Welcome. Welcome. >> Good evening. It's now 7 o'clock on Tuesday, January 27th, 2026. Call this meeting the Council Conservation Commission to order. My name is Carl Bishoff. I'm the chair of the commission. We will be following the published and posted agenda. This
meeting is both in person and through Zoom. In the case of the Zoom not working properly, we will continue the meeting in person only. This meeting is being broadcast and recorded by Chford Tele media and uh will be available on
their site and on their YouTube channel. And we do have a quorum and I don't think we have any adjustments to the agenda. So we'll jump right in. Is there anyone here who would like to speak as a citizen with any concerns for the commission?
I don't see anybody. Okay, I think we're good to go. Um, we do have a report from the, uh, planning board liaison, Mr. Chris Lavali. He sent me a note. Um, so here's what he said. They are wrapping up public hearing for the water district
PAS treatment facility on Orleans Street, which is the River Road facility. They are likely wrapping up the public hearing for the town meeting zoning articles excluding the reszoning of Middle Sex Mills area which is a separate hearing. They are opening a
public hearing for the town meeting zoning article for the reasonzoning of the Middle Sex Mills area. They are opening the public hearing for the town meeting citizens petition zoning article to repeal the recent town meeting article that redefined the term family.
And finally, they have an update on the managed growth strategy task force that recently kicked off their meetings with NEMCOG NMCG. Um, so that's the update from the planning board leaison, Mr. Chris Lavali. So, first up here on our
regulatory hearings, the only regulatory hearing we have tonight is the notice of intent, which is continued from, is this right? October 28th is the last time we had the hearing. Okay. um New England Power Company at 100 Ecuador Road. And we have Bridget
Hilgenorf uh uh representing Vanessa or with Vanessa Hangen Brusslin representing the applicant and um we are ready to hear any updates.
So, good evening and um David, do we have specific things we're looking for that were change? I think you had you're describing some changes that were made. So, why don't we why don't you just start in with the changes? >> PHB. Um just here to provide an update
on the changes. There's been a few redesigns since we were last here. Um basically, the project has reduced some impacts to resource areas while still accommodating the goal of the project. Um the biggest change is that paved driveway loop within the substation. The new design has removed that loop in the
northern portion um and instead just proposes to have the paved yes up on the screen here you can see it's still paved at the entrance at that southern portion and it has two areas for turnaround um to the east and west. And so what this has done it's basically reduced the
impacts within that previously degraded riverfront. We've pulled the majority of the impervious out of there. Um and so with that change we no longer have any temporary impacts to BLSF. Originally, there were some erosion controls installed. There's no longer work in that northern portion. In terms of
changes within riverfront, we have reduced the permanent and temporary impacts. So, for permanent, we are down to it's about 2,166 square ft. And that's associated with one of those turnarounds in the outer edge of the riverfront area. And it's down to 16,61
ft of temporary impacts within that riverfront. And that's reflected in the updated limit of work, the dash line. And that includes replacing the existing substation equipment and refreshing the gravel, which is the same as the previously proposed work. Um, beyond that, work within the buffer zones in
here is just about the same same thing, refreshing the gravel. Um, and we have a small portion of that proposed driveway access. Again, all within the substation. Beyond that, there's been no changes to the storm water design. Um, so no updated storm water report has been issued. What was previously
proposed will accommodate this. There's been the reduction in impervious. So, those are the primary changes. Happy to answer any questions. >> Okay, thank you. Let's see what the commission has. John, do you have any questions? >> I really don't. I was good with this
before cuz I realize that you're doing an update and that's what you got to do and it's got to be done. People want to turn the lights on, you got to fix it. So, I was good with it. >> Okay, >> I'm fine.
>> Bill, you're okay. Mark on the uh the detention ponds. I it's been a while. Is there is there on the storm water? Are you changing anything? Is there is it being piped or was it just being trenches in the detention areas? >> So, I believe they're installing a new
one further south and expanding that existing one there. Beyond that, nothing has changed since the last time. Tim, I'm not sure if there's any other storm water updates. >> Okay. Is this is this a redevelopment or was this a I don't know what you'd call
this is I know it's an NOI I is this considered a redevelopment David >> um I believe so I mean there's there's not there's not a net increase in impervious surface correct >> there is there is with the proposed pave driveway
>> so so then that's that's not redevelopment that's new development since there's an increase in imperous surface So, does that mean the the part that was in the 100 foot buffer should be brought up to date because it's not a new redevelopment because
it's new? >> Um I uh I think it should be peer reviewed. That's that's my opinion. >> Okay. >> Um I mean I I have some additional questions once commission members have asked. >> Okay.
No, that was mine when I was reviewing it. Um, okay. >> Chris, >> I'll be interested in our agents, you know, comments at this point, but I'll pass for now. >> Okay. Allie. >> Uh, no questions. >> Peter.
>> Uh, yeah. Hi, Bridget. Peter. Uh, two questions. One is am I reading this correctly that the proposed silt fence uh along the riverside the silt fence is located in the 25 ft no disturb
>> uh area >> the proposed so in this design >> we originally had >> I'm sorry can you come up to this one here because there is a microphone there and I think the cameras will be better. Yeah, absolutely. >> So, originally the limit of work was
this substation perimeter and now this is the new limit of work. I think if you go to the next slide it might show okay >> or next page it might show erosion controls. >> Yes. So here these sort of open circles this shows where our new erosion controls are
being installed. So this is the new limit. We're no longer going all the way into that buffer on the north end. So, the erosion controls have been adjusted accordingly. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. You know what? There's Okay, got it. I I saw the word silt fence by the uh other line. That's okay.
My mistake. >> And then my main question, um can you describe how the proposal meets the Wetland Protection Act rules for work in a degraded riverfront area?
>> Yeah, sure. So primarily it's primarily temporary impacts. I know the question that came up last time was for work in the previous to go through riverfront need to provide that improvement here with the removed impervious all the excess impervious that was originally
proposed by maintaining the storm water. We should be improving the conditions in this area within the riverfront >> and no no plans for immediately on on the strip of land that's no let's just say within the 50 foot or 100 foot
wetland buffer you know 50 100 feet back from the river. >> Yeah. Um are are you that's outside the limit of work so there's no construction in that say 100 foot well got to be careful the 100 foot buffer comes into the into the structures but let's say 50
foot away from the river no no disturbance on that first 50t >> so yeah to the on this I believe it's the eastern side this is wetland and associated buffers >> and then here to the north that's the river being referenced so we're no longer this is the 50oot buffer
>> we're no longer proposing any work in there. It was originally just refreshing the existing gravel. Now, this portion here in the north is refreshing existing gravel within the 100 foot buffer and then down in this corner here. >> Yeah. >> Southeast again replacing some of
existing equipment, refreshing gravel and there is a portion of impervious from this access and we did have a portion within the zone previously as well. So, so the the engineering team and the contractor can everyone you can stay out of that first 50 feet from the river
>> from the river. >> Yeah. >> Yes. That is the intent of the >> interesting. Well, that's a significant change for the better. >> All right. And then I'm still curious. So, no other ch no other uh so compliance with the the standard for degraded riverfront then your your plan
is uh a little bit away from the river but basically the storm water changes that you described. Correct. That is the plane. >> Yes. Okay. And we've done our best to reduce the impervious in there >> by limiting it to this outer portion. >> Okay.
