the shoreline has become popular for unauthorized use because it's one of the few clear areas
and replanting the shoreline is actually one of the recommendations of previous lake studies that the town has paid for on what to do about the weeds. So my question, have you given any thought to some sort of shoreline
low-level bushes which would be very good to help that lake pollution thing, very good for habitat and the conservation things we're talking about. And I think with David or Moren from Norris's help, you could find some some native shrubs that don't get too big
because I'm sure >> if it were me, I wouldn't I'd be thinking about the view >> to to her point. You know, whether there's a house there or not, people are always going to come down that road and try and fish. Like I, you know, I sometimes see people literally set up
for picnics on my beach um or they're just out on my dock. So there's there's no uh foolproof right solution on that front. But I hadn't given that any thought, but I mean it's you know that's that's fine with me. You know >> if you excuse me if you sort of
landscaped it, think about this, right? If you sort of landscaped it carefully, it would make it a little bit harder for somebody to say, "Hey, here's vacant land." >> Take a look at that. Yeah. >> So, I would I mean I would think that would help this, you know, to Mark's point, >> my father's a landscaping company and since he's going to commandeer my brick
house, I'll make him do it. I don't mind at all. >> Just ask marine for native shrubs. >> Yeah. >> Then we then it's a conservation benefit. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I don't mind squeezing him for it. >> Yeah. And then my last question, I guess there's lawn here. How big is the lawn?
It's really where we're It's It's not Well, the lawn is actually probably bigger than just about everyone's yard currently in the neighborhood. Like, if if someone has the survey um in front of them, but uh it is a 2.7 acre lot, but the actual open grass area is uh it's
pretty large. Um I would say it's almost larger than uh just the open grass area than my house on 20 Russell Road to be honest. >> Yeah. So, again, I'm not sure where we're going with asking you to modify the plans. We can talk about that. But back to Mark's point of Betterment, if
you gave up, I don't know, 30% of that for trees and shrubs or some significant number, that is a huge ecological benefit to the critters and the things we're here to protect. Because if you really look at this, I mean, not to make it overly simplistic, but
>> um >> the way to think about this project is I'm taking this structure and basically moving it here and adding one and a half levels to it. That that's basically it. This is a 220 ft shed. This is a 900 ft house. That would make it the smallest
house on the largest lot. And aside from my front setback, it would actually be the only house in the entire neighborhood that conforms with every ZBA regulation, uh, every single house on the street would need around eight variances to be built today because they're all pre-existing non-conforming.
Um, they're on, you know, roughly 4 and a half thousand foot lots, right? They, you know, but that's just how the neighborhood is. Um, but shifting it here I think is actually better than what we were originally proposing because it actually makes the fascia of the house even with my direct neighbor.
Um, so you know it there's some continuity there. I'm not setting a new standard if you will and and you know candidly I think the way this is shaping up I'm probably going to do more planting than actual construction because you know this is a 900 foot
house. We'll build it in 3 months. Um, >> yeah. Well, we can talk again as a commission, but >> some of those things I threw out there would dramatically, >> well, dramatic. It would improve the betterment, but there's some other things you've done here that I would call betterment besides what you
mentioned and I think they were talked about earlier. So, thank you. >> It's the only house that would have a pass through driveway, right, that's completely forest. Every other house on the street has a black top driveway. Every house on the street has a gate roof end. This is the only one with a flat roof. Um, you know, and so there's
a lot of things that are kind of oneoff to to this. And the picture makes the house look huge. It's it's not very big. It's, you know, it's quite tiny. >> Right. Yes. It Yes. >> Thank you, J. >> Yeah. I wanted uh it's important to note that the existing even though it's a
shed, it was a a a building that was granted a building permit. So, someone did live there. Uh even though 222 ft is small um you know this is you know moving up to a 433
square foot footprint which isn't tremendously large in terms of uh its footprint. So that is uh worth noting. >> Yeah. And in terms of ecology, you're infiltrating the water coming off the roof on the new construction and
restoring a little chunk of wetlands where the shed was. So it's it's even more than you're describing >> and adding my dad to the neighborhood is an >> okay remember conservation here you those are your points for the next meeting. >> Uh any more questions Peter?
>> Uh no but you know we didn't get David's input. >> Oh we will. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We will. >> He forgot about me. >> No. Okay. >> We're not gonna forget our >> go down the road. Thank you. >> No. No. But Bill, back to you. Bill, >> could you just clarify something? In the in the notice that you read, it said an addition.
>> It did. >> Is that >> It says I think it should say an addition of a single family, not an addition to a single. >> What do you mean? >> All right. On the first page, >> or I read it wrong. >> Yeah.
>> It just references building a separate single family home. But in the first sentence that you're >> I didn't know if that had anything to do with how this would go with uh as far as board of appeals or anything like that. >> Yeah, it's it's a separate >> So, it's it's a new it's a new house, >> correct? Yeah, it's already got an
address. >> It's not an addition or anything. >> No, it's it's got an address. It's got water, sewer, everything. >> Did she shed this now? Did somebody lived in Was there a bathroom in there and everything >> apparently? >> Yes, there was. >> Yeah. >> So, we just hold on. >> They have a sewer tie in and everything
>> they do for that. >> They have a sewer tie-in. They have a water uh service. They have electricity. Um we have um documentation from the building department that there was an occupancy permit on the property in that in that building. >> But you're taking that one down. So
>> we're going to take that down. >> Yeah. Um I can see all the improvements you're trying to include in this, but my problem, my problem is the 50 foot that we're not being consistent with other people on the from the lake. Now
that's where my issue is on this. I don't know about the other people here, but >> so I I think the the way to justify this is we're moving a structure >> away from the wetland that was currently >> within the 25 foot setback.
>> Right. And we just did this on another project where they actually taken a structure down. >> Yeah. >> That was close to the wetlands. But we still require them to keep the house 50 foot from the >> Right. So I I kind of look at it like a scale. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. The scale is going to um tilt towards betterment and restoration than development. >> All right. That's Thank you. >> Good. Good. Um so again just going back down through the commissioners before we go to our agent. Mark, anything yet
before we go to our agent? >> No. No. Nothing. Nothing yet. Alex, anything? >> No. Good. Peter, something. >> Just an observation. This kind of an issue is going to come before us a lot given this whole growth, no growth conversation. The town's going to end up
growing some like this. And we're going to have all the properties are up against our wetlands. So, you can interpret that either way you want, but you know, this is what's happening in town. >> All right. So, ladies and gentlemen, uh Mr. David Coons is our conservation
agent. So I now would um turn the floor over to Mr. Coons to get some questions or comments from Mr. Coons. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Um so the way uh I think this project should be approached is in the context of the regulations
and I think uh after after really thinking a lot about this doing research I think the operative regulation here is um this one right here. uh the
reconstruction alteration extension and I think that's the operative word is extension or structural change of a building is existing on or before October 15th 1990 shall be exempt from
the provisions of section 1875A. However, said work shall require approval from the conservation commission if within its jurisdiction. Now, as has been mentioned several times, we have a building department
file going back 50 years that says that this building was used as a dwelling unit. We have in in the building department files there are applications for hot water heaters for, you know,
plumbing structures. Um so so in my opinion if this is in fact a dwelling unit then this uh regulation comes into play that this this is the applicable regulation which says that he can he
could under this regulation extend that existing structure out there to to to make it um make it a larger dwelling unit. Now, I've spoken to the building commissioner about this. You know, there
see there's there's no doubt that it's it's hasn't been lived in for two years. So, it's considered um abandoned if it's if it's a dwelling unit, it's considered uh an abandoned dwelling unit. The question is
the would it just need like a certificate of occupancy permit to to become a a dwelling unit again? Um, if if all Mr. Lee had to do was go down to the building department and apply for a
CO and it was awarded, then I think it should it's it's it's in effect it's effectively a dwelling unit. So, um, I've asked I've asked the building commissioner for an opinion, a written opinion on this. didn't didn't have it um
>> wasn't able to have it ready tonight. But I think I think if word comes back from him that yeah this this is either a dwelling unit as is or it could very easily become a dwelling unit then I think this regulation comes into play
and and certainly in that case if it's something that he could do just by extending the existing structure there's no it's clear that removing the existing structure restoring that area and then and then move moving the house um you
know farther away from that wetland is is an improvement. I I think in my again in my opinion that wetland in back there is by far and away the more sensitive of the the two of either that wetland or the lake that wetland is by far more
sensitive is shown as a as a potential vernal pool on the GIS layer. So, um that's um that's again that's just my opinion with with regard to the regulations. Um did uh did have another
uh a couple of other questions, Matt. Um so so I think you mentioned that that the foundation will be a 4ft frost wall >> with pillars. No, it's going to be they're going to be son tubes to a frame
that'll construct a crawl space. So, there'll be lattice around it to you know to establish the crawl space. >> Well, but um but I mean there will have to to establish the crawl space there'll have to be walls around it.
>> It can be wood. It can be wood to >> just to connect it. It's essentially um sauna tubes that would be similar to a deck. And remember this is a very small structure. Okay. And then between the framing from each sauna tube would be
wood members that would establish the wall which would encompass the uh perimeter for the crawl space. >> Uh okay. So what I'm what I'm really getting at though is we we we know that the groundwater
>> is very very high in that area. Yep. >> So you might even be able you might even go down just 6 in and you hit groundwater. So So to to have the crawl space, you're going to be displacing groundwater and it's going to go one of
three places. It's going to stay there in the groundwater or it's going to go to Freeman Lake or it's going to go to the wetland and back. And trust me, there are a couple people here who absolutely do not want any more water going to that wetland and back. So I I I
I mean it should be a pretty simple calculation, you know, based you you've already described the volumes. You could you could make an assumption that all of this displaced groundwater if it goes to the wetland and back, how how high will
it raise the the water level of that wetland? That's got to be an easy calculation. Well, it's actually not because it's a you can't calculate um a difference in groundwater with such a vast watershed that consists of sand.
