All right. Good evening. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight is Tuesday, November 25th at 7 o'clock, 2025. I call this meeting of the Chsford Street 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 with a couple of minor changes. Uh this meeting is both in person and through the zoom. In the case of Zoom not working properly, we will continue the meeting in person only. This meeting is being broadcast and recorded by
Chsford Teledia and will be available on their website and on YouTube and we have a quorum and um do we have uh let's see so agenda notes and adjustments. Um so let me just say up front that we have eight items on our regulatory hearing
agenda. This is the most I've seen in quite a while. Um, so I ask my fellow members and people in the audience to try to keep things on track. Um, take my apologies now if I speak up and say let's move things along. Um, I'm not
trying to cut anybody off, but um, stay on track and keep things pertinent and concise. Um, because we don't really want to be here all night, but um, we still want to have a quality hearing for everyone and uh, do a good job. Um, we are going to do one move in the agenda.
We're going to slide the NOI for the progeneration solar field from the seventh slot to the third slot in the hearing uh list. And um, just so everyone knows, if they are here for the Chelmsford Mall, um, that uh, applicant
is withdrawing their NOI. We will still have a vote to close the hearing, I think. Is that the right proper thing, David? So, we'll do that at the right time. But if you're here for that hearing, there won't be any discussion. So, um, open session. We are a commission for the town. If there's anyone here
that has any comments or complaints or issues relative to conservation commission properties or anything in our in our daily wick and you'd like to speak up, come on up. You have a chance um if it's not on the agenda.
Okay. And first up is uh our uh liaison from the planning board. Hello Chris. Good evening. >> Good evening for the record. Crystal Valley, chair of the planning board. Um last meeting we had was November 12th um quite a while ago now. Uh we opened our
two fire station public hearings. We closed out the 191 195 Riverneck Road with a denial of the um special permit for the uh outdoor contractor yard. Um, we heard 133 Princeton Street, um,
major site plan review and the 152 Steedman um, solar farm. Uh, we closed out 10 Independence Drive uh, hearing as well. Next meeting um, is December 10th. Uh, so in a couple weeks, we will likely
close out and vote on the two fire station projects as well as Steman Street. Um hopefully we're close to closing out the 133 Princeton project. Uh and we are going to start discussing our next set of zoning articles for the
Springtown meeting. Uh the uh the select board is going to sign the warrant uh in midFebruary. Um so we'll have essentially three meetings uh for zoning articles uh for Springtown meeting. So, we're going to discussing which ones we
want to bring forward this round. That's it. >> Okay. Any questions? >> Thank you. Appreciate Chris. Appreciate the update. >> Okay. First up, we have a notice of intent. Town of Chford, 260 Old Westford
Road. Um Sarah Shackman and Greenman Peterson are here to represent the applicant. And we have a notice of intent. Please. Uh Mr. Kahan. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, the legal notice pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,
Master and Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40, and the Chsford Wetlands bylaw, Chapter 187, Chson Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here at room 204, Chstown offices. And uh on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025,
7 p.m. to consider the notice of intent filed by the property owner town of Chelmssford for proposed work 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 260 Old Westford Road further identified as assessor's map 58/block 276/ot1.
The project entails demolition of the existing fire station, followed by the construction of a new 8,48 square foot gross floor area fire station with associated parking and storm water management infrastructure, installation of utilities, grading and landscaping,
Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Chris. Good evening. Uh, welcome. >> Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Well, hope everybody's doing well. For the record, Gary Ryan, fire chief. Um, thankful to be here. Um, I know we're talking about
engine three tonight. Um, but just I just want to say my thanks to the finance committee, select board, town of Johnson voters for their strong support of both engines three and five. Um, Chris was up here earlier talking about us going through the planning board.