>> David, you next line. >> Yes. Um, so I'm I still want to make sure that I understand Bridget. So saying that the proposed by two minutes concrete driveway says both ant inter
interior substation driveway and coming coming in from lol. Is this all new, you know, impervious pavement? I'm still a little bit confused about that. >> Yes, it's currently outside of the substation where it crosses from Leel.
>> It's currently gravel. It's currently a gravel maintained access. I believe it's gravel. It may be. I'm not sure if it's gravel or dirt, but it's definitely maintained. >> Okay. So, so it's it's proposed to be all now buminous concrete going all the
way well in Chelsford going all the way from this point all all the way up into this this interior part. It's all going to be now it's currently gravel. It's it's all going to now be by Tuminous
concrete. So, so like this area up here, this is the 200 riverfront area line right here. This area up here, that's currently gravel. >> Yes. >> So, that's now going to become impervious surface. I mean, it's it's
going to become a more degraded. I mean, it's it's I think you I think you could say that, you know, is existing gravel. It's currently degraded, but now it's uh going to become byumous concrete. it's going to be more degraded. So, so my
inter my interpretation of the riverfront area regulations says that there needs there needs to be some kind of mitigation done in that kind of a situation. Um, another question is so so like in this
area up here and these areas down here, what what what is being proposed there in in the riverfront area? Is that just like a temporary disturbance? What is that? >> We've quantified that as temporary. There's existing equipment there and it's being replaced in kind in the same locations.
>> Okay. Um so so again I in my opinion I I think the issues here are number one with with with all of that new uh imperous surface you know the buminous uh concrete um roadway and driveway you
know I I I think you know it is it is considered new development. I I think you know the commission's you know practice has been to have the storm water peer-reviewed. I think that should be done in this case as well. And and then and then the second thing is I think that there needs to be some some
kind of mitigation done uh for for the increase in um degraded riverfront area up here. We talked last hearing we talked a little bit about maybe doing in some invasive management um al along the river. I I think we
heard that really weren't willing to consider that. Um but you know that's I mean there there there are other options. You know usually you know the the most common option I think is to do some kind of restoration like do some
kind of restoration planting of you know an an equivalent uh area. Not sure off the top of my head what the um the surface area is um of this pavement, but to to do some sort of you know per
permanent plantings, you know, of native vegetation um you know that's that's pretty typically what's done for improvements in the greater riverfront area. So those are those are my two issues. >> Okay, thanks. Um, anyone have any
further comments or follow up on anything? >> Um, yeah, if I could just comment. Um, I had a chance to see water quality measurements in the brook right there that have been taken by this outfit we're talking to ors and I was a little bit surprised. The quality of the water
in that channelized brook is pretty good actually relative to supporting fish. So I think that's one reason I would support this discussion of some sort of mitigation to meet that wetland protection requirement on on degraded riverfront because it is you know I look
at it looks like sort of a degraded channel that's been channelized you think of it as not that great a resource but the water quality data say it's not too bad >> which surprised me. Okay. So, David's recommending a peer
review for the storm water >> and we had previously gone out for a proposal on that um and uh got one back. Uh it was put on hold pending the the revision. So, it's probably not that
difficult for the peer reviewer to just, you know, modify it to uh address these the current plan. um might might even be able to have it ready for the next meeting and certainly, you know, ask about that. >> And what are they going to be looking
for? >> What do you what do you what's a scope? >> Um typ typical uh review of storm water compliance with the storm water standards. I think this is this is pretty simple and straightforward in this case. Um there's there's an there's
an addition to one basin that's being proposed in and in and one new basin. If I understand that correctly. >> Yes. Or >> uh what >> if you go back up. Yeah. >> Keep going. Oops. >> Or to the next one. Might show grading on the second page.
>> Must be the next one. Huh. >> There we go. >> So, some regrading in that existing basin there. >> And then this and then new basin down here. Um, and that and that and that will help DPW as well in their review because I
think they they need to issue uh a land disturbance permit. Um, what what what is the total amount? Is there 20,000 square feet? >> I do believe it's at that higher threshold. I don't know the exact number. So, so they're they're going to DPW will uh at the very least uh need to
issue a minor land disturbance permit and they'll they they will have liked to see that it's been peer-reviewed during the hearing by the commission. >> Okay. >> Well, plus it's technically new development, not redevelopment. >> We tend to require it.
>> Yeah, that's our practice. >> So, I'm I'm a little confused though. David, you said at the cuz I don't remember the last meeting that well. >> Did we already ask a peer reviewer to review this or to give us a
>> to to give a proposal based on the the initially submitted plan? Uh they didn't go through with it because um you indicated that the plans would be revised. >> Um >> so what you're saying is that the proposal that they made will almost
certainly be nearly the same with these changes. >> Yes. Yes. Now, now sort of maybe a little bit of a wrinkle is that it also included review of the portion that's in Lowel and I gather the Low Commission has shown no interest in getting up your
review, but >> I was not at the first hearing, but they didn't request one. Correct. >> I'm Tim Sullivan of National Grid for the record. That That's correct. We've been in front of LOL and they have at this point not requested a a peer review for any of this.