So, you're talking about a moving watershed underneath the surface that filters through sand that feeds Freeman Lake. Freeman Lake also has an outlet to that at the um the weir
and that system's moving. So if you say okay I'm going to add let's say uh 20 cubic feet of displacement below the surface you would not be able to measure any calculable height difference with such a
vast watershed just physically not it's like it's like that's like if you put that cubic footage into Freeman Lake with the lake rise it wouldn't you wouldn't be able to
calculate it because it's it's a hair's diameter worth of difference. >> Well, I think that answers my question. No, but it doesn't because what happens is when you have a subsurface watershed, you would have to identify the full
extents of the the barrier the the perimeter of the entire watershed, calculate the characteristics of the subsurface um groundwater flows to then add in it this 10 cubic feet of
material displacement. It would not be a calculable difference that would have any impact on anything. >> Well, but again, I think that's answering my question that there would be essentially no if if all of this displaced groundwater were to go into
that wetland and back. I think you're saying there would be no measurable rise in the water level of that wetland. That's what you're saying. >> The wetlands actually fed from groundwater in this particular case and from surface runoff.
that that establishes the wetland itself, how the water rises and falls in that wetland. It would be an extensive study to even determine what the baseline would be for this small volume
displacement of these sona tubes. >> I think you're making it more complicated than it really is. I all I'm saying is just just add the volume that's being displaced by the crawl space and and just say how much is how
much is that going to cause a water level rise in the wetland and back. I think you're saying it's so small that you couldn't calculate it. I think that's what you're saying. >> Well, it's that's one of the things. But in order to actually have a calculation, you have to have all the integers to get
to the result. And as engineers, if we don't have the baseline of the entire watershed and the perme permeation rates of the subsurface soils because that water is moving. >> All right, Mr. Hammer, let's let's let's
good, but let's let's move it on if we could because we still we got a >> public input as well to come to. So I we understand. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's not a simple question. So, um, just the other the other and it's already been mentioned a little bit and I' I've had uh conversations with Dylan about
this is doing some uh additional tree planting uh in in in back on the over on the other side of the property near Car Path Road. >> Um, where and he sounded like he was agreeable to that. Yes. you know, to to
providing a tree planting plan for that area back there to restore some of those trees that were were cut. So, um, so I think the hearing needs to be continued, you know, pending receipt
of the letter from the building inspector. That would be my or the building commissioner. That would be my recommendation. >> Thank you, Mr. Coops. Appreciate your comments as always. Um, this is a public hearing. So, this is now the opportunity for the public to come up to the microphone, just give us your name, your
address, and um, you know, ask some questions of the applicants or of the commission. It's best if we try to keep things as factual as possible versus opinion. Um, and we want to try to keep focused on conservation type issues as far as wetlands habitat impact on water
and resources and and drainage, things like that versus um issues that that may not be relevant to to conservation. But, uh, if anyone would like to come up, uh, yes, please. >> Um, Emily Baron, 16 Russell Road. Um, I
actually want to talk about the regulation that Mr. Coun has brought up. Um because if you continue reading it when it says however said said work shall require approval from the commission if within jurisdiction um he kind of glossed over that point I
feel like and that basically means that Mr. Lee requires approval to do anything including the alteration or extension but it doesn't mean that you guys have to approve it. Um, no. >> Shall be exempt means that >> No, it said shall the work shall require
approval from the commission, >> right? >> If it's within its jurisdiction, which doesn't that mean that the 8 ft variance he's requesting is within your jurisdiction? >> Well, let let me let me go back to the um regulation that it references. So,
here's uh 18 1875A. The construction of any building as defined herein on any lot having an area of 40,000 square feet or more shall be prohibited within 50 feet of any resource area excluding buffer zones, riverfront area and land
subject to flooding or inundation by groundwater or service water. The commission may at its discretion allow a shed, playhouse, or other structure provided that it is built on footings requiring no more than four square feet cumulative ground disturbance and has a
footprint no larger than 144 square ft. So that's that's uh regulation 185 1875A. So if you come back to here on E, it says the reconstruction, alteration, extension or structural change of a
building existing on or before October 15th, 1990 shall be exempt from the provisions of 1875A, meaning it does not have to comply with the 50-foot no build setback
>> regard exact. But this the next sentence still says however. So meaning how whatever regardless of what the first sentence said, said work shall still require approval from the from the commission, >> right? But but but the but the commission cannot deny it based on it being within 50 ft.
>> Can you scroll back up if I can read it again? >> How big is your lot? 177,23. >> So that's all the deeds put together. >> Now, now I will go on to say that we've we we've got a a wetland bylaw
committee, the commissioners form. This is this is one of the primary focuses of new regulations or revisions to regulations that we're looking at. I mean, I know it says they said they've seen a building permit for the property
from 50 years ago, but I mean, the nobody's lived on that property for over 30 years. I don't even there's not a toilet in that shed. You couldn't live on that in that shed at all. It for it to turn into a a house. I you know if the if the building commissioner
says that all he has to do is you know make these minor improvements you know ABC you know to be able to get a certificate of occupancy you know that's something the commission will probably take into consideration
>> thank you uh next person >> sir >> I'm going to move this thing I can't see >> yeah that's a great idea Bill we want to see our speakers as they come up, you know. Thank you. >> Especially your spots. Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Um my name is Jeremy Serno. I live at 65 Grten Road. Um I think I have some concerns about obviously the flooding and the um water. We do see a lot of water going into the wetlands. Um especially in the spring, we see a lot of the water filling those
areas. Um there are a lot of critters living in there. Um, we've seen everything from the geese obviously, but um, we've seen muskrat living in there and lots of of uh, salamanders and snakes. Um, so we've seen lots of animals living in that area and I'd hate
to see them disturbed and and pushed on. Um, I wanted to address some of the things that I've seen as a resident and I know he said to keep it factual, but um, the we very rarely see fishing around there. There most people are fishing from the VFW. I have never seen anyone fishing along that road. there
are very few p people passing through except for a few families that go up to the um the playground area. So I think that's perhaps um an exaggeration. Um one of the things I was very concerned about is hearing about the phosphorus.
Um I am a chemistry teacher by trade. Um obviously phosphorus and nitrogen are are strong concerns. Um, I would think animal waste is certainly an area of concern, but if this becomes a residence, as I think is suggested, wouldn't somebody be fertilizing their
lawn or the waste from trash as well? Um, so there are many more sources of phosphorus and animal waste and it the the resident has not said that he's not going to have pets there either who could just as well make that same waste. So the best reduction in harm, the best
betterment is to support the growth of that area. Um the other thing that I was very concerned about um I'm not uh Mr. Coons was describing how small the uh sort of putting words um in in your mouth about how small we can't calculate
the water. Well, as a resident, I I want the best information possible. I want a calculation. I want the engineers to do their best work. And I think I'm really concerned to hear a pushing off of that while while the agent himself is is saying he wants to do the work and and you're kind of pushing that off. So I
think we have some real concerns about how damaging this project could be. Um the betterment issues. I I I mean that's the first time I've seen the building. It looks real tall. It looks real scary. Um it it's kind of concerning to see that. And I think the lake is beautiful.
We want people to see the lake. It makes the community of North Chelmsford that much more engaging and welcoming to people. And I think this thing that I just saw tonight for the first time kind of scary looking. Kind of looks like it's going to block out the lake. I don't know if that's true or not, but
kind of scares me as a resident. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir, for your comments. Uh again, anyone else tonight uh wants to come up to address the commission? Um that's all right. So, this is again public hearing. So we have public input,
we have um questions uh from the commission and we had a little bit of discussion tonight as well too. Typically the first meeting is usually kind of factf finding gathering phase of it. Um and uh and we heard a a strong recommendation from our conservation
agent that we really need to continue this hearing until our next meeting to answer some of the questions that were raised and some of the concerns were raised tonight. Uh Mr. Hammer, back to you. >> Um I agree. Uh, >> can I jump in quick um to address those concerns?
>> Uh, no. No, you don't. No. >> So, um, vice chair, um, we most certainly want to, um, continue, uh, we'll get some feedback from the building department. We'll also meet with, uh, Mr. Coons to go over some of his concerns as well as uh take a look
at doing some um additional vegetation along the shoreline uh with Norse Environmental and to see if we can um provide a a little bit more robust landscaping even on the property itself. Uh we want to make sure that um the
commission is confident that this development is going to be a betterment uh to this property and uh we want you to uh be able to take the time to agree with us on that. So >> can I >> thank you Mr. Hammer for the comments. Uh Mark,
>> did you receive a letter of denial? >> No. >> Well, why are you here? Why can't you just get a per get your building permit? If you haven't received a letter of denial, you could go forward with what you want to do. >> No, hold on one sec.
>> Well, we we're proposing work within the buffer zone to the understand of denial because you're going in con you're going in inside the uh 50ft setback. That would be outside his jurisdiction to give you recommendation. They would
have to come to us. Isn't that typically the way you >> Well, we do see that typically, but we we still it's still valid for them to come here first and and and see us first to see if they can get permit. If >> David, would you like to comment further?