We've also gone through zoning board of appeals. Um, and quite frankly, we've done very well based on the strong support we've gotten from our residents and we are truly thankful for that. So, I think the design team, they're here. They've done a good job. Um, really
looking at our fire safety needs and trying to come up with the design that adequately addresses those needs. So, we are um thankful to be here, share those plans with you, and try to answer any questions you may have. So, thank you and happy holidays everybody. >> Thank you, Chief.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is David Jordan, engineer and land surveyor with Greenland Peterson. And here tonight to uh present this project. Uh also with me here this evening is Sher Shackman. She just passed out some
plans to you. Um these are the plans that were submitted originally. Um, however, we've um kind of highlighted the wetland and buffer zones on these plans to make it a little bit easier to see because on the black and white
versions gets a little confusing. Um, >> we appreciate that. >> So, uh, as the chief said, we're here tonight to talk about station 3, 260 Old Westford Road. Uh the existing fire station built in 1970
uh is slated to be torn down. Um the uh parking associated with it, the pavement associated with it were removed and a new 8,400 foot station constructed uh in more or less the same general area. Um I
want to look at I want to focus on the existing conditions first just to uh have the commission understand uh what's what's going on out there. So again on the plan I handed out on and the larger plan here we have shown your um uh 25
foot no disturbance your 30foot uh no impervious sorry um to interrupt. So is is that in the plan set that was submitted that V sheet V 100? >> Yes that would >> find it. Um, so
>> that would be the third sheet in the plan set that was submitted with a notice of intent. >> The third sheet. Okay. >> Yeah, that looks >> okay. There it is. Sorry. Sorry I missed that. >> Not a problem.
>> All right. So, as I was saying, the 30 foot, no impervious, the 50 foot building setback and of course the 100 foot buffer zone. Um, as you can see, the existing fire station is fully within essentially fully within the 100 foot buffer zone. Um, probably just by
chance. It does sit uh just outside the 50- foot building setback. Um, however, you can see that the pavement that's out there today uh is well within both the 30 and 25 foot setbacks. And in fact down near Old Westford Road, uh the edge
of pavement is probably within 10 feet of the the edge of wetlands out there. Um so our office, we did have a uh the wetland scientists from our office flag the wetlands um up by Old Westford Road. Uh those are
wetlands associated uh associated with the outfall from the pond, the outflow from the pond which sits back a little bit further. So, back in this area here, uh this is wetland edge associated with the the large pond uh that's on the
property here. Um also, uh out there currently there is a uh a garage building at the back of the site. Uh this I believe is used by the recreation department. Um and >> emergency management.
>> Emergency management. um that structure will remain as you'll see on the next on the next plan here. Uh so again the intent is to remove the building, remove all the pavement and reconstruct. And then now flipping pages here to the
other sheet we passed out. So we have a the same buffer zones are highlighted, same edge of wetlands. Um I I failed to point out that the tree line existing tree line which is not changing
is also highlighted here. Um so between even the existing pavement uh and the um wetlands there is an area that's grasses before you get into the uh the wooded area that's to remain out there. So on
the second plan so this is a a color up of a grading and drainage plan. The area highlighted in yellow, that's all existing pavement that will be removed with this project. Uh so we're pulling back the edge of pavement significantly
uh away from the wetland uh on the order of about uh 25 ft or so. Um the proposed building again 8,400 square foot new fire station. Uh we are well outside the 50-foot building setback.
Um the pavement with one minor exception is now going to be outside your 30-foot imperous setback. The only exception is a slight uh intrusion into it right at this
location here where we're probably about 28 feet from the wetland at its closest point. Um but however again that's where we've taken the edge of pavement which right now is 10 feet from the uh wetland. It's now going to be about 28 feet or more
from that from that wetland edge. Um so in this area where this pavement is being removed uh we have a uh a storm water uh essentially a rain garden or a bio retention basin proposed in that
area. So right now there are no storm water controls out there whatsoever. All of the storm water runoff sheet flows either into the wetland um or out towards Old Westford Road or towards the pond. Uh we will be providing a new storm water management system that
includes as I just mentioned uh this bio retention basin along the side of the driveway here that's picking up the majority of the runoff from the from the pavement the driveway uh and some of the front parking area. Uh there is also an
underground uh pipe storage system behind the building. Uh this is picking up the runoff from the roof drains of the new building and a small area of pavement between uh the proposed new building and the uh garage that again is
to is remaining out here. Um that's providing detention uh with an outlet uh towards the pond for overflow. And finally, another a third final smaller system out front that's collecting some of the runoff from these driveways