Again, I don't think it makes much sense for the peer reviewer to look at only what's in Chumsford. Um, I can clarify that with him, but I mean, did you do you have any issues with doing that peer review in the low? >> No, no. I mean, it's one it's one it's
one system. It's going to operate that way. So, from a practical standpoint, I I believe they would have to review it the whole, you know, the whole the whole um the whole design. >> Yes. Yes. And DPWs doesn't want to look at it. >> No. No. They they have previously indicated that they wanted the
commission to hire an outside peer reviewer. >> They're not prepared to look at it or >> not not in not in terms of doing the peer review. I mean, once once the application for a land disturbance permit is submitted, they'll they'll look at the commission's order of
conditions. They'll they'll look at the commission's peer reviewer report, but they did not want to do their own peer review on this. Okay. So, I think we're at a point where we're looking to I think we're looking to make at a a proposal to approve a
peer review and to continue the meeting and the hearing until that is closed and we can I I don't think there'll be any issues here, but um >> No, no, I don't I don't think there will be. And I think in terms of the mitigation for the um the work in the
degraded riverfront area, I think just maybe doing doing a a restoration plan, a planning plan maybe up in this area. I I don't you know this this is the existing tree line, right? >> Yes. >> I I I I forget Bridget, what is what is
this? Is this is this pretty much just grass now or >> I believe there might be a small slope on the outside of the substation, but I do think it's vegetated beyond that. Um but but I think >> and it goes eventually into the roadway. >> I mean there's there's there's certainly
room enough in somewhere in the riverfront area to do an equivalently sized restoration. >> Um >> equivalent to the uh pavement to the >> Yeah, the equivalent area service area. I mean it look it looks like this would
work up here >> um that area, but you know it's up to you to decide. And and David, when you say restoration, what what extent are you envisioning? >> Um I I think uh primarily like some
native shrubs, you know, I I think consultation with a botonist, you know, to make sure what would what would grow there. Um you know, based based on, you know, existing conditions and like hydraology, you know, I don't I don't know if say hushish blueberry um would
grow there. I mean, they don't necessarily have to be wetland plants, but I think they do need to be native. I mean, it should should should be pretty simple to just draw something for that small area. >> Yeah. So, if you wouldn't mind just I we did go look after we spoke after we
spoke the last the last meeting. Um, so to I guess to clarify where we are right now is we we've left the storm water improvements as they were with the original design. So we did not we did not pull those back commensurate with
with pulling back the design. So we do have I guess you know additional additional storm water improvements. So we do feel like we're making we're not just mitigating our impact we're making this the you know we're taking um you know some of the existing impervious that was probably never treated and and
making sure all that gets treated as well. So we do feel like there's an improvement beyond what we're required to do on the storm water side. Um I did go out there with our forester um you know to look at particularly the area you know along the along the river that
you had referenced the other the last hearing David >> for the invasive management. >> Exactly. Yeah. And the challenge that we have is that we have a lot of assets back there. So we have overhead that leaves. We also have underground leaves and then we have underground the area
that you just mentioned that comes right along the outside of the fence. >> Yeah. And so that kind of limits what we what we can plan because if you you know you figure we're overhead we're going to want to keep everything maintained underneath those lines and then
underground you never know we're we're maybe going to have to go in there and access it. So the the the challenge we have with citing you know mitigation areas it kind of has to be there in perpetuity and um if you know I I can certainly look into areas of this size
that >> I mean what I mean right right here right next to it. I mean what anything looks like there's wrong >> I'm saying there's I I know there's underground right here. >> Oh there's underground >> there's there's underground right in that right in that corridor. So somewhere on the parcel, you know, if
we're if we're talking about something, you know, that time, the last time we were talking about that whole loop, so obviously that's a lot larger of a of an area to consider. So I can go back and look for something that's more, you know, in line with this with this new design and see if we can find a a spot
that seems like it's going to work for basically. Well, if it if it turns out that there's really no uh feasible area in the riverfront area, I think doing something in the buffer zone would would be amendable as well. >> Okay. >> You know, maybe over in this area, you
know, certainly got plenty of buffer zone over here. I think I in my in my opinion that would satisfy the regulations just as much. >> Okay. Yeah. If you can I mean you can it's if you look real you know you can see all these O's.
>> Yeah. our os wire, so they're crisscrossing just about >> just about everywhere. So hopefully we can find a spot that um you know that that works and that we think will you know be something that we can >> okay >> make sure everyone knows what it is and
you know 10 or 15 years from now if somebody doesn't >> but but again just just to qualify in the storm water I mean this the storm water is something we have to comply with anyway under storm water you know particularly now where this since you're increasing impervious surface this is new development so really have to comply
you know with with a new development storm water eggs and you know that's really independent of the performance standards for work in degraded riverfront area. You know D tells me you know all the time that's a common mistake applicants make is is is
confusing improvements in storm water to improvements in the work in degraded riverfront. >> Yeah, I I I I hear I I think I I think I follow you. I think what the point I was trying to make was that we were we were doing what's required for us under the storm wire r then we're doing something
on top of that because we were leaving treatment for the whole you know the whole around the back is still is still in the design. So the the peer reviewer is going to review the exact same water that >> we've just paired down the you know the impact. So if that if that person asks
why there's more there's more uh compensation then maybe it would be required that's that's why where that's coming from. >> Okay which certainly you can do that you can do more that's required. Um but yeah know I I I certainly think the commission should be flexible in in
terms of where mitigation you know uh restoration mitigation should go. I mean it's >> you don't have a lot of choices. >> Yeah. I mean, you really you really get an impression of how busy the site is. >> It's a substation. >> Uhhuh. >> There's overhead and underground. >> Yeah.
>> You just can't go digging. >> Understood. >> Yod. And it's probably going to be upgraded again in uh well, in Bridget's lifetime. >> Everybody wants their lights on. >> Can anything be done on the LOL side?
>> The mitigation could be there. Yeah. I mean, would be okay if I think. Are you still before l? >> Yes. >> You still open? >> I mean >> that I mean I'd be satisfied if they said they were going to do it in l if that >> I mean you got four retention areas here.
>> There's not a lot of land there though. >> So I mean can something be moved to this section where there's not nothing there? >> I I mean if if if lol is um agreeable to that? Yeah. I think this commission should be as well. I I I I don't know if
you're comfortable or how you're comfortable bringing that up with them. Um you know, >> question would our but we don't really have authority over jurisdiction in l >> would our permit be that be a binding
permit condition. Chford issues a permit under our bylaws for work in low. >> Well, I think >> does that work? Um, you know, I think I think it all depends on whether the applicant is agreeable and uh or not. Um, if the applicant is agreeable and
the L commission is agreeable, I think I think we would need to see it shown on a plan and then and then the chancer order conditions could just reference that plan. You know, again, as long as the law commission is good, >> I I'm I'm hopeful we can find a spot
that's in, you know, that that's in Jumpford. If if it comes to that, we'll we'll certainly, you know, we'll we'll certainly that'd be a better solution. >> Appreciate doing the best you can. >> All right. So, I'm looking >> question. So, Carl, I mean, how much time do we think we need to, you know, to get the peer review done and kind of
have you look into, you know, addressing the mitigation? How much time do we need? I know our next meeting that we have is on February 10th. Will we have enough time to wrap it all up by then, or is that too? >> Well, I I you know, I don't know for sure about the peer review. Yeah. since
they since they've already uh looked at it. Um, you know, hope hopefully they can just, you know, hit the ground running on this one, but I I don't know what their workload is like. Uh, all I can do uh is ask.
>> Okay. So, worst case, the best case would be the February 10th meeting. Worst case probably would be the meeting after, which would be the 24th. >> Yeah. And and again, just just to emphasize, I don't see any sto so stopper issues here. Yeah, >> it's all pretty routine, but >> this will also help TPW as you said.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> What is it peerreview for this cost? >> Uh >> not that it matters to >> I think I think it was Did I forward that to you, Bridget? >> Don't think so. I think we let you know
that the plan the change. >> Let me um I think I have that. Uh maybe maybe maybe I never got maybe I never got a peer review back or or or a proposal back. Um I thought I did. I'll
I'll have to go back and double check. I would estimate it's on the order of several thousand dollars like you know maybe 4,000 something like that. That's just a a ballpark. >> I'm just curious. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> I'm going to make >> open. >> Yeah. Well, I'll make a motion that we continue this hearing until our next meeting February 10th, 2026. And um again, my my hope is that we could wrap it all up when we come back then and be done, you know. >> Yeah.