>> Yes. Uh so, if a if a building permit application had been submitted, it would require me to sign off on it, right? >> And I would say no, I'm not going to sign off on it, you know, because it's in the it's in the buffer zone. You need to do you do a notice of intent filing with the conservation commission. Well,
nothing's been submitted as of yet. >> No, no building permit application has been submitted. That's true. Um, but I but I but I but I I do think I do think it's important that Matt, we need something in writing from you about the groundwater displacement issue. That's
what you know, just meeting with me and assuring me that, you know, it's not going to be a problem, you know, is not good enough. We need the commission needs to get something in you from from you in writing. Yeah, we can we can we can provide a um an assessment um to to
answer the to attempt to answer the question that you're asking. So, I'm not saying we're not going to do that. We're going to do that. >> And we'll get you some more details on the um the construction of the frost wall as well. I think that also needs to be clarified just to show you how many
sauna tubes there are have a volume associated with that and also to show um it's its uh potential impacts on the groundwater >> and and um you're you're not concerned that that that the substrat stratum
there is um is is is not firm enough to be able to support sonitude. That's not a concern. >> That's not a concern. >> Okay. Uh ladies and gentlemen, um from the public, again, it's a public hearing. So, we'll be coming back. Uh we're going
to have a motion momentarily to continue to our next meeting. Uh if you have some input that you want this commission to receive, feel free to reach out to our conservation agent, Mr. Coons. You can call him, you can email him, you can send information. He will then distribute that information to the commission and we can review that
information um at our next meeting when we continue the hearing. So, just so you know, uh we we welcome and value the important questions. Uh if I could have a motion then to continue. Yes, Bill. Yeah, go ahead. >> Um >> we need to continue it anyways because
they got to go to the board of appeals that which you don't know what they're going to say about that setback from the road >> which may affect this. >> Yeah. But they're they're want they're going to want to see the um conservation commission's decision before they make a decision because because this is this is
really being made on the basis of wet of wetlands to to get the proposed house as far away as possible uh from that back wetland. So that's why they need the variance for the front sit back.
>> Okay. But that's a reason to continue. >> That's a reason for us to continue our meeting because I I want to see I don't want to vote on this prior to a board of appeals. >> Well, they're not going to they're not going to vote on it until they get a decision from the conservation mission. >> I I mean I I I hesitate to speak for the
CBA, but I've had enough conversations with with, you know, staff um to know that they want to see the decision from the Conservation Commission first. And also I just prior to the next
meeting I'd like to clarify be it seems like you some of this is dep uh because you have that pre-existing building there. >> Mhm. >> That you you're talking possibly we don't need to even worry about the 50 foot >> right?
>> Well that in the sense that it's exempt. Yes. But if that building is being demolished and taken out of there, how does that affect some clarification from the building commission on that of you're basing the 50-foot possibly not being an issue
because of the existing building that was occupied one time. So just just so I can make it's important to him, it's important to the neighbors that we do this correctly. So it's just like all the information we can get on that. I haven't made up my mind one way or
another, but I'd like to get all the information prior to that. And and that's one thing that's kind of sticks out of my head as some of this is being based on that existing building that it was used as a as a home at one point. So just how that and that it was empty for
so long. Different issues like that. So >> all right. Thanks. Anybody else before we have a motion to continue? Um Peter, >> uh Mr. Vice Chair, I chairman, tonight um I'm not sure how the commission wants to proceed, but I'm trying to think if I
were the homeowner or the property owner, how can we move this forward quickly? Is there some avenue that the applicant could respond to some of our concerns that we've raised, you know, about lawn size,
shrubs, whatnot, with either a verbal commitment at the next meeting that they would accept those things as permit conditions or something so that we don't end up >> I mean, I think it's always good to have it in writing and I would uh have that communication flow uh in writing to our
agent and then he can then distribute it to the commissioners. That's how I do it. >> Okay. But again, I'm just thinking of Mark's comment and I feel the same way. The betterment question. You've got a beautiful opportunity to uh was it Jeremy or wherever member of the public, he he's right. You know, you start putting lots of phosphorus on grass.
That's the opposite direction of what the town's trying to do. >> But I don't fertilize my >> Not if you have a lot of dogs. difference between one cleaning up after the entire videosing
pools in the wetland. >> You should be talking. >> All right. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. All right. So, can I have a motion then to continue to our next meeting which is uh uh August 26th, 2025? >> I move we continue >> second >> bill and we got Peter on the second. Uh
all those in favor. I so uh August 26, 2025, 7 p.m. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> All right, we have a busy uh busy agenda tonight. Uh that was our first regulatory matter. Uh moving on to our
second uh regulatory matter. We have a notice of intent uh from Progeneration Energy Incorporated, 152 Steman Street. uh Bruce Haskell Langden Environmental LLC uh is listed as representing the
applicant. We would also have another legal notice that would need to be entered into the record. U Peter, if you could uh give us that legal notice. >> Yes. Pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,
MGL131 section 40 and the Chumsford Wetlands bylaw, chapter 187. The conservation uh the Chancellor Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Cher Town offices, 50 Bria Road on Tuesday,
August 22nd, 2025 at 75 p.m. to consider the notice of intent filed by Progeneration Energy, Inc. on behalf of property owner Sandbanks LLC for proposed work within the 100 foot
buffer zone to bordering vegetative wetlands and isolated land subject to flooding at 152 Steman Street further identified as assessor parcel map 32 block 110 lot one. The project entails
installation of solar photovotayic system on top of capped solid waste landfill on the property. >> Thank you, Peter. Thank you very much. All right. And now we'll have a presentation from the applicant. >> Oh, uh,
>> we have representative here. So, he's, uh, they, uh, they have not paid the filing fee. Okay. >> They have not notified of us. So, they have requested a continuation. >> All right. Sounds sounds good. Uh so then I could have a motion then to continue uh this this matter until our
next meeting of August 26, 2025. >> We'll make a motion to >> continue. Go ahead. >> Okay. Motion by Mark to continue. >> Second. >> And second by Peter. >> Sorry. >> All right. All those in favor? I. So very good. That's a that's a quick one
then. And then moving right along. Um we have another notice of intent scheduled for this evening from um Avatar Construction. uh Inc. 242 Bilicker Road. We have uh David Cowell of Hancock Associates
listed as representing the applicant and um we also would have a legal notice as well too for that matter. Uh Peter, if you could read that legal notice into the record again. >> Yes. Pursuant to 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 in the Chsford Town Offices, 50 Bill Rick Road, on Tuesday, August 12th, uh, 2025 at 7:10 p.m. to consider the notice of
intent filed by Avatar Construction, Inc. on behalf of property owner Toward Independent Learning and Leaving, Inc. Four, proposed work within the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 242 Bill Rick Road, further
identified as assessor's parcel map 75, block 291, lot 52. The project entails construction of a commercial building. >> Thank you very much, Peter. And now we'll hear from the applicant's representative, sir. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
staff, good evening. Nice to see you all again. Uh Douglas Duchaine from Finner and Nicholson representing Tor Independent Living and Learning Inc. or Till Till will be the enduser of this uh property. So I'm here this evening in support of um Avatar Construction, the
notice of intent applicant um company that's going to construct the facility for Till. Um, as was stated, my client is proposing to construct a new fillet uh facility at uh 242 Bill Ricker Road
here in Chams. Um, I'd like to just take one minute to um um give you a little bit of information on the proposed use of the building. uh till is a nonprofit educational entity seeking to establish what is known as a
dayhabilitation program at this new facility. They will be offering individually censored centered skill development for people with specialized medical needs including uh autism spectrum disorder
um learning differences and acquired brain injuries and other physical endeavors. Um, Till provides social skills development for for its clients through occupational, physical, and speech therapy to allow its patients to
function as independently as possible. So, this is a day program. He will come during the day. That said, um, again, the applicant here is Avatar Construction. with me this evening, uh, David Cowell from Hancock Associates,
uh, who did the, uh, wetlands work on the property. Um, just to give you a quick overview of the site, uh, it's two 242 Bill Ricker Road. It's an undeveloped 1.32 acre site located in your industrial A zone. We are also
located within the aquifer protection zone and the groundwater protection zone. Uh again, the applicant is proposing to develop a 21,500 foot building to be used by TIL along with uh associated
parking and infrastructure development. The site is serviced by town water and town sewer. Um the project has been designed as you will hear shortly. It has been designed to meet uh the standards performance standards under
both the wetlands protection act as well as the town of Chsford regulations including conforming to your no disturb and setback requirements. Um with that I'd like to turn things over to Mr. cow from Hancock Associates and uh Dave will
give you a quick rundown on the the wetland uh protection aspects of the project. >> Dave, you good with that? >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Doug. Um for the record, I know most of you. My name is David Cowell. I'm a senior wetland scientist with Hancock Associates. Again, here
tonight on behalf of Avatar Construction, um I can give you a rundown of the wetland resource areas. I would ask I am relying on you for social media if you would um project the existing conditions plan. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> Oh, and while I'm at it, I did want to point out that we're we're sort of a a multi-firm multi-disciplined um project team here. So, we we I believe we do have an attendance Giovani Federa. Um he's the civil engineer of record on this. So in our discussions tonight, if
there's any questions pertaining to storm water design, site design or slope stabilization or any of those those civil questions, uh he he would be more suited than I would be. So all right, this is the existing conditions. So you can tell that this is a rectangular lot
with frontage to Chelmsford Street, which uh the the development would occur on. Um at the rear of this lot, there is a uh bordering vegetated wetland system. Um, you can tell by the topography that the site is, you know, not that street, but at the at the point where the
wetland occurs, there's a steep gradient slope. There's a drop that goes down to this B-shaped depression at the bottom of the lot, which this wetland occurs. >> It's actually isolated, not quite. >> I didn't um we can we can look at whether or not it's isolated or not. I Yeah, I'm indifferent on on on which one
it doesn't literally make a difference. That's fine. I I didn't see a connection. Is that >> we didn't Yeah, we didn't um we didn't delineate as it went off property. And uh in fact, I didn't delineate this. This was Mary Trudeau. I don't know if you're familiar with her. She's a a senior, highly qualified wetland scientist of her own right. So, um this
was her delineation. So, whether or not it's isolated or or bordering, I think that we would be subject to the same lines, right? Whether or not a determination is found on isolated or bordering. Um with that we have uh projected the associated buffer zones
and setbacks uh in accordance with the uh town uh bylaw and the the wetlands protection act. Um the site is undeveloped as it is right now. Um we did uh if you look at the existing conditions plan you can tell that we did survey locate trees on the property.