detaining it before it then goes out towards the drainage system in Old Westford Road um where it'll connect to an existing storm drain system. So in as as far as uh your storm water the storm water management standards, we are
reducing peak flows for all storms. Um as you may have seen or heard in the report or or other other sources uh there was some uh soil testing done out here and there was detection of PAS
levels uh that exceed reportable concentrations meaning um once uh those levels are found there's an obligation to report those findings to dees uh D that has been done uh we have an environmental firm on board that's doing
additional testing and they're going to determine uh you know what further work needs to be done or not done depending on the outcome of those investigations because of the uncertainty of the uh of that particular item. We are not
proposing to infiltrate out here. All of the storm water will be treated uh will be detained and controlled. uh but we're not we're not doing it through infiltration just to again uh be
conservative in our approach if in fact the PAS levels uh do cause con you know additional concerns. Um so again despite not having uh the the um infiltration again we are providing treatment through
this bio retention system we have uh water quality units uh in front of the underground systems. Um so we are providing protection and meeting storm water standards. Uh this is a mix of redevelopment and new development. Um
but again I think in our report uh that was included with a notice of intent we've demonstrated that we do meet the uh the storm water management standards. Uh the other thing that is happening along with this redevelop the redevelopment of this site is that there
now will be a storm water management plan operation and maintenance plan in place moving forward. Uh again something that is not present out there today. Uh so that combined with the uh removment
of significant areas of pavement within your buffer zones um providing storm water management where none is today operation and maintenance plan. There's been significant improvements over what's happening out there today. Um I know you have a long agenda uh Mr.
Chairman. So I'm going to conclude my presentation and be happy to answer any questions you know you and the commission may have. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Nice job. U David, do you want to comment for us? You've been out there and looked at the site. Um, see what you're >> um So, um, so would you say there's a
there's going to be a net decrease in impervious service? >> There is not a net decrease. There's actually a slight increase of about 7,000 square feet. >> Okay. >> But there is a decrease in peak rates of runoff for all storms. >> But it but it does it does meet the
current storm water standards. In any case, >> it does. So, um, uh, next question is, so are there any trees that are proposed to be taken down? >> No. >> Don't think so, but just just wanted to, uh, verify that. Uh, then the only other
question I have is so, who's going to be responsible for doing the maintenance on the the storm water BMPs? Is that gonna be the town or is >> it's going to have to be the town, I'm sure, through the public works department or >> Yeah.
>> Okay, that's all I have. I think it' be a standard order of conditions. >> Okay, Peter, start us off. >> Um, there's a lot of good things in your design, so congrats to you and others that I know contributed. Nice landscape
plan. Thank you. There's a minor detail on the landscape plan that I even hesitate to mention, but at one point it says you'll put uh barriers around the trees, I don't know, 8t, 10 ft away at the drip line. >> And another place it says we're going to try to minimize construction damage. So
those sound, you know, just take a look at that because there actually are some trees at Robert's Field that we believe are in trouble because previous construction activity went over the roots. And turns out trees are really sensitive. So just
a minor point. Um and one quick question. I assume you're working with health department on the PAS thing and the planning boards who issues the aquaer protection permit. >> Yes, we're actually appearing before the
board of health next Tuesday uh because of the aquifer protection groundwater protection zone issue. Um and as you heard at the beginning of the meeting, uh we're currently before the planning board going back on the 10th.
>> Um we did not go too far astray here, but we did get a number of comments out of the planning board process from the v various departments. They were all minor. We're actually submitting to back to planning tomorrow, revised plans, but it really consists of additional notes,
ch some minor notations to the plans, uh some tweaks to the details, no design changes. Um, and as you heard, we're hopeful to get, uh, planning board, you know, conditional approval on the 10th of December. >> Thank you. Okay, ally.
>> Um, do you know if this is going to be, it's probably more a question for the chief, but a drive around so the truck would come around and pull through or are they backing in or what's the deal with that? >> So, the original plan, that's a very good question. The um when we the
original design I think may have shared with some was to keep like engine two, keep the original apparatus bay and then add a new building. Um early on in the process, the design team did not think that was a good idea. Uh they looked at the apparatus bay, serious concerns
about the um structure itself. So uh as a result, the building got a little bigger. As a result of that, it what we call a pinch point. It makes it a little difficult for the trucks. Not that the truck can't do it, but it's not a clean what we call turnum radius.