Second. And that would be with a with a peer review. >> Yeah. As as proposed. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think a standard order of conditions at this point. >> Yep. >> Okay. Motion from Chris. >> Second. >> Second from Peter. All in favor? >> I I
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Appreciate the improvement, the changes. >> Appreciate keeping the lights on. >> Yeah. >> Okay. How does this file >> you pay for that payment? >> What is discrimination? What is the
>> Is this a redevelopment or >> No, >> it's new. It's it's from the from the standpoint of compliance with the school standards is considered new development. >> Does it require anything different by the applicant or it's just everything's the same? >> I'm sorry. the applicant have to file
anything different on this or just >> they well they they did they they they filed a revised notice of intent form with D you know along with the plans. Um so >> is that your uh pack? >> No, that was your
>> Oh, okay. >> No, that's my job. >> Oh, okay. Good. >> Um I I I think I think it always was considered new development from the standpoint of um >> it's just the pavement is new development. an increase in impervious surface. Yeah.
I mean, they're >> there four retention areas on this property. >> Well, but they're they're taking an existing gravel road and they're paving it. I mean, any applicant that does that, we typically require a >> I understand. >> We Yeah, we continue the hearing. So,
let's keep moving forward. Um, so discussion, continue business. Um, we want to talk about the wetland bylaw and regs review subcommittee recommendation to submit a warrant article for the Springtown meeting amending the chancer
wetlands bylaw to add a regulatory 100 foot buffer zone to bordering land subject to flooding which is also known as the 100year flood plane. Um, David, do you want to or Peter or Chris, do you want to give a summary?
>> I I certainly can. So um the um the the wetland bylaw and regulations review subcommittee has held several meetings. Um it talked about you know proposed changes to both the bylaw um and the
regulations. Um you know very very high among the changes um recommended were adding a 100 foot regulatory buffer zone to bordering land subject to flooding. um you know, a aka the 100-year flood plane, meaning that any anything
proposed within 100 ft of the uh the 100-year flood plane needs needs some kind of a filing with the conservation commission. It's not it's it's it's just it's just and and and the the performance standards just nominally are
going to be the same for uh you know the the other buffer zones like buffer zone to bordering vegetative wetlands, buffer zone to inland bank. There's there's there's nothing just you know right off the bat that's that's new that's being you know proposed uh for the buffer
zone. It's just it's just now going to be reviewed. Any activity in the buffer zone to the flood plane will be reviewed. um you know and and as time goes on I mean I I certainly already have some ideas of what should be looked
at in that kind of a filing um what sort of you know data the commission needs but you know over over time I think that will develop more um you know I I think you know most of the same exemptions will apply like we now have an exemption
for fences in the buffer zone I think that certainly will apply you know people people already mowing the buffer zone um of the flood plane that that will continue to be an exemption. You know, there's probably probably a lot of
the flood plane itself is is being mowed. So it'll just give the you know I I I I will I will mention that that that I think that that we do have an example of a recent project where I think this
would have provided some additional review and that was Hilddrth because there was there was some some work some grading for the road in the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering land subject to flooding. There also I think might have been some storm water um you know
management infrastructure in the buffer zone. At the end of the day it may not have made a change to the plans but it would have been given the commission the opportunity to do a little bit more review and you know analysis of impacts. >> Do other towns have this? Anybody else?
>> A lot of towns. Yeah, it's probably, you know, it's it's now the uh Mass Association of Conservation Commissioners that in their standard template that they have developed over the last 10 or 15 years, they they have a buffer zone for the flood plane. Now, >> yeah. >> Um >> what are the towns?
>> I mean, >> uh Lancaster, where I came from, had had that a buffer zone for the flood plane. >> What is it now? Uh there is there they they can go right up to the edge of the flood plane. >> Yeah, exactly. So there's no buffer
zone, right, >> for the flood plane, >> right? >> We got we have a buffer zone on bordering vegetated wetlands. >> If if I could jump in, John, the the reason the sub one of the reasons the subcommittee settled on this uh is the fact that the flood planes
are changing. The 100red-year flood plane is changing as it rains harder. And you can go down that rabbit hole of trying to redefine the flood plane. But uh Chris, I can't remember if you were one of somebody suggested, you know, other communities have addressed that rather than trying to recalculate what
the hell is a hundred-year flood because that's what we're supposed to pay attention to. That's a lot of work. I mean, the town spent $200,000 to look at the flood plane for what, three small watersheds, if you remember that discussion. So, we realize we're not going to re-examine the flood plane in
the whole town, but at the same time, we know that the water is, you know, what what what happens once every hundred years is happening more. So, we're supposed to protect against flooding. Um, I think we landed on this as a simple >> Yeah. I mean, I think it's >> simple way. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it was like we
looked at it as increasingly yearbyear flooding becomes more and more a problem for our town and many other towns in the Commonwealth, right? So, it's flooding is a problem. So, is there something that we can do that maybe helps mitigate the flooding? And so, what this would do
was it would just increase our kind of oversight. So, now you know we we have the the actual flood area zone. We have jurisdiction on that. So, anybody's going to do work there. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And that's federal. >> That's how the flood zones are
determined. Yes. By the way, >> yeah, that's how it's all determined is federal. >> Exactly. >> So, but handle it. But no, no, no. But the work if somebody was to come along and do propose some sort of work in our like a flood zone in our town, they have to come to us for a permit. So what
we're what we would be doing is we'd be expanding we'd be expanding our oversight or jurisdiction. So we'd go beyond where that that line was, we'd go out 100 feet. So somebody's going to put a building in or do something. Now if it was minimal like mowing lawn or doing stuff like that, that's all exempt. But
something was if there was a significant project coming in, who knows what? lots of homes or stuff like that. >> Right now, if somebody comes in, the flood planes on their property, we look at it. >> Yeah. >> But if this f if if this we prove this, if there's a flood plane across the
street, >> anything from 100 ft onto your land >> Yeah. >> becomes >> the the buffer buffer would come under our jurisdiction >> to look at it. >> We would have input on like what they're going to do. >> I don't think we need it. I I I I can give another potential example that um
is what I think of like right now um let's let's let's say the the flood plane comes um onto a property um whether whether it be commercial or residential that some somebody could put
like a 10-ft high retaining wall um and fill in back of it could go all the way up to right to the edge of the flood plane. you know, 10 foot high retaining wall and the commission would not have to approve that at all. That that that kind of a project and you know that may
be a little bit unusual but I think it's a good example that kind of a project may very well have an impact on the function of the flood plane you know um and it could have adverse impacts. I think that's something that is legitimate for the commission to look
at. And the other thing is we we spent a number of meetings looking at all of our regs and this is the only thing that we came up with that we said we think is worth right now. >> Well the only change in the bylaw >> for bylaw I should say for bylaw we we do have some other
>> this has to go before the >> go in front of town meeting >> and you know people might be asking the same questions at town meeting. >> I don't think they understand. >> They might not. >> They're not going to understand. Agree. >> I'll guarantee it. >> Yeah. >> They're not going to know what they're
voting on. >> Carl, did we run this through our town engineers? >> No. And the only thing is we've asked the town council to come up with the wording. >> Yeah. >> Which I don't know if we've got that wording yet.