It's a little bit sparse but you can see some trees on there. um they were not necessarily inventoried by species or diameter or breast height, but it helps quantify species and and locate them on the property. Um with that, I would advance to the uh the development slides
if you don't mind. I appreciate it. So, so this is it. So, the the layout is the is is is the building with associated parking and circulation around it. Um, as Doug alluded to, we had designed this
to um, uh, conform to all of the local setback requirements. So, there's no work proposed at all in the, uh, no disturb setback. Um, we've respected the no imperous setback. We do have some
work proposed in the, um, what's the distance? Is it 50 or 75? No build. Yep. In the no build zone, um, there's no building. This this is uh associated with parking in some pavement surface areas which are you know but there's no
structures uh proposed in the the no um no build zone um and then the storm water design by um Giovani Federa has been designed to uh conform to all the storm water management systems uh
management um uh sorry standards drawing a blank um and with that I I think that's a general eneral overview and uh I I would like to turn it over to the conservation commission to to make the round and uh answer any questions you may have and
hopes of advancing this. >> Thank you, Mr. K. Appreciate your comments and attorneys. It's always good to see you here as well. >> Welcome back. It's been a little while. >> Um Bill, why don't you start with you for questions? >> I'd like to hear a little about the storm water as far as you got a little retention area out front and those. Yep.
>> Right. No, no. Giovani, are you in attendance or >> I am I am present. I'm here. My name is Giovani Federera. Um, >> thank you. >> The principal engineer of FedEng Engineering >> and um this was designed with two BMP systems. In the front of the building,
we have the um that infiltration basin which will be capturing the roof runoff. Okay. >> Uh so all the entire roof uh will be directed right there. Um we did uh soil tests around the site with 10 different test pits and all this it was all sand
sandy soils and it all came about uh the same for each test pit. Um, so in that specific area we had sandy soils and that's where we had the infiltration basin and that had an overflow that gets directed to the subsurface infiltration
system which is on the east of the site which if you're looking at this page it's on um just right below the building um between the property lines and under the parking lot. It's that rectangular area. So that is made up of uh 300galon
drywalls. uh I believe there uh is 72 if I remember correctly but it's a um you know significant size and it's able to withstand a 100-year storm. So all the um runoff from the entire on-site
imperous areas are being directed to um either that first BMP which is that infiltration basin or the subsurface infiltration system. Um, and from the asphalt, it's all getting captured by catch basins that get routed to uh a
it's it's called a um unis unistorm. It's made by Sheay. It's a proprietary treatment device that captures 90% TSS removal. So, uh before it gets infiltrated from these BMPPS, the runoff is being treated from that unistorm
device. uh and it's well with well over 90% uh TSS removal between the um the it's the deep deep sump catch basins which is 25% TSS plus that 90% uh
proprietary treatment. So, it's about 97% TSS removal before it gets uh infiltrated and as an emergency overflow that's connected to that uh subsurface
infiltration system. It's directed to um the north of the site which is towards the wetlands which you can tell from the lower right hand corner of this uh site. Um it's right at that 50ft no build zone. So that would have an overflow
uh area drain which in the event of an extreme storm you know the the water would overflow through there. However, this system is designed to withstand 100year storm entirely that would infiltrate entirely. So there wouldn't
be any runoff coming from that overflow system. The only runoff would be from the areas that are uh behind that retaining wall right along the 30foot uh no imperous zone. So
um the site as well as a minor area between that landscaping between the east boundary and that uh the pavement. there's just a landscaping strip that's a slight overflow towards the wetlands, but overall uh we do meet the standards
of the peak rate of runoff and um and water quality as well. So, I'm happy to answer any more questions. >> Thank you, Giovani. Bill, >> yeah, you answered everything I needed to know. >> And I'll just add DPW is doing the storm water review on this one.
>> Okay, so hearing will have to be continued for that. Good. Um Mark, >> uh what you on your groundwater observation, what was the uh depth of the water? >> Again, Giovani. Yep. Thanks. >> Yep. Um so on sheet, I believe it's
sheet C1 or C2. It's on the existing conditions plan. Um we do have soil profiles of each um of each test pit and >> okay
>> they came around I'm looking at it right here they came around I mean some of the test pits had over 9 ft greater than 10 feet um some of them came in around 84 in which is 7 feet so be you know
between, you know, six feet down to 10 greater than 10 ft is what they saw uh the seasonal high water table at. We do have the storm water systems designed at least 2 ft above the seasonal high water table.
>> All right. Uh I'm sure in your ground testing because this ran across before, it's notorious in that area. Did you find any PAS? I don't I don't know that we even look looked for PAS. Was that included in the the the testing? I don't
>> I don't believe so. Um if >> I I I don't believe that was encountered. I'm not sure. >> Right. And I don't know that that would normally be picked up in in drainage analysis without running screens. >> It it was an issue before on the
building that was done on two 290. >> Okay. 270 >> 270. >> So I' I'd like to know if because we had the problem going in the groundwater. You're not disturbing that and the groundwater is quite a ways down on this. I understand that.
>> Right. >> But you're still going to be adding to it when you're disturbing the soil. I I want to make sure that that's uh I I don't know. Can I ask for that? >> Sure. >> Oh yeah, please. >> Sure. >> You can ask. >> You can always ask. Uh um you know are
you asking just what's in the commission's jurisdiction? >> Uh I I wouldn't that that isn't irrelevant to the jur jurisdiction. >> Well, I think I think it's more relevant for the conservation commission. Um I
think it's more of an issue with the planning board and health department, board of health. >> Okay. Um, >> well, it was it was everybody was caught by surprise the last time we found out >> and I don't want that to happen. >> I mean, the commission could certainly send send a letter to the board of
health. >> Well, we're close to watershed area and recharge area is the town wells. I I want to make sure that they're protected first of all. >> That that was my question right now. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Alexander. Um, in terms of relevant questions, I guess on the last page here, it looks like you have trash in the back corner of the parking lot. Does that have anything to do with us at all is where they store trash or >> it could impact water quality and things
like that. So, >> sure. So, I guess that's my question. Is is that accurate on that last page or I mean is it able to be put somewhere else because it looks like it's falling within that 50 foot no build as well as the 100 wetland buffer in that back corner, >> right?
>> Trash storage. >> Yep. Just um I I do believe that's is where it's proposed now. Um we we can reevaluate and see if there's another place to put it. But again um the the proximity is not uh I don't want to say it's not relevant, right? But it
is um it's occurring on paved surfaces that that anything on that would go into the same drainage system that it would anywhere else on the property. If we had the the the trash located elsewhere, it would still feed into the same drainage system, storm water treatment that we
have everywhere on the lot that's that's paved. So, um anything that would drain from that area would go into deep some catch basin and and treatment. >> No. Is that >> So, it's not a building. >> No. No. Okay.