>> So the trucks for the most part will be backing in off of Old Westford Road. But do we have the ability to in a pench to get around the back? Yes. >> Good. >> It'll just take us a few turns and also depending who's driving. So, >> thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um, and then my other question was it
looks like on the plans the roof drain is running back to that back piping you had talked about. Is that accurate? >> That is correct. >> Yep. Okay. All right. Um, no, I like it. I think it's kind of overdue and you know, the fire department deserves some nice new stuff.
All right, Chris. From an environmental perspective, I think this plan looks good. I think we're making some favorable changes as far as minimizing potential impacts on the wetlands and the pond, and I think I like the improvements with storm water management as well, too. So, I see the upside potential from an environmental
perspective. So, based on what I've seen so far, I certainly be in favor of this project. >> Thank you, Chris. Mr. Gibbs. Uh ju just one quick thing. Is there floor drains inside the new structure? >> There will be. Yes. And those will go to an oil water separator.
>> Is there containment there? >> Yes. >> Okay. I didn't see it on the plan. Thanks. >> So, on the utility plan, um I don't have it on the board on the board here, but the utility plan sheet out the back side of the building, uh the floor drains connect to an oil water separator here
that contains the, you know, the sediment and the oils before it then connects to the sanitary sewer system. >> And that's part of the maintenance plan. >> That will be. Yes. >> Okay. That's all. >> Uh I think it's a great plan. Great plan. Um,
>> are you ask for any waiverss? Do you need a waiver from us for anything? >> We do not. >> No. Um, >> well, they're just the the minor one of the the 30 foot. Uh, >> service. >> Technically, that's 30 foot, but >> yeah, >> trivial. >> Okay. I mean, it's not a problem to me.
No, >> but I'm just curious. Um, as far as the PEF, how many pods per trillion did you find, Dave? >> You're getting way out of my league here. >> Does the chief know? Just curious. I'm just curious. I mean, I have a document from the
Konico engineers. I'll be happy to share it. It's got a lot of data. So, I'm not sure exactly what number uh they have the analytical results, but if I can approach, I will share this. Maybe you can. >> Christine might know. >> Does Christine know? I can
>> you just see >> so it looks like that this is I guess the only thing it says cm there were two different detections. >> Yeah. So there was we took two different detections. One was third just under 35
parts per trillion. Another one was 46 parts per trillion >> and the reportable right now is above 20 parts per trillion. >> Right. Yeah. So, >> so I mean >> it's not crazy. It's on 100 or >> and as you know the thresholds are changing because years ago it was it was
closer to 70. So >> okay. >> So um I don't know if you want this information at all or >> No, I just curious. It's fine. I'm fine. The plan is great. I just had another question on the on the uh the fire that
you use on the if you're fighting a uh fire. Is the POS in that stuff still or do you use stuff that doesn't incl um many years ago actually under the previous chief we got rid of it. The state had a turnback program took
advantage of that. So you turned in the legacy foam um we got a greener foam but even that we got rid of many years ago when we built the fire headquarters. So, um, presently no foam. >> Okay. Cuz I was just curious if there was how you treat that on on the site as
far as when when you wash all the hoses. But you that's not even an issue anymore, >> right? So, if if we have foam, it's more a mutual aid application through Westford and others that we would call if we needed. So, >> so it's not an issue as far as containing the water that >> No. >> Okay. So, that was my only question, but
no, I think it's a great plan. I'm glad you guys uh are doing this and you need it. >> Thank you. The vehicles are washed inside the building, right? >> Is that >> the vehicles are washed inside the building? >> Vehicles washed inside and outside. >> Inside. >> So if you go by in the station sometime,
they're washed outside because if you got a ladder truck that has to be washed outside. So you'll see the them washed inside and also outside. It's both. >> I'm good. Thank you, John. >> Yeah, I think it's a great plan. Uh,
do we have enough room for snow storage and stuff? I mean, do we have a plan for snow? >> Yeah, on the on the site plan, which in the full plan set is the fifth sheet. >> Fifth sheet,
>> I believe we've designated areas for snow storage. Um, yeah, I do see some. Obviously, we're not putting it in the bio retention area. It's >> right. That's what I was looking at. >> It's really going out back here where we
can get it to the sides over here. Um it's I mean, it's somewhat limited, but there is there is space. >> There is space. >> Yeah. >> Okay. No, I think it's a great plan. Welld deserved. >> Can you show that in the plan? Snow storage. >> Yeah. On again on sheet C200, it's the
fifth sheet 200 plan set. Um, we have, if you look at that sheet back here, we say snow storage. >> I didn't catch it. >> We say snow storage here. >> Yeah. >> Up in here. >> Okay. >> I'll set on. >> Yeah. >> All right. All right. Good. Um,
>> I didn't catch that. >> My only question is, is the drilling that's going on over at Robert's Field related to this project? >> Uh, yes. That's um >> I'm just curious because >> Yeah, they're going to be installing geothermal wells uh for the heating and
cooling of this building. >> Okay. >> Um so those those are test wells that are being drilled right now. >> Okay. All right. I saw the equipment there and I was kind of like, what's going on here? >> So the geothermal field will be in in Robert's field. When they're done and installed, you won't see anything at the surface. There's nothing at the surface.