>> I I I told No, I told them to go ahead and prepare it. >> But the uh No, the answer is no to the to the engineers. That's an interesting >> well well the reason reason I asked you remember the subcommittee some of the conversation John was hey DPW and concom
and to some extent planning board I guess share responsibility to address flood problems and we know we're having more flood problems and it's going to continue. So we started down this process by asking the question what's role
and obviously if there's a flood problem and there's a big study that tends to be DPW not us but what's our role and this is what I think why we landed on this to sort of dovetail with other efforts that the town is doing largely through DPW you know
fixing culverts and you know all the stuff they're doing >> so this is looking at it there's no What's a buffer zone project? Just like like well many of the projects that come into us for review all the time, they're like buffer zone projects. They're not
actually in the wetlands per se, right? They're not in the hitting the stream or the brook or the pond, but they're in a buffer zone. So, this would be we now have more these buffer zone projects that come in where somebody's putting a building in and you know, structures, road, whatever it is, something's going
on in the buffer zone. and they'd have to come into us and we would, you know, have a hearing on it, take input and, you know, approve or or deny. >> I I think it's all unnecessary in my opinion. >> Well, the thing is is we were think what we were thinking was that in that buffer
zone, activities and projects and work could be happening there that could adversely impact the flood zone itself. So, kind of being neighbor the neighboring area. So, we're trying to protect that so it doesn't, you know, hurt the flood zone itself. We're
regulating it as we sit here. I think it's all unnecessary. I don't think the town meetings is going to know what they're voting on. Number one. >> Yeah. >> All right. That's my opinion.
To your point, is that something that we could address in real time here and not have to go in front of town meeting for like on a case-byase basis without having to expand our scope out into that? >> It wouldn't work that way because the applicant would never even come before
us if they had no other reason to come before us other than being in the 100 foot flood zone. >> The 100 foot >> buffer. Yeah. You got so you got you got the the flood zone itself and then we would be adding
a buffer zone to that >> going out past wherever that 100red-year flood zone was. >> I think the the critical point if you know if we were trying to put this in a logical sequence um the 100red-year zones so basically
the forecast of rainfall between now and is 30% more rainfall by 2070 with a steady increase. So we know and and our regulation is to regulate a 100 foot flood zone, but that's based on the old historical data.
>> Regulate 100 year flood. >> Thank you. 100year rain flood zone. However, the point is um those hundredyear once every hundred year calculations already and I haven't seen
math but it's already something like once every 50 years and as time goes forward it's you know it's going to happen like more frequency. So, the hardcore approach to this, which nobody has the appetite for, I'll bet, um, I
don't, is to remap the town and and figure out where that 100red-year flood zone is, or change the wetland protection act that says you're supposed to protect the 100red-year flood zone. >> It's >> so that's that's the basis of the whole thing. >> It's done by the federal government,
>> but they look to us to enforce it. And >> no, but the the flood plane federal government, you're right. They define it. >> They define it. So, let's just stay with the federal government rules. >> That That's a good argument, but the federal government doesn't account
>> for the increased rainfall. So, so hang on. Hang on. We approve of a project that's going to be s a house, a building, whatever that's going to sit there for 50 years. We know depending on the elevations, that's the key. We know that in 5, 10, 15 years,
the town's going to be getting phone calls saying, "Hey, come spend some money and fix the flooding cuz you approved for this building, but it's in essentially the wrong place." That's the problem that we're trying to avoid. >> But doesn't that in turn create more
problems for us because we approved it? >> No. If if if we were to have this regulation, this this bylaw, it would give us the authority to review those projects and approve condition or deny based on
they're now in front of us. I think what this is going to do is is add it's not going to be a big number. It's going to be a small number, but it's the ones that are important of projects that will be in front of us that wouldn't have been in front of us, >> right? I mean, some of them will already be
there for a wetland reason or buffer zone or whatever, but in this case, they'll be like, "Oh, you're you're also doing the work inside the 100 foot buffer of the flood plane." And now we get to say, "No, you really shouldn't build that wall in that 100 foot because
that's just going to create problems for your neighbor." >> Right. Exactly. Instead of water going into the flood zone where it's supposed to go, it may not go there. >> Yeah. It may go onto the neighbor's that flood starting to erode or something. I >> mean, I'd like to get an answer to John
on his question about how many towns out there have this now. My impression was that like most of the towns have this that we're >> I'd like to know the towns, >> but I think we should know that and because it's a good question and if we go to town meeting that'd probably be a question >> question we get this that's what
>> my impression is not that it's that many >> really. I think we should find out. >> I did look at it once and I thought you know it's it's a few. It's more than a handful, but it's not like >> it's not a majority. >> But but I think MACC does recommend it. >> But they are recommending >> Well, they do recommend it for sure. >> Yeah, that's that's absolutely true
because it's been in that >> I also think John makes a good point that it's it's hard to explain. It's this is you know, it's hard to >> Well, it increases our kind of jurisdiction. I mean, it pushes our jurisdiction out another you know, >> our jurisdiction went out the window a
few meetings ago. All right. What I'm trying to say is I think this is overregulation and I I think it's unnecessary to bring this to a body of people who don't even
know what the we're talking about. That's my opinion and everybody can have their opinion. Same as New England Power. >> So let's do this. Let's let's see if we can come up with some idea of how many in the state have this you know if we don't get it to this meeting we can get it to the next ball time.
>> I mean honestly I I don't think it's like do or die that we have to do this immediately. >> We we kind of looked we did a you know we took the you know just backing up the committee like went out we looked at our bylaw. We looked at I think we looked at a couple of other bylaws and then we took a look at this Mass Association
Commission's standard bylaw that they recommend to everybody to have. >> Where were the deltas? Um, and then we kind of look what's different and then we looked at our rags and we sp, you know, we met a few times and this was like the one thing we thought that we might want to consider, but we can we can do more homework on it. I I think
I'd feel better if we all were kind of on the same page if possible going in front of town meeting. >> Yeah. >> And uh and I think it'd be nice to address your concerns, John. and and Chris Chris and John John to your point um Evan uh Balansky wrote he took a look
at the the idea and he wrote a nice email what a week or two ago I'm sure >> a couple days ago actually >> uh and he asked if we had a slide deck to explain this to town meeting which got me thinking about John's point >> you know and there's there's lots of
ways one could explain it but we need to figure out what makes sense so people can judge it if you think You have to look at it as people are going to look at is it's an overreach from us. >> Yep. >> Or, oh, that's a good idea because now
we have the opportunity. It's not hurting the applicant that comes in to us, >> but we're looking at the bigger picture, >> right? >> So, it's how it's all proposed, how how it's presented. >> For me, it was more like protecting the neighbors. When the neighbors come in on some of these projects,
>> very often our hands are tied. We we just can't do anything. And we hear a lot of concerns about flooding. >> And we hear >> certainly heard that on Hilddrth. No doubt about it. >> And we hear a lot of flood concerns about flooding outside of the hearings, right? >> You know, we we have a lot of people that come into the DPW.
>> I mean, I I I think it's it's the commission can truthfully say this is not going to impact your average, you know, homeowner. No. >> You know, in terms of what they want to do on their property. Um, I mean maybe if they want to put in like an ADU. Um,
on on on the other hand, I I just have been asked to sign off on a building permit application that's that's in the flood plane itself for an ADU. It's in riverfront area and it's in the buffer zone. >> Um, how'd you do? >> So, what's that? >> How'd you do?