>> Uh, any more questions? >> Uh, no. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Swan. >> Uh, yeah. Just quickly, uh, keying off Alli's question, will one of these drawings show that the contours around that trash can are sloped towards the
storm water infiltration? >> It's in the same corner, I think, >> cuz I'm looking I'm just looking at the plans now, and I see that still a slope, but maybe I'm not looking at the right plan. Are you looking at the the grading and drainage plan or is this which plan is this? >> I have no idea which one I'm looking at. This this is >> Giovanni. Where should I look to see
those? >> This is the construction and erosion control plan. >> So, we're showing the stockpile area. The stockpile area would have a separate um perimeter of uh erosion control
barrier around it. But once all stabilized um all the contours are pitched from all the contours from the pavement is pitched towards um >> Okay. So >> towards the cash basins. Yeah. >> Okay. So I'll find that when I look
closer. Just a couple questions. Um uh I'd like to echo Mark's comment. I don't we're still debating whether this board has any authority per se over POS but one of our primary uh missions here is to protect drinking water as you all
know under the wetland protection act. So Mark, let let's I vote also for uh I think the authority for aquafer protection is our board of health and our planning board as David mentioned. I'd advocate we write them a formal request to help us assess that under
their regs. Uh two quick things. Um I'm glad our DPW engineers are looking at the stormwater plan, but I liked what I saw. Um, I would advocate that there's an annual report on the inspections
made to the town because I think we have a question mark in town about how well our storm water systems are working three, four, five years down the road. So that could be a condition perhaps, David, or put it in the plan. >> I think the storm water management report. >> Yeah. >> It provides for
>> Yeah. And at least annual, probably semianual. >> Yeah. And finally, David, I I apologize. I'm sure it's here. Could you briefly briefly describe the landscape plan because there's not a whole lot of not a whole lot of property left. >> That's right. No. And uh the landscape
plan isn't here. Uh David, would you mind pulling the landscape plan for us? It was uh prepared by James Emanuel. >> Mhm. >> And of landscape plantings that he has specified in here. I'll give you a moment to >> You don't happen to know which >> Oh, is it Am I looking at it? Is it on
here? >> I forget what sheet it was. Um, I know it was an addition to the set because it was a third party. James Emanuel added it to >> But it's not part of the site plan. >> It is in the site plan. It It should be further on if you scroll down. >> Well, but this I think this is the last page. >> Oh, landscape plan. There is Wait, I'm
sorry. >> Last two. >> Thank you. >> Allie found it. I'm sorry. >> I saw the trees. I thought you >> Does it Does it specify which sheet it is or >> Sorry. No, hang on. David can pull it. >> Yeah, it's uh >> It would be after the construction details. >> Yeah. So, keep going. Keep scrolling
down. plan of metric. Yep. Keep going. >> The last page. >> These are all spec detail sheets. >> I think this is it. >> I think that's it. Yeah. So there is a native planting table at the top left and then most of the
plantings are along the the marginal sides of the parking and in the front of the building around the detention basin. >> Okay. So the circle, excuse me, the circles with the uh three lines going to the center of the circle are hardwood or
wait a minute hardwood stake. Are those trees I gather? And is it shrubs in between? Is that what I'm looking at? >> Yes, I believe that's correct. >> Thank you. Um if I could um
>> Oh, please respond. Um they marked each of the trees and then we've got our tree listing here. So for instance, this elm >> well this marked DLM is in fact a Princeton elm >> and then they've separately described
the shrubs uh here. So >> yeah. >> Yeah, there's a corresponding name and >> right >> number three. I mean I mean the simple answer is the plan is to plant things wherever you can >> on the site which is basically the perimeter >> right in the front.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Uh that's all my questions. >> Thanks Peter. >> And um let's hear from our conservation agent David. >> Uh sure. Thank you Mr. Vice Chairman. So, um,
this this plan certainly appears to comply with all the regulations. Um, again, we'll we'll wait for DBW's review of storm water. I don't anticipate any issues. The my main issue of concern um,
and what I want to talk a little bit about is the removal of the trees. So, um I I probably I haven't actually done a count of of the trees that are being removed in the conservation commission's jurisdiction. Um but I think it's fair
to say I'm actually surprised Peter didn't bring this up. Well, he did with the landscape plan that there is there is really increasing concern in town right now about removal of trees. um lost uh a lot of trees um on uh recent
projects um and more trees to come in uh projects that are being proposed. Um so my first question would be and we actually touched about touched upon this already. So this area up here that I'm
circling Yep. >> is that is that the area proposed for the dumpster? >> It was the bottom corner. Sorry. So, >> no. >> Okay. So, so what is this area up here? >> That's Sorry. Okay. That That's a temporary stockpile area. I I don't know
which sheet you're on now again. >> But that's a temporary stockpile area. Okay. >> But but it's shown it's shown as paved. >> Go back. >> It will be paved. Yeah. No, that's part of the footprint of development. Yep. This is better. Right. >> So, here is the proposed dumpster, >> right? Okay. look to remove that last
what that last plan showed you and I think Giovani may have mentioned it is during the construction >> uh they're going to propose a materials storage area here which has its own erosion control separate erosion control rack
>> but it's but it's part of the development footprint. It looks like it's going to be permanent. >> Why is that necessary that area up there? is that's responsible for the removal of a bunch of trees. >> Yep. >> It's it it is a lot of this is driven by
by the requirements for parking in circulation around the building. So that that is currently proposed for development uh for parking spots. Um you know it should be on one of the other civil sheets. Uh but um I did just
before the hearing I imagined that this question would would come up. So, I actually looked at the plan and I quantified that I believe there's nine trees in the no build zone and roughly 17 trees in the 100 foot buffer zone.
So, uh what's that? 17 and 8 26 26 trees total uh by my my interpretation of the plan give or take a tree or two. >> Um let let me ask you this. I mean the there there are there are there is proposed to be some planting of trees in
the the landscape plan. You know that that purpose isn't obviously isn't primarily habitat. Um but I was you know I've I was out on the site for quite a while um last week and and I'm wondering I could could
additional trees be planted in in the buffer zone outside the area development. >> Yep. David, I think that's a fair question and I'd be happy to look into that. Um, again, I haven't been to the site, so I don't know what the condition of that slope is, to what degree it's bare, to what degree it's vegetated, to
what degree it's invasive species or non-invasives, >> but um, no, I I I I and again looking to my my clients, I don't think that that's um an unreasonable request where we could possibly ask James Emanuel to look at another 10 um native trees uh inside
the the buffer zone beyond that. That is a retaining wall. So there is an abrupt stop of our work as it transitioned into the the lower zones associated with that wetland. So >> um well and ideally I'd like to see a one for one uh replacement. Um okay
>> and and and I'm happy to meet out on site with you or anyone else to take a look at that. But I I think that that would that would certainly go a long way in satisfying my concerns if that could >> Oh good. Quick question. I just saw from
my own understanding. Um, could we go back to the site that shows the the the pavement, >> the final proposed pavement? >> Here we go. >> So, um,
is is this the area that you would look for us to plant or or actually >> on the slope? Yeah, I think just to the right of that. I I think I mean it's it's a little shaded but I think that there are species there are a number of species which would uh grow and become
established there. >> Sure. Okay. >> Obviously we have >> Yeah. No, I think that's it's a great idea. I just wanted to make sure where you were suggesting they go so be along that. Okay. >> Can Peter jump in? >> Yeah. Peter. And while we're discussing this, um, David, if you're going to take
a look or maybe the two Davids look at or whatever, >> the layown area, that back corner, um, obviously if you pile material there, you're going to have trouble growing trees on it without something for the soil. But you also mentioned you needed that back I'm talking about that back corner
>> this up here. >> Yeah, the pavement. You also mentioned that you thought you needed that space possibly for parking. Yep. >> To meet town. So if it's parking to meet town rules, >> right? I would ask I would be thrilled if the
collective we you know Till and you guys and the town take a hard look at whether we really need all that parking. I mean if you do you do but if is there any opportunity if you're simply trying to meet the town rule is there any opportunity to put a couple trees there?
>> Um actually we are already asking the planning board for a waiver of parking. >> Okay. Given the fact that our patients, our clients um do not drive, uh there's shuttle service, there's pickup bands, there's all of that, we have actually
asked for a reduction in parking to the minimum, >> not even to meet the bylaw, but the minimum that we know we need for the facility. Um I the other thing I know to be a problem and we will look into this
Peter I I will is as you can see maybe it's clearer here you know one of the things we have to maintain is that circular around the building which requires you know a 24 foot >> thing. So you can see we're kind of
getting a little pinched in here, >> right? >> But we can look at whether or not this back corner is in fact parking that we could move or to I I know what you're saying. Can we look at, you know, pulling out of here? And we
>> can Can I chime in a little bit here? So that back uh if you want to scroll up to the uh page above, I think it's sheet C3. Um this shows the parking layout. Um so you
can see the spots numbered 1 through 22. Um all the parking spots are outside of the 50ft no build zone. Um that is a requirement to keep all parking outside of 50 ft of the wetlands. So we made sure that we were outside of that. So
that back corner um where you see S9 uh that is a recreational uh area for the clients of the building. >> Oh, so it's not paved. >> It's it it will be paved, but it's not going to be used for parking. It's going
to be fenced in and it's a recreational area for so whatever whatever they'll be doing outside. >> See if your >> but it's not a parking area. See, see if your customers can meet their their clients recreation needs if there's a few trees there somewhere. How about
that? >> And it's not paved. >> All right. So, just speaking kind of for the full commission here. All right. I mean, I think it's it's clear that really commission unanimously um you know, trees are good. It's one of our hot buttons, one of our concerns. I think we all want to try to maximize
trees if we can. And then and again another hot button of concern, PAS is bad. We've had some experiences around PAS in the past. So anything we can do to minimize and avoid PAS type issues, the more we know about it, the better. So just highlight those.
>> Thank you, Chris. >> Any other questions, comments? It is a public hearing, so anybody in the public has uh want to come in. I don't see a lot of folks out there uh uh either in person or not. So we're here today. today. Sounds like we've got some followup for the commission. Our next
meeting is uh August 26th, 2025. Um I'd be looking for a motion then from the commission to continue this public hearing until that next meeting of August 26th. Peter uh looks like he's not his head for a motion there. >> Move to uh move the hearing uh till the
next date. >> Okay. And Ally, I think you were about to leave the second time. I was hoping you'd do it the other way around. Pay attention. >> Next time. next time. Uh any discussion before we move to continue? >> So, what are we looking for from them so that we can move this along? >> Well, we're looking for more information
about from the the DPW. >> We're looking for the storm water uh the DPW storm water review. We're we're looking for hopefully a proposed um a tree planting plan um for uh the buffer zone that the area that's not being developed.