Everything's underground. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Uh any further questions? Any followup? Uh, okay. This is a public hearing. We can hear any questions or comments from the public. If anybody wants to step up to
the microphone, I'm not seeing any movement. So, um, if we don't have any more questions, if we're satisfied, I think we can take a motion. >> You mean there's nothing open, right, David? >> No. So, I move then to close the hearing.
>> Second, sir. Motion from Chris, second from Bill. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, we approve the >> So, I make I make a motion then for a waiver of the 30-foot setback. I understood that that was an issue. So, I make a motion to wave that requirement. >> Okay. Motion from Chris.
>> Second. >> Second from Bill. All in favor? >> I didn't speak. >> I Okay, that motion passed. Now I make a motion that we issue our standard order of conditions to approve the project from a conservation perspective. >> Any special conditions beyond the
waiver? >> No, I don't think so. >> Think so. >> Okay. >> Motion from Chris. Second. >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I >> I the approves. So, we're all good. Uh
David, you'll have the order conditions in a few days. You can the applicant can connect with David to get that. and um I think it looks like a great project and looking forward to see it move forward. >> Well, thank you very much and everybody have a h happy Thanksgiving. >> Yeah, you too. Thank you. Thank you >> everybody. I appreciate your support.
Thank you. It means a lot to us. It means a lot to my members. Happy Thanksgiving. >> It's a nice project. It's good for the town. >> Okay, we'll keep things moving here. Next up is a request for determination of applicability for the town of Chsford
at 87 Main Street. And we have Courtney Thompson here to represent the town. And I think she's on the Zoom. >> She is. >> Yeah. >> Good evening, Courtney. >> Oh, we have a legal notice. >> We Yeah, that's right. We have a legal notice. Uh, go ahead, Chris.
>> Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Master Laws Chapter 131, section 40 and the Chsford Wetlands bylaw Chapter 187, the Chs of Conservation will conduct a public hearing here in room 204 at the Chson Town offices on
Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 to consider the request for determination applicability filed by the town of Chson on behalf of property owner Ailda Hyroari for proposed work in Intermittent Stream Bank at 87 Main. Main Street, further identified as
assesses map 23/block 92 slash lot 15. The project entails removal and disposal of accumulated non-native sediment/material within CU-14
at the 48 in concrete cover running beneath Main Street in approximately 30 linear feet of intermittent stream segment at 87 Main Street to improve and restore the flow channel of the stream to near original conditions. Mr. Chair,
>> thank you. Thank you, Chris. Appreciate it. Uh, okay. Courtney, you want to just quick uh your presentation of the project? >> Yes, definitely. Um, I'm Courtney Thompson, the storm water engineer for the town of Chumsford. I'm sorry, my camera is not cooperating, but this RDA
is for routine covert and stream maintenance near 87 and 90 Main Street. The intermittent stream actually runs towards 90 Main Street. I filed that. Um, I flipped it around on my filing initially, but I did send David an
updated one earlier this week. Um, but work is being done on both sides of the culvert. The work's going to consist of utilizing our vector truck to remove non-native accumulated sediment material from beneath the culvert and along approximately 30 linear feet of
intermittent stream in order to return the the flow channel to near original conditions. The vector truck will remain on the road for the entirety of the project and we intend to complete the work in dry conditions. So, it's pretty standard um work that we're doing. We're
just trying to remove there's three outfalls that discharge there. So, we're just trying to get rid of some of that silt and other non-native material that's been deposited there over the years. And I'm happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, David. Do you have a
comment? Did you Did you get out there? Uh yes. Yes, I did do a site visit with Courtney. Um so, uh Courtney, there was just one question I uh I forgot to ask you. So, does the town hold a drain easement here?