>> Well, I I told you we need to hire somebody >> and delineate the the wetland resource areas. But but that's a good point because that's kind of what I was thinking when the subcommittee met. You know, Evans estimate was maximum potential ADUs are 3,000. He doesn't
think it'll be that much. >> But the point is I think we're going to see a lot of ADUs and I think a lot of people with lots like mine are going to want to shove one in and they're going to look at the existing FEMA maps which are old data and say, "Oh, it's not in the hundred-year flood. It's in the
500year flood." That's okay. But then it's going to be flooding every 20 years. >> Yeah. >> So that's the problem. >> All right. I got one question. >> So the ADU that just came in front of you. >> Does that bypass us?
>> Oh, no. No. They'll have to do a filing. >> They're going to have to come in. >> They got to do a filing. Yeah. >> They're going to have to do a filing. >> And it's And it's You said it's in the flood plane. >> It is >> in the 50 foot no build. You know, it's it's in the actual flood plane itself.
>> Well, it's in the wetland, you said, or in the buffer. >> Well, well, it's in the buffer zone. It's in the riverfront area. So, >> in a 200 foot riverfront, >> what's that? >> 200 foot riverfront. >> Yep. >> Which you can get a you can go 100 foot if you show a hardship and everything
else. It's all about ADUs and everything else. How does how does this affect undersized lots that were uh smaller lots and that didn't require being so stringent on? You know, we
sometimes people come with a something that was undecided. >> Yes. The some some of the setbacks don't apply for smaller lots like like the the um the no build setback um and and the no imperous setback. Um I I I I would
say just nominally the the same buffer zone um exemptions apply. Again, we we the commission could come up with differences, but but right now, you know, the the 25 foot no disturb would uh would apply. The 30- foot no
impervious and the 50 foot no build. ex except yeah where the exemptions come in like like the the the smaller size lots and you know structures that were built u before the enactment of the bylaw. Uh again I don't I don't I don't see it
really you know having having you know an impact on the average property owner other than you know the buffer zone restrictions that already apply. Well, the the impact is for the average property owner to slow down a little bit
and think about flooding. And we can certainly approve of stuff, but the idea is it's just a a caution light, you know, in the regulations. Be careful. >> I say we hold on it. I I want it to be a
more consistent like Chris said and um >> get the story clean and see what we I It's a good question about the u other other towns. >> There's a lot of questions with this. >> I think >> there's too many for I think >> going to add engineering costs, isn't it? To a applicant.
>> Yeah. What? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It would probably double their cost. >> Well, I think I think it depends on what they want to do. You know, again, if they if >> it depends on what they want to do if they want to mow some Yeah. grass or putting up a shed or something or
>> there's a cost, you know, there's be a cost just coming before us that they wouldn't normally have >> if they >> Yeah. there'd be like an average, >> you know, it's like anything. It's a But what's the benefit? If we could stop a project that was really going to have, you know, really mess up and cause a lot of flooding and ruin a neighborhood and
gave us something, you know, the the regulatory power to do it, that might be worth the, you know, the benefit of it. like like a a deck or a shed that's more than 50 feet from the um the the flood plane, the flood zone. They wouldn't have to come before us, you know, that's
that's the existing buffer zone exemptions. >> I I think this is overregulation. >> I wouldn't have my pool in my yard if this was the >> I'd still have my pool. >> I wouldn't >> I wouldn't. >> It's not an exemption. >> No, I'd still have it back.
>> All right, then. Let's Let's >> I I'll drop by Mark. I say we table it for now. We'll get a little more information. We get some more information. I think I think the other thing to look at would be to look I don't know how hard this would be, David, but to look at >> because you have to look at not just the
applications that have come before us that this would have been added to, but also the applications that didn't come before us that this would have been caught in this. You know, how many and I don't know if there's a way to see that like
>> that's more difficult. >> Yeah. In a given year, if let's say there's, you know, 300 applications to the building department and we get 70 of them, how many out of that? >> What did I just say? 230
>> would have been in front of us >> as well as the 70 that were. >> You know what I'm saying is >> because I can see somebody in in the town meetings saying what's going to be the the real impact is it is it you wouldn't have had anybody in the last year this would have impacted.
>> Well then why are we doing >> certainly in my mind I'm thinking of like you know two or three really notorious neighborhoods in town. >> Yeah. >> Which which I I think this this um might might have more filings associated with again I I again I think
the the average you know locations in town and no I don't think it's going to make any difference at all >> right you know the other thing not not to reinvent the wheel but we could consider proposing this not
as a blanket 100 ft instead say anything that's because the town has mapped a 500 foot well FEMA has mapped a I'm sorry 500year flood zone as well as the 100redyear we don't talk about the 500year map much but a bigger
brain could do the math that flood once every 500 years is probably now once every whatever 200 years which is going to be every 100 years and 30 years when these buildings are still there we could consider reconsider a bylaw that says
anything in that 500 foot flood zone I went through the town the other day and it actually isn't that much. >> You know, it's an elevation question. >> It's all elevation. >> Yeah. But the pivot of your flood plane, I I thought it would cover like another third of the town from what the flood
plane currently is, and it wasn't that much. I mean, it's your house and my house, but that's a different story. >> So, that's another way to to skin the cat that people would understand a little easier. >> Yeah. Yeah. Valley. Yeah. This might be a separate conversation, but on from our side of the table, and I use the word
restorative very loosely because we don't want to agitate anything, but have we looked at any restorative type of measures in terms of the wetlands to help mitigate the flooding in any way on our end. Obviously, we don't want to go stirring up everything, but obviously
the water has to go somewhere. Yep. >> If it could be held in the wetlands, and there's something that we could do about that to mitigate the flooding. >> Could take 495 out. Sure. >> Take my house out. >> That's right. >> Well, I don't think you were on the commission uh Ally uh at at the time,
but the DPW has commissioned studies of three of the major watersheds in in town uh areas where uh flooding has been a consistent problem. You know, they're notorious for flooding. and the the consultant that uh has looked at those
has come up with I think three options to uh try to address and mitigate the problems in all areas you know leading leading from very cheap and simple all the way up to the Cadillac solution. >> You know how long ago that was? >> Just a year and a half.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I don't I don't think the study ever be has become public yet. So I don't I don't know where that stands. the old Westford Road project that we just approved >> six months ago in the middle was right in the middle of the middle. So So it's in the last year. >> Yeah. And and and and that's another
example of where I mean they had to file anyway because they in the buffer zone, but but that would have also been in the buffer zone of the 100-year flood plane. I don't think it wouldn't have made a difference at all, right? >> You know, in terms of whether, you know, the commission approved that or not. >> All right. So um
>> so we'll table this. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Okay. So, we'll table this for now. We'll go do some more research and homework. I would ask the members of the commission of the subcommittee though. So, I sent out a thing with meeting minutes. Did you guys get a chance to look at those? Because
we should approve those and then we can I guess say the subcommittee is over unless we're going to keep doing some homework now. >> Well, um I I I think the commission should or or the the subcommittee should hopeo hold open the possibility of meeting in the future. I think
particularly to consider changes to the regulations. >> Um I I think if the commission is going to come back and make recommendations about regulation changes, I I think that needs to be discussed at a meeting of the subcommittee. >> Right. So then administratively though,
can we close on those minutes now? >> On the minutes. Yeah. >> If you guys are okay. >> Yeah, I looked at the minutes. It was fine. >> Okay. Then the three of us could vote and approve them and then we can get that closed off. Yeah, I move to approve those minutes. >> Okay. Motion from Chris.