>> One for one type of plan basically, you know, we don't want to have net loss of trees. >> Yep. Yeah. So, I think that's all the information we need. >> I'd like to have some information from the Chumswood Water District and the East Chswood Water District, >> particularly around the PAS and potential impact upon our drinking
water, right? We care a lot about >> Well, what I'm sorry, Mark. Just specifically as as as I'm trying to outline the next progressive steps, what sort of formal communication would that be? or or you know, I'm just trying to
>> Well, that that was the route I was kind of told to go down because I was concerned about PAS and we're not going to get that information from conservation board of health or the water districts probably could ask for it. >> Oh, right. Okay. And I understand and that that sims back to Dave's
communication that he would make a recommendation to board of health >> actually question for Doug. So, so Doug, does does this project need either a um this be a special permit from the planning board for the aquifer
protection zone? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that I think would be the most appropriate for him. And and and what about something from the board of health under the groundwater protection zone? >> So, I I I think I think this issue should be raised or it's more
appropriately raised in those two forums. Yes, I can I couldn't agree, Lauren. As some of you may know, I actually was uh on the project team for uh the 270 Bara Road project. So, I also
been well educated on PAS and its impact. So, um I am completely understanding of what you're asking us to do and we fully expected to be addressing that issue with the planning board. We have our first hearing with them, by the way, tomorrow night. So,
I'll make sure to to raise your concerns to them tomorrow night. >> Good. >> And we will get you that information. >> I can raise them within as well. >> All right. Good. >> Excellent. >> Good. So, yeah. So, I think we're ready to continue to our next meeting which is
coming up on August 26th and u motion already, right? And so, you we're about to vote and you you jumped in with question. All right. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much everyone.
>> We'll see you in a >> few motion for these guys. >> I just want to move it along. >> Yeah. >> Keep moving. >> So they know what they need. >> Exactly. All right. Moving on along our
agenda under regulatory hearings. The next item that we have um here um that I have is a request for determination applicability uh related to Maple Multifamily Land SE LP 255 Princeton
Street Mark Arnold/Goddard Consulting LLC listed as representing the applicant and we would also have another uh legal notice that we'd want to put into the record as well. So Peter, if you could read that notice into the record for us. >> Yes, sir. Pursuant to the provisions of
the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, MGL131 section 40 and the Chumsford Wetlands bylaw Chapter 187, the Chsford Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing in room 204 at the Chsford Town Offices 50 Bill Recre on
Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 at 7:15 p.m. to consider the request for determination of applicability filed by Maple Multifamily Land SE LP on behalf of property owner CHMF
BTH I II >> three/boston LLC for proposed work within the bordering vegetated wetlands and associated 100t buffer zone in the conservation restriction area at 255
Princeton Street. Further identified as assessor's parcel map 20 block 74 lot one. The project entails invasive species management including hand removal and chemical management. >> Thank you Peter. Now have a presentation from the applicant.
>> Awesome. So my name is Mitch Mlank. I'm a wetland scientist with Gddard Consulting. So my colleague Mark Arnold was unable to attend tonight. So I'm covering for him. So this evening we're representing the applicants to uh we filed a request for determination of
applicability uh to request the commission approve an invasive species management plan to treat invasive species within a conservation restriction uh that is being drafted and and soon to be put in
place on the site. The conservation restriction is about 16 acres in or my bad 6.75 acres uh of land on the property. It's um very close to two uh to Princeton
Road. Uh so there's probably in some areas maybe 50 feet between Princeton Road is a bordering vegetated wetland. Some areas are even closer to the road than that. uh the bordering vegetated wetlands, it almost makes up the entirety of the
conservation restriction. So the um dominant vegetation in that area so far is mainly cattails uh cattail um marsh uh for quite a large area and then there's two ponds on either end of the
cattail marsh. Um adjacent to that is some bordering vegetated wetlands in the form of forested BVW. Um so what the applicant has prepared is a invasive species management plan um to satisfy one of the conservation
restrictions requirements to implement a ISMP uh working with the conservation commission um to have one approved for that CR. Uh so what has been proposed in the um the ISMP invasive species
management plan was uh treatment of Japanese knotweed um to remove that both mechanically and chemically from the area. Um at this time there is no Japanese knotweed on site. However, knowing construction
projects and their um post-development phases, Japanese notwheat does tend to um encroach into natural lands adjacent to um recently disturbed areas. Uh so the invasive species management plan has
been put in uh has been drafted so that if Japanese snawweed were to uh begin to encroach into the bordering vegetative wetlands in the CR um we would have a plan to be able to implement to treat that Japanese snotweed. Um, Japanese
snoutweed has them observed to impact bordering vegetative wetlands um because of its um it doesn't have a wetland indicator um status whereas glossy buckthornne is known as a facultative species. So that
would still trigger um wetland boundaries to be um bordering vegetated wetlands. Whereas Japanese nawweed if it's begin begun to dominate a bordering vegetated wetland area um we would um as wetland scientists have to flag that
area as upland based on a dominance of upland vegetation. So with that being said, the ISMP has been put together to prevent those circumstances from happening to keep the CR in a bordering vegetated wetland state in perpetuity
with the conservation restriction. Um so with that said, we have filed an RDA for this uh per u the agent's um recommendation which um would have an expiration date of three years. Um we're
hoping for maybe a fiveyear if that's possible um in order to have that ISMP locked in for a longer period of time. Um so that concludes my presentation and I'd love to hear from the commission. >> Great. Well, thank you very much. We
appreciate it. Again, certainly um invasive management's a hot button for us and a concern. So, we're uh look always look favorably generally to invasive management plans that come in front of us. But let's let's jump down. We'll mix it up a bit. Let's jump down to our conservation agent. And Mr. Coolins, do you have anything to say at
this point? >> Uh sure. Um so uh Mitch um first question is uh what what what would be the product or products both um you know sort of generic and brand names that
would be used to uh treat the nutweed. >> So I as I am not a licensed herbicide applicator I um I am not aware of what the specific brand name um would be. Uh but we'd want one that would break down
um immediately or or fast in uh contact with soil or water. Um so we would have recommend that in the ISMP it be clear that whatever herbicide be used um it be approved by the commission uh before use
and verified by a licensed herbicide applicator that it is going to be safe for use in a uh a bordering vegetated wetland. Um and and and and there are um you know products you know like Roundup there's there's a uh a variation of
Roundup that's uh may that's to be used uh in aquatic habitats. So that yeah I think that would be the the kind of information that um that the commission would want. Um would would there be any
possibility uh maybe over time to expand the um the invasives management plan to species other than the knotweed certainly plenty of bittersweet out there. You mentioned there's there's buckthornne
that would be really good to have and and and hand and hand removal is included >> in the in the mandrum plan. Mhm. >> So maybe you can't answer that. >> Yeah, I can bring it to the project team and see what they um think would be appropriate if um expanding the scope
from notweed would be something that they um are are favorable toward. >> Um that that would be great if that's possible. Um it would also be really good to have um some sort of reporting.
Do you do you do you know um would uh would this be done uh probably like once a year? Notwheat is typically like September >> something like that, right? When when it flowers. >> Yeah. >> So there probably be like one one treatment event per year in in in that
time frame. Um and and I and I think it would be an appropriate condition to put in the determination that that's that you know the commission gets some kind of a report you know um a after each treatment event.
>> Yeah. So in uh Mark's ISMP, he drafted he mentioned uh two treatments of herbicide per year um and then an annual report in November um to report on the the success of those treatments.
>> Okay, that would be good. >> Thank you very much, David. Thank you. Under you, Mr. Sp. >> Uh yeah, my first question, which you may not be able to answer. I was not here when this was approved. How do we end up with just notweed mentioned rather than invasives in general? >> We we remember our sitewalk. I don't
know. Were you with us at that point? We had a sitewalk out on that site and we had we almost lost uh I wish Carl was here tonight because >> probably the only one that got out of that sitewalk without like getting entangled in the briars. >> Almost lost. >> We We almost lost our chairman.
Literally our our chairman tripped, went down, ended up wrapped with bittersweet all around him. And if it wasn't for a a very modest man here, he Bill literally had to lift the chairman up, throw him over his shoulder in a fireman's carry
and dragged him safely off the site. But we we remember going out there. It wasn't just an it was like the vines, the entanglements, the all that were bad. >> But the important thing is are there photographs
>> the private collection. So, so, but it sounds like notwheat ended up as the permit condition, right? And you're suggesting or asking the question. >> Yeah. I mean, there's there's no notweed out there right now. >> So, why why not why not go after some of the others is the question, but maybe >> that's a very good question.
>> Maybe that uh boat has sailed. >> No, no. I I hope it hasn't because we really wanted action to address that really. So, you can take that back. >> Will there you know? >> Okay. Second question is um >> remember that. >> Yeah.
I read the plan and I got a little bit confused. Is folure spray? The question is folure spray is last resort because first the plan says we're going to cut and treat. So to me that's the old you know this better than I cut the stems
treat the stems. Then later it talks about folure spray which raises a ton of questions right particularly if there's people living nearby. So that's sort of one question is is maybe the plan could simply say foley or spray under what conditions
>> or last resort or help me out here David you know more about it. >> I think the way and maybe Mitch can confirm or not. I think the way this typically works is that the l the licensed herbicide applicator goes out and takes an initial look and then makes
a determination about what method or methods uh will best be used in any particular situation. >> Right. But it seems like it would be easier for that there be an incentive for that person to just spray and run rather than hack and go back for the
stem. So again, I don't have any experience with a licensed applicator, but that's my question. >> And I just had one other um maybe it's in the maybe it's here. I don't know. But the whole goal is to try to help natives return, native species
return. It' be nice if probably you have that expertise to quickly look after the treatment, maybe once a year, and let us know like is it working? We're not just trying to kill this stuff. for trying to get better
stuff to grow and be nice to know that in the report maybe it's mentioned but that would be my thought. >> Yeah. Yeah. I can address those too. So >> you feel the same way. You want to know if it's working. >> So well he just mentioned that an annual report is included in the
>> Well, yeah, but I I didn't see anything that said what's in the annual report. >> Well, that that should definitely include it. Yeah. >> Well, right. But I mean, >> you know, the the effective >> be nice to say that >> in the RDA. >> Yeah. Yeah, we can revise the report uh to beef up that section. Right now it says monitoring reports shall describe
using narratives, plans and color photographs the physical characteristics of the management areas on site. So we could put in specifically that um >> is it working? >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. >> I mean I know the picture I know I know the thinking the pictures and we ought to be able to figure it out but we don't have your expertise to look at a bunch
of pictures and decide if it's working or not. >> Right. Yep. >> And you guys do. Yes, we can do that. >> Thanks, Peter. >> And then uh to your other uh point about the uh folure versus the cut stem
treatment, um Mark has written in here that um for the smallest knotweed, it would be we'd handpick those. for the next category of smallest knotw weed. Uh the stem injection might not be um a
suitable um way to use the herbicide because of uh it it might just not be able to take in the um the herbicide and bring it back down to its roots. So that's where the folure would come into place. And then for the larger stems, notweed, the tallest ones, that's where
we'd be able to do the cut stem injection. I I guess that was one of my final questions. Who supervises this? I maybe it's in the plan and I missed it. But the idea is if it's if it's a wetland scientists working with the applicator, then we have I think better
assurance. >> Mhm. Yep. Yep. We put that >> If I was just an applicator with no supervision and I had was pressed for time, I' i'd just spray it and run. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. We put in the supervision and monitoring section. And all invasive species management activities shall be supervised by qualified wildland scientists.