>> No. So, if we had an easement, I think that then it would truly fall under routine uh routine work and we could just, you know, we wouldn't really even need an RDA. We could just work with you to get the work done. Um there's not technically an easement, but there is
three outfalls that discharge to this area and it's just very clearly um mostly just accumulated silt from the road that's kind of bogged down >> y >> bogged down the area. >> So uh it's it's a relatively small amount of silt. I think it's it's really
too small to require a notice of intent filing. I think a negative determination just with a condition to do it in dry dry conditions which Courtney is proposing they're going to do anyway. I I think that's fine. >> Okay, Peter.
>> No comments. >> Okay, >> no. Thank you, >> Chris. >> That's good. >> I'm good. I'm good. >> You're clean. It looks good. I'm gonna take a motion to close the uh public hearing. Sorry. Public hearing. So
public hearing have any comment from the public? >> Okay, >> nobody moving. >> Move to close the hearing then. >> Okay. Motion from Chris to close the hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. >> I move that we approve the project with a negative three determination with a
condition that this the work would be done during dry conditions. >> That would actually be a negative -2 and a negative. Well, yeah. -2 and negative3 because it's actually work within um this the stream, but it's it's not going to alter the stream itself.
>> Okay. So, -2 and a negative3 determination then >> with the condition of the work be done during dry conditions. >> Vivian, you caught all that. >> You all right? Motion from Chris. >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I unanimous. Okay, Courtney. Thank you
very much. You You're all you all. Have a good evening. You too. Bye. >> Thank you. Very good. Next one up. Okay. So, now we're going to inject um the solar field. I apologize to the future applicants uh in the queue, but we're
going to give this person u the person on this call. So, this is the get down to my right place here. This is the notice of intent progeneration energy. This is continued from October
28th. 152 Steman Street. Mr. Haskell is joining us, if I'm not mistaken, from Scotland, >> where it's 2 a.m., >> that is correct. >> So, that was the reason. >> I sincerely appreciate your uh uh the commission's uh uh moving me up in the
agenda here. So, >> all right. Well, I hope things are well in Scotland and why don't you uh Well, David, do we want to preset where we are? So, we had a a presentation at our last meeting, but we're going to have that presentation again, I think, at this point.
>> The abuters have all been notified properly and all that's clear. >> So, I don't Are there any abunders here for this one? >> Doesn't look like it. So, I don't I don't think we need to do the presentation all over again. >> That's fine with me. >> Um, but but Bruce, could you just tell
us what's transpired? Um, I know there there have since then there's been some back and forth between uh you and um well well you know indirectly between you and the commission's peer reviewer uh who's also here uh James are you
here? >> Yes I'm here James Pearson with Weston and Samson. >> Yes. So Wes and Samson uh has been uh doing doing the review has been has been responding to uh the comments or or the
responses from uh the applicant. So there has been some back and forth. So Bruce, maybe maybe you could just uh you know recount that you know and where things stand now. >> Yeah, I I think excuse me. I think that the um the back and forth has really
been down this was down to one final question regarding uh a swale that runs along the south east southwest corner of the site and where the closure turf the new capping material comes on and goes into the grass and making sure that that
the existing cap wasn't eroded. Uh we had come up with a detail for that that had added some stone down at that at the bottom of the slope to slow the flow off of there. Um I think that that that the detail in the bottom right corner. Um I
think that detail was conceptual was was was accepted by Weston Samson. Um they did suggest adding a layer of sand you so using some of the existing sand that we strip off of there at the bottom to
sort of buffer the cap which is the dark black line sort of running across there um from the stone. you know, that's not a huge ch, you know, difference to us um as far as protecting the cap um out there. Um and u you know, further
protection of the cap and permanent cap, particularly if the closure turf is left as a long-term, you know, decades away solution to capping the landfill out there. Um so I I believe that that is the final of the comments on the storm
water. um as well as the comments that were done related to the site plan review process um sort of in parallel. >> So are uh do you concur with that assessment James? >> I think what Bruce has described is