>> What are you approving? >> This will be this the uh >> the meeting minutes from the November 4th subcommittee on bylaws and regulations, the November 4th meeting. >> So I need a second from Peter. >> Second.
>> Second from Peter. All in favor? I Okay. So, so we'll send those in, submit them, and get to the town clerk's office and get them posted, and then we'll figure out the next steps. >> So, that that was for a town meeting,
but didn't you have some ideas for regulation changes? >> We're not going to discuss that or no, >> there there's a couple other things in the minutes that we talked about. Maybe that's another good reason we voted to keep the thing open. Um, trees soak up
rain water before it makes a flood. Um, and there a couple other things in here we talked about. Um, for example, the meeting we had this week, uh, Carl with DPW wasn't so much about flooding, but
it was about how the town deals with increased rainfall. So, there's a couple of other open-ended things that we thought probably could be addressed in our regulations. Um the tree thing is difficult because
nobody wants to put limits on whether private land owners can cut trees which is really >> or requirements for restoring them when they do. >> Yeah. So that that we're kind of struggling with that question along with our tree
warden who's Christine Clancy. But but we talked about things like no new lawns within 50 feet right the wetlands you know as opposed to the 25 ft talking about new lawns now >> um have have ch changing the the fence exemption say um but you can't take down
any trees you know for a new fence otherwise the exemption applies um that sort of thing couple of other examples as well. think >> we we always strongly recommend that any trees that are cut down are put back
>> placed. Yeah. >> You don't you don't think we can >> well town I mean we we talked a little bit about you know in in lie of a regulation requiring a one for one replanting of trees. Uh what about a regulation requiring that they make a
donation to a a town replanting fund? Town council said, "No, that's not legal." How however um may maybe it could be voluntary. Um that someone said, "Well, you know, make make a contribution to the the commission's land maintenance fund, something like
that." That that might be legal. Haven't gotten a final answer on that one yet. Didn't Didn't a couple towns, I know I'm getting off the subject, but a couple towns like Lexington have a tree warden that wouldn't let you cut a tree down unless you went through a >> Yeah, that that was a problem with our
town council's recommendation. Not that I have any reason to doubt what he said to us or she said to us, but other towns have done this. You want to cut down a tree, kick in 500 bucks to the tree? >> I I don't want I just replace it, >> but I think it's only in the town right public right ofway. I don't think that applies to private limited to the
rightway, >> I believe. So, yeah, >> it isn't something we we can >> uh maybe >> I think you better check their tree regulation. >> Yeah. >> Well, yeah, the public right away is a different conversation. Nobody wants to tell people what to do with their land.
>> Can we anything in the 100 foot buffer require if a tree to come down, we can we can require them replace it? Um yes you you you can but it's not always feasible. So so you really need
to have a disclaimer in there. Um you know a qualifying statement that says unless waved by the commission. You know you can say something like should be the policy of the commission to require one to one replanting of all trees taken down uh unless waved by the commission because it might not always be possible
to to do that. I mean, again, if you're dealing on a small lot, you know, uh there may not there just may not be a place to, you know, replant trees. >> We had that other situation up in North Chford quite a few years ago, three,
four years ago, that was kind of a physical um hardship situation. >> Yeah. >> That was a little different. So, you never know what what comes along. >> Yeah. I think I and I I think some of that would would would be um to to say
you can't do new lawns closer than 50 ft. I think that would you know satisfy some of that. >> Okay. Um so we'll get some more discussion going on that. >> Yeah. >> Well, so so I'll I'll I'll see what I
can find out about other towns. >> Other towns. Yeah. >> That that is I know one already because I worked there. >> Right. Okay. Land management, conservation, site updates. Peter, Thanksgiving. I know we had >> uh Well, I told the snowmobile story.
That was interesting. >> Why don't you just say it on the record, though? That was before the meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. So, there a couple quick things at Thanksgiving. They're they're minor. Um there were reports. Uh apparently, uh somebody at Great Brook
Park called >> DCR. Yeah. >> Yeah. They called David saying, "Hey, there's snowmobiles on the big 3,000 acre parcel and we tracked them to coming from Jonesford. Do you know anything about it?" So, our land steward and and allies
>> and neighbors >> realized it was a neighbor and they they actually went over and chatted uh and Carl, you and David looked up our rags and answer the question, is it allowed snowmobiles or not? So, that's happening. And then you all may have seen the
>> and and the the neighbor who was the snowmoiler agreed like won't do that again. So >> yeah, >> as far as we know, understood. Message received is what we heard. >> Um but the other interesting thing, you may have seen the video of a fisher
animal uh exploring the new nesting box that was put up. And Jeff has sent around. I'll dig it out if you didn't see it, but pretty nice video of a >> female >> creature. I don't know if he was in it or not. >> She pretty sure he said it was a sheep
and looking at a nest. Yeah, it's pretty cool. >> Wow. >> So that's probably motivating for Jeff who's volunteered for a similar project to do nesting boxes for wood ducks. >> So So the Fisher box is up now. >> One of two is up. The weather has held
us. >> I thought I figured you I didn't realize you didn't know that. Yeah, one of two is up. The one on the Great Brook side of Thanksgiving. >> The other one that's on the >> the Janet Road entrance side is not it's it's in >> it's near the tree is what Jeff said,
but it's not up. We just haven't got a crew over there to do it. So >> Jeff's going to make um >> I think he said seven of those wood duck boxes. >> Well, he and I started with three and then it turned into four. He's going to
do four right there at Thanksgiving. And because he got the wood from Warren Pole because we had this old wood that had been stored in the barn that we were getting ready to throw out, we said, "This is kind of nice wood." So, we kept it there for the last, you know, year or two. >> Oh. >> And Jeff's got it and he's going to turn
that into these wood duck boxes. And because he's got enough, he's going to do one. We'll put one up at Warren Pole. We'll put one up. I think we could put one up at the Cranberry Bog. And we could put one up at Crooked Spring. >> Good. >> Because Crooked Spring has, you know, has a nice wet brook area. I think we
could put a wood duck thing. Warren Pol, I remember seeing wood ducks in the back um at one point. So >> when you mean when the beaver pond was there? >> Yeah. Yep. But if we put it near the brook, I think was it hurt? >> Yeah. >> What does it hurt? >> In in the brook, they need to drop into water.
>> Yep. So, >> okay. Thank you. Uh Ally, have you been over to Lime Quarry? >> A lot of snow. >> Yeah. >> Um not much going on, I'm aware. >> Okay. >> Uh Crooked Spring. I got out there about
10 day 10 days ago before the snow came down. So at that point, the trails were actually great. The the ice had cleared out and so you could really walk around most of the trails without, you know, slipping and breaking your breaking something. So it was looking nice out there.