>> So, thank you. >> Good. >> Thank you. I'm good. Thank you. >> Thanks, Peter. Miss Aiden. >> No, thank you. >> Nothing. Good. Mr. Gibbs, I >> I just need a little clarification. When we approved this project three years ago, whenever it was on our RDA, we didn't specify that we wanted to kill
invasives. We were going to kill one particular specimen. >> I find that hard to believe. >> I really do. >> Can we check the files? >> Can we check the >> I mean, My I my understanding was that we wanted got an allout attack against the invasives that were out there. We
weren't just picking notweed that wasn't there. So it doesn't >> I know I know there's there's nothing in the order of conditions that addresses that particular issue. It it does say that they need to file um an RDA for invasive species management plan. >> Okay. But I don't think we're limited to
just do notweed only. Well, um I think al ultimately it's up to the property owner and management company. I don't know if the commission in in as a condition could require that additional species be uh
>> I don't I just remember countless meetings with the developers. I mean we had meetings with the selectmen. These were and I was there because I was chairman at the time. We had numerous meetings and many comp promises and commitments and plans and it was always specified there was going to be a comprehensive invasive management plan.
That was one of the big benefits to the town. U there were a lot of benefits with the project but that was one of the benefits we saw from a conservation commission was having a you know really good plan. So certainly if it was just something to attack notweeds that aren't there that's that's not what we
negotiated and fought for like the years back. >> I can certainly make that point. I I know both the developer and their attorney, you know, quite well at this point. >> Exactly. I can certainly >> Yeah. Yeah. And they should remember all those because it was I mean there were all types of, you know, we we had we and we worked it out. It was a really a
partnership type thing and it worked out really well. The town partnered up with the developer, came up with good plans and it went it was approved. We had a lot of votes from the different boards and town meeting etc. So >> yeah, if you could follow up because I remember well we remember doing the
sidewalk out there. That was memorable as well. we were out there. >> So anyway, thank you. >> Well, do you want to go so far as to keep the hearing open pending an answer to that question? >> Yeah, I would. I would. Yeah, I'd like to get an answer to that. Yeah, >> it doesn't seem we'd be that
smartsighted. >> No, exactly. Yeah. >> Mark, anything more? >> No, I I I'll get ask more questions when we get in more information, application, treatments, things like that. >> I mean, we had some details. I mean, you know, I thought, you know, David had
some good questions about like, you know, a little more detail about the brand names of the herbicides. It's always nice to know a little bit more information. I mean, a little more clarification around some of the reporting, things like that. So, we had I think we have, you know, some some room for, you know, more information. Very good presentation, I might say. But
>> and and and I I don't see any showstopper issues with, you know, the, you know, the general proposal. >> Absolutely not. We I mean this is the type of thing I wish we had more, you know, situation where people are coming in proposing invasive management programs and having a a technical
expertise that we're hearing tonight for it. Honestly, it's exciting. Yeah. >> Just ask one quick question. >> What you're presenting, are you asking for a an IDA for what you're doing? Are you working off the IDA from the original construction?
>> So, this is a brand new file. What what happened to the RDA that was put on there for invasive control things like that? >> I actually was unaware. >> Well, I'm I'm not sure which you're referring to, Mark.
>> Did we must have did we did we ask that question? >> I'm pretty sure my recollection is that we it was like a full notice of intent. >> Yeah, it was it was a notice of intent for construction of the project, right? And there was a condition in there that says that invasive management plan shall require filing of an RDA. Well,
>> this will supplement. >> Something's missing though. It doesn't seem like >> I would have thought there'd be been more details, but nevertheless, I mean, this is an opportunity to supplement that. Come in with something that's >> Yeah. I mean, I I I certainly I I I sort of came in, you know, after this after this whole project started. I mean,
>> you came in after that. Exactly. >> Yeah. I mean, I I was I was unaware of the issue with, you know, the the commission's concern about additional species, >> right? >> We and we did I think we even had a gap period where we didn't have the benefits of our
>> but but I but I but I certainly think it that that concern could be addressed as part of this process. >> Yeah. And like you said, you know, they you know, you have we have the contacts with the attorney, the engineers, the team. So, I mean, it was a really good team and they really wanted to partner with >> and and and and I and I know that that
Goddard uh does a lot of invasive management, so they certainly have the capability to do additional species. >> Yeah. So, I mean, as as David said, we're we're in like support of this. This is something really good. Um we just want to, you know, get a little
more information and and make sure it's the best >> right >> for us. I'm sorry. Well, so so are you asking for something more comprehensive than just the notweed? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, you know, those vines out there were made unbelievable. The bittersweet was really
bad. Um I mean, you can when you drive by, you know, you and I drive by like I drive by half dozen times every day in and out of that street. You can see the stuff from the road, right? It's Yeah. The invasives have not gone away. Mhm. >> They're and they're choking it out and
it's going to be it's going to be benefit to everybody, the residents that are there, the neighbors, um you know, the animal wildlife too. So yeah, so we I I would just suggest we just continue this to our next meeting, get some more information, and yeah, we want to address more than just a notweed.
>> So So that means to do something more comprehensive that the that the ISMP, the invasive species management plan, will need to be revised. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, is that what the commission's asking for? >> Yeah. But but not greatly. I the revisions are adding species and
that if anyone wants to humor my suggestion to for the experts to tell them is if it's working. >> Yeah, I actually I actually think most of the bittersweet out there can probably be removed by hand. I mean that's manual labor by somebody. No
doubt about it. But yeah, I think Peter's probably right. It's just a matter of adding um additional species. um into the plan and then you know specifically then when it when it comes time to actually doing the work then the
licensed herbicide applicator and whoever whoever else is involved you know can come up with specific methods. That's what I would >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that'd be great. I think that'd be great. >> Yeah. So it's not a lot of work on behalf of the applicant other than answer these questions, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'll slightly revise the report to include >> this is pending my discussions with the applicant too because it can be a large cost to implement such a large program like that. So, I imagine if we were to do more species, it'd probably be um you
know, some sort of phased approach rather than doing the entire thing all at once because it is 6.75 acres, you know. So, with it being so large of an area, it we might target certain areas per year for the duration of the the RDA. >> That makes sense.
>> Yeah. Well, that's a very good point and I think you you carried the message well is we'd like to keep a friendly working relationship with everybody. We know you can't do six acres of bittersweet for the same price as half a day of cutting and spraying notweed that's not even there. I mean there so we need to
recognize that. >> I mean Warren Pole is a lot larger than 6.75 acres. That's a multi-year program, >> right? >> Right. >> Yeah. No. So you understand where we're coming from. >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. Good Mitch. Good. So good. So if we can get a motion to continue this
hearing until August 26th, that'd be good. >> So move. >> What do I say? I've never done this. Second motion. Sorry. >> Second. Yes. >> Second. All right. And uh any discussion
>> anymore? >> Anymore? Uh so no discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Unanimous. So we'll see you again, Mitch. Thanks very much. >> All right. Thank you, commission. >> Sorry for the wait. Kind of a long meeting tonight, but we're glad you were here. >> Yeah, it was. That's for sure.