>> Yeah. the and the pond had iced over. Actually, the pond had iced over fairly well. >> Yep. >> Um but now with the snow, >> I think somebody had look I was there at one point. It looked like somebody had shoveled it. >> I think so. It looked like it. So maybe they maybe um >> probably do it again. >> Maybe outdoor skating has returned.
>> Yeah, we'll see >> there. But uh you know, other than that, I mean, actually, it's pretty good. It's going to be I might try my cross country skis out there with all the snow now and try some of the trails out there. It looks looking good. about you, Mark. Anything yet? >> No, nothing. I went by there yesterday
morning. It was already uh plowed out. >> Yeah, Red. It's amazing right there. >> They have the DPW's done a great job taking care of our parking lots. Yeah. >> Nothing going on here. There was no tracks or anything from skiers or nothing, but >> Okay. >> I didn't see any. >> Anything, Bill?
>> Um yeah. Oh. Uh, last week we went before CPC to get funding for, uh, guardrail and fencing around the vernal pool buffer zone. And we got approved for for coolers. >> And we got approved for 13,900
more or less. >> How much? >> 15,940. >> Oh, nice. >> Yeah. Excellent. >> Subject to verification that that is the proper amount. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's like the worst case, I pretty sure. Yeah. >> Right. So, that one got approved. So, we're happy about that. And uh
>> and they're going to start tomorrow, right? No. >> Yeah. Uh I've seen people up at uh believe it or not uh cross country skiing up at Kulus. >> So, nice see more people all the time up
there using the trails. So, I mean, not today, but >> sledding. >> There's been sledding. Yeah, >> there has been. Yeah. >> Yeah. Must have been >> I've seen sledding at at Cranberry uh Cranberry Crooked Spring. That that's got the deep hill. >> That's got that great hit. My kids would always sled that when
>> that's a >> that's that's a really like kamicazi. >> It's like a vertical cliff. >> I've seen sledding at Warren Pole, too. Just a couple weeks ago, there was some kids sledding at Warren Pole. So, we have a few places. >> Yeah. The coolest is uh been busy.
>> Yep. >> That's about it. >> That's it at Oakill and Deepbook, I think, too, right? Yeah. >> Uh yeah, nothing new on that. >> John, anything at WrestleMill? Yeah, they built a snowman in the middle of the pond. >> A big snowman out in the middle of the pond. >> Isn't that a little risky?
>> No, the pond's froze. >> Oh, it's thick enough. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Really? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Would you drive out there, John? >> Would I drive out there? >> I wouldn't walk out. >> They've been doing ice ice fishing out of Freeman Lake. I I know. I've seen
them out doing the ice fishing out of Freeman Lake. >> What? >> Well, yeah. Well, wonder said she her family's been out there and she saw the bald eagle and >> the bald eagle. >> No fun. They built a nice snowman out there. And >> so I'll say that the cranberry bog I
haven't been out there in a while. I u couple of weeks. Um it's I'm sure it's it gets a lot of traffic even in the snow. I'm sure it's getting some some visitors. I have not been to Wright in a couple of weeks. Also, uh we were at
Warren Pole. What was that? Two weeks ago we were there uh Saturday the 17th um week and a half ago. We are It was just the crew that's doing this interpretive signage uh project and we did a walk around. Had some good discussions and good ideas and it was
good. It was a good Saturday walk. We were there for good hour, two hours, something like that. Yeah, it was good. So, moving along. >> I want to talk to those guys when they're done over there so that we can kind of do the same thing at Coulis. Yeah. Yeah. >> Pardon me.
>> The invasive crew. >> No, this is the sign interpretive signage. Yeah, we we should have a >> you know, I could see doing a couple signs at Cranberry Bog. You know, just I know Mark doesn't like a lot of signs, but these are like, you know, informative and, you know, nice looking, discreet.
>> Put put them in the ground like, you know, >> all right then. >> On the kiosk, >> not on the No, this would be like >> in the glass in the kiosk. This these would be signs that you'd have at certain places like to describe hey this is >> uh you know this vernal pool
>> this vernal pool and this is why a vernal pool is interesting and important or something you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That kind of thing. >> Will a willow tree. Show out the willow tree >> with a beaver. >> David, anything on agents report? >> Um
>> um I was just going to say uh making progress on the commission's web page uh and improvements to that. got the uh the Thanksgiving uh forest web page has been published. Um Jeff Bowton really likes it and says it's a really good job. So
check that out when you have a chance. I think it's going to become the model for all of the reservation web pages. Um so I think maybe maybe the one that I'll start working on next is Warren Pole. >> Yep. >> So uh because we already have a lot of
information on that. Um, and then and then there's there's also now a um a link to reservation news uh and announcements uh reservation news and updates. Um so um that's where you know
things things like Fisher boxes and and uh like like the fence at coolest be able to put you know uh reports there and like videos and photos as well. Um, so I, so I think that uh I think that's going along well. I mean, it's always a
little slower than you like it, but have have made some good progress recently on that. Um, so check it out when you have a chance. >> Um, then just the only other thing I wanted to report is that we finally got the superseding order of conditions on Freeman Lake.
>> Uh, so de D essentially uh just reissued the commission's order of conditions. They did they did uh include one additional which was to hire an environmental the town has to hire an environmental monitor to uh o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o over
oversee uh and and monitor the actual application of the um the herbicides. So we'll we'll wait and see if the appellants now um try to go to the next level of appeal within D. It's called an
adjudicatory hearing. So, um, they they have, let me see, the the superseding order was issued on January 20th. They have 10 business days to appeal. So, they're they're going to have to appeal um, I think by Monday, Monday or Tuesday
of next week if if they decide to go to the next level. We'll see. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah, go ahead. Was there anything gained by the harvesting of the uh
vegetation out there? >> Uh well um I I guess not because DBW is not going to do the echo harvesting again. Um that that that was for the um wasn't wasn't wasn't the um
uh the water chestnut. What >> mil? Yeah, I guess it was the mil fo mil foil. So they they felt they got nothing out of that that that it just it just it just fragmented um it further and uh of
course the the proponents of the echoh harvesting completely disagree, but you know DVW's made the decision they're not going to do the echo harvesting again. So it's it's all herbiciding from here on in. >> When I I learned a little bit about gardening. when you garden and you pull
the weeds out, all you're doing is making easier for new weeds to come in. And that's pretty much what it's doing, wasn't it? >> I that that seemed to be the consensus. Yeah. >> Well, it was some of some of the weeds I think when you the the plants when they
pulled them, they fragment and the fragments can replant. >> Yeah, that's that's the big difference in your garden. >> Yeah. Some things in a in >> mil the mil foil, the different plants act different. the mil foil, you know, the long stringy things. >> Yeah. No, >> apparently little chunks just root and
if they get caught up in the water and migrate and my understanding is the echo harvester had some sort of curtain thingy arrangement to try to prevent that. But >> it it just >> nobody's measuring what's happening. So,
>> you know, apparently the the opinion was that it was counterproductive really. >> Okay. >> All right. So we uh we don't have the meeting minutes from January 13th, I don't think. So not yet. Okay. So we can't approve those.
>> So I'll take a motion to close the hearing. >> I move to a journ >> to close the meeting. >> Second >> motion from Chris, second from Peter. All in favor? I >> I. Thanks.