>> All right. So, then moving right along here. That was um our last item on our regulatory hearing list for this evening was a notice of intent that was continued from our July 22nd, 2025 meeting with respect to the 265, 279
Chomps Street, and 20 Manan Street 3 Katrina Road. And uh we had received uh do you want to take it here David? >> Yes. >> So the applicant has requested a continuance to September 9th for this one. Not sure what what's pending, what
additional information they're waiting for or they have to provide. Um did not have not received the DPW's storm water report or storm water review yet. So >> all right, but I think that's what they've asked. So we can move this without any testimony or any comment to
September 9th. Could we have a motion to that effect? >> What do I say? >> You just say I so moved. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Thank you. >> And so that was a motion to uh continue to September 9th. And I need a second. >> Second >> from Mark. Mark Gibs on the second. So
all those in favor? I. Any oppose? On unanimous. So that takes us through our regulatory matters now being almost 9:15 at night. We move on to discussion items which is Yeah, you thought we were gonna be out of here earlier than that and I don't think so. There's a lot on this
agenda tonight. We have a discussion update on the Freeman Lake parcel boundary surveys from our agent. >> Um so all the preliminary work's been done. Um uh they just they've they turned out they had to order the granite bounds and that's what they're waiting
for. As soon as they get those they're going to be installed. >> Good. Okay. >> So thanks. Thanks, David. Good. All right, so we covered that item, then moving on to land management. So, um, we're going to do our conservation site update from the commissioners. We'll just kind of roll through the commissioners. Maybe
we'll go back to Bill. Bill, just an update. >> Yeah, Kyle gave me a few things he told me about u because he knew he wasn't going to be here. Uh, there was some work done by the volunteer stewards at the lime quarry, some cutting of uh in the parking area, also at uh the
cranberry bog. The parking area was weed whacked and done. Uh Kuluses, there was a crew out at Culis's uh yesterday cutting the grass up to the trails and the picnic area and out front uh in the
front of the uh site. Uh Warren Paul, there was a large work party there a week and a half or two ago uh removing some logs and things along the woodland trail that needed done. And so there was quite a few people there
that that day doing that. Um Oak Hill, uh coyotes are still pretty active up at Oak Hill. >> Really? >> I've heard from some people that very loud and they're around. And one of the uh uh stewards up at uh Oak Hill
uh told me that he saw a bear up there not too long ago. So there's bears in there or a bear in there. Just one, huh? >> Uh one decent size, he said. So, uh, that's about it, I guess, on all that. >> That's good. All right. Good. Thanks for that. >> Oh, also, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I forgot.
Uh, over at, uh, um, the soccer fields. >> Oh, yeah. Soccer fields. >> Yeah. Uh, >> the Russell Mill. >> Russell Mill. The, uh, Kyle met with DPW over there >> because there was a lot of brush when you first drove in. DPWs cleaned some of
that brush out the next day, actually. And then uh they've got uh things planned for the parking area when you first drive in on the left. There's a lot of trees hanging over that's cut trim those trees back and cut some of that. So >> Kyle's working with DPW on on that. And
uh that's it. >> Good. Good. I got a quick update. Cranberry, excuse me, Crooked Spring down the street from my house. Um Crooked Spring. Uh looking good. I mean it's looking good. There's volunteers been out there keeping the trails wide, kind of widening them a bit because
you're always fighting that battle against uh, you know, brush kind of creeping in on you. So, the volunteers have been keeping the trails clear and the parking lot's been looking good. So, good news out of Crooked Spring. Um, Mark, anything you want to give us?
>> Uh, nothing on uh, uh, Red Wing, but uh, Bill mentioned about the bush cutter in the parking lot area there. Yeah. At uh, Lanc Quarry. Yeah, that's all I got. >> Yeah. How's that? Anything? Nothing. No. Good. Peter. >> Uh, yeah. I'm going to give an update on
Thanksgiving forest from our steward Jeff Bin because he writes these wonderful updates, so he does all the work here, but he's keeping a good eye on the place. Um, another tree down and and the call was made through our new process, but apparently somebody cleaned
it up before anybody could get there. So, there's some nice community involvement. Uh Jeff reports on a vernal pool that's in that forest. So that's good. We're paying attention to those. The brook, the great brook has zero flow rate the last few weeks as he's observed
at Thanksgiving forest, which certainly has an impact on habitat that we of course don't measure and don't really know what that means. Uh there was an issue with an unleashed dog that apparently was resolved with the help of our animal control officer. So I think
that is a positive sign. people in town working together and um the stewards continue to mow the grass and get their new garden rolling and um one interesting thing is um uh well we'd like to uh publicize Jeff's
trail cams under a conservation commission banner. He's agreed to that. >> Good. >> So we'll we'll get to that in a minute or at a future meeting. >> So thank you. >> Good. All right. And uh Mr. Coons. Um so a couple of things uh first thing is
that um guess mainly mainly Mark and Peter will have an interest in this. Uh on Thursday at noon in room 200 um the uh the board of health consultant uh for the gap analysis will be giving an
update on how that's going. So certainly welcome to >> to attend >> time again >> uh at noon in room here. >> It's it's only an update. I mean there's there's not going to be, you know, a discussion about, you know, what he should be doing.
>> Are you going? >> I'm going. Yes. >> Could you I can't go. Could you see if there's a slide deck or >> um that formal? >> I don't think there's going to be, but but I'll I'll look into that. >> Thank you. Um then just the the only other thing is uh going back to Murphy's
Field, I gave Chelford Youth Soccer Association permission to put in like half a dozen nets along the field closest to the parking lot because I guess soccer balls keep going out of that and hitting hitting cars >> hitting cars.
>> So I told them they can go ahead and put in some nets to stop that. >> Good. Good. Just one thing that came to my mind too. So, August 28th, August 28th at 9:00 a.m. that D representative is going to come out to Freeman Lake. Um, you're going to be there, right? So,
David will be there. Uh, we need at least one conservation commissioner. >> He's going to the lake. >> I think it's what usually at the beach, right? >> Yeah. Last time it was at the beach. >> Yeah, that's >> Yeah. So, at 9:00 at the beach. >> Yeah. >> August 28th. I can't be here. I've got a
court appointment that morning that I got to go to. But, Bill, you're in, right? So, Bill, you're good. Um, >> I think Carl might >> and Carl's definitely interested. >> Yeah. >> As well. So, anyway, we'll just report back. I'll send an email off copying,
you know, everybody. I I'll send it to Carl to kind of give him an update on that because he was asking about >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it's going to be pretty pretty simple and straightforward from the commission's perspective. It's it's more it's more on the appellant. They're going to have to explain why they think the commission did such a
>> The burden's on the appellant. Exactly. The burden. Yeah, >> I'll tell you. We went I know Chris saw it, too. We went up there when they were running the machine on the lake for two days. >> That was really cool. I mean, that machine was really cool to see that thing in action. >> Yeah, it was uh it it moved faster than
I thought it was going to. And they set up at the beach and they had a trailer that backed into the water and the machine's like a paddle boat. >> Like a paddle boat. >> The conveyor belt on it. It picks up the weed, you know, pulls weeds and it puts it right into the boat. And then they
pull up to the trailer. One guy goes up to the trailer and turns a conveyor belt the other way and it all goes into the trailer. >> And they hauled a lot of uh trailer loads out of the out of there. They did by the beach. >> And it takes everything, right? Not just the invasives. >> They went by They did the beach area
first, then they went out in the middle. They did they did a few different areas. They only had it for two days. So, >> but it was it was kind of impressive the way it worked. >> I mean, they had that thing running a good eight hours each day. So, >> did you see the material they were pulling out? Huh? >> Were they pulling any roots out or just
pulling out the tops of the plants? >> Uh, it's hard to I didn't really go up that close to >> I wasn't close enough when when I saw it. It was like offshore. It was actually on the beach and offshore a little bit. I didn't get up close to >> Yeah, I didn't get up close enough to really study it. >> But it's the same question we're asking
at the the Princeton Properties project is >> yeah, is it working? You know, the goal isn't to get the weeds out. The goal is to restore the ecosystem. And and that's a good point. So, we really should get some sort of followup. I'm sure we're going to hear from Yeah. >> from uh >> I think that's the plan. That's the
point to having the consultant. >> Yeah. We're going to get a follow I'm sure we'll get followup on how successful or not. >> Yeah. There's there's going to be an a year end uh or later in the season, you know, survey and report on the effectiveness. >> Yeah, it'll be good. And and some of the neighbors were out there as well, too, observing what's going on.
>> Yeah. >> Keen interest. I don't want to keep harping on it, but you know, >> just hacking. >> What's that? >> There was a newspaper story. >> Yeah. W son had a page one um article on it >> and it it uh came out Yeah. a couple weeks ago,
>> right? >> Um yeah, I was actually going to track that down. >> So anyway, so that's uh some more information there on um valuable. Let's see what else we covered. Um our updates agents report we just had. Um, so now
we're just going to uh Vivian's favorite part of the meeting, which is when we review and approve the minutes. >> I think Vivian's favorite part is the end. >> Well, next. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That that is true.
>> Anyway, so we got our June 10th minutes and our June 24th minutes. And these guys were comprehensive as always. We had seven eight pages on June 10th. That's down from 12. >> Yeah. Yeah. But today we're going to be
pushing it up a bit. >> Yes, you are. >> We are. >> Where am I at? No, actually I'm only at 10. >> Ah, okay. >> Considering anyway. So, look, let's focus on take a minute or two to look at June 10th. Um, I'm glad you got the note
about Mr. Pat Flity passing away. That was I'm glad you captured that. >> One of our favorites over the years. All right. >> I make a motion that we approved June 10th minutes. >> All right. Motion by Mark to approve
June 10th, seconded by Bill. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. All right. So, June 10th approved. Now, we're moving on to the minutes of June 24th, 2025. >> We had full attendance at that meeting,
which is always good. And um let's see how many pages we have there. That was a only five pages or four and a half pages. >> Piece of cake. You're going to note page three, we had
the failed motion on the fire tower. That was correct. Motion failed 313. Nothing come back from the uh the >> No, I haven't heard anything. Wow. >> You think they're just going to forget about it >> for a while? >> Maybe for this year. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh let's see. So anyway, do we have a motion then for June 24th, 2025? >> I make a motion on June 26 minutes get approved. >> Motion by Mark.
>> Second. Alexandra on the second. All those in favor I. Any opposed? >> Unanimous. And then we come to the end of now we come to Vivian's favorite part of the meeting. The motion to adjurnn. We have a motion to adjurnn. >> I move we adjourn.
>> Peter on the motion. >> Second. >> Seconded. Alexandra. All those in favor? I. Any oppose? Unanimous. The meeting's over. Thank you everyone.