correct. Um a set of revised plans was sent to us earlier today and we responded very quickly reviewing that detail. We were we were happy with it and and as Mr. Haskell stated, um, really the only thing we would suggest is that they, um, adjust the detail slightly to just show a little bit of sand between where
they're showing that rip wrap stone and that and that, uh, that liner just to sort of help protect the liner when the stone's being placed. Um, aside from that, uh, we're pretty happy with it. And I guess the only other thing I would add is that, um, I think in our last comment letter, we had suggested a
potential condition for the board's consideration. Um the applicant had previously responded that the construction contractor will be required to phase the top soil removal. Uh and so we just kind of suggest you know the commission could deliberate and
decide whether it wants to include um any limits on the amount of exposed ground and the duration of exposure in its in its conditions. Um it's entirely up to the commission if if the commission wishes to do that. Um, and and that's aside from that, everything
was uh everything was all set. Could could I suggest that just a change to that? I I I I don't remember seeing that condition, but it's it's I'm not against that, but I I think just a change to that possible condition to be that we'll submit a sequencing the contractor submit a sequencing plan to the
commission and then, you know, you see what it's you know, see what see what they're going to do because I can't say today, you know, they're only going to do xund square feet a day, you know, what they're going to do and how they're going to go about it. But I think the concept um we incorporate notes to that
effect and we certainly can have the contractor give us a you know a sketch plan kind of thing of what his sequencing is going to be and obviously a lot of that's going to be driven by weather and time of year. I think so >> that that sounds entirely fair and and I
wouldn't have any objection to that. >> Okay. Okay. So, what I'm hearing is that we've um had the back and forth between the applicant and the peer review and we've satisfied the questions that the peer reviewer had. And uh David, is there anything else more that you want
to add? I think we >> um I I I don't have anything to add with regard to, you know, the proposed plans or any possible revisions. I would like the the hearing to be kept open um while
we um well why while I think about you know special conditions in in addition to what um Weston and Samson has already proposed. Uh uh I I I'd like to see Bruce's uh proposed changes to that
recommended condition in writing. Um but certainly uh another condition that I'm thinking of is I think there needs to be there should be uh a um a site a third party site compliance monitor. Um I think I think
uh it makes sense for Weston and Samson to to do that if they're interested in available, but I have not spoken about that to them at all. Um, I also I also think that it makes sense to try to coordinate with the planning board on
that. Uh, because because obviously we want the whole site to be monitored, not just what's in >> the the the conservation commission's jurisdiction. Uh so uh I would I I I I ideally I'd like I' well I'd like to
speak with the West and Samson about what would be an appropriate scope um for that uh that monitoring uh and you know ideally to get a draft of a proposal because this would be at the applicant's expense. >> Okay.
>> So so I I would I think that the hearing should be kept open pending >> you know. Okay. that >> do I hear a comment from the is it the applicant? Yeah, I I could comment on I not necessarily on the hearing be kept open is um if we have any other comments
or questions, but um the the you know the requirements for the in the solid you know this is all done under the solid waste regulations to have a third party um is that the applicant already has to hire an independent third party engineer to oversee the work that goes
on out there. um in accordance with the solid waste regulations which by reference include all the local um approvals and permits. Um it does seem I I've done a lot of these kinds of projects and
I've never had a third-party engineer overseeing the third party engineer if you will. Um so I do think that that's a is unusual in my you know from my my point of view um out there. Again, I I I'm not I haven't done one of these
projects in the town of Chelmsford, but I I would say that that's unusual because really the third party engineer who's overseeing it is ultimately going to have to certify to Mass D in a very detailed document that whatever's on these plans was implemented
um in accordance with these plans and specifications and other documents out there which are the same plans that are, you know, being review commission. Um, are you familiar with the regulations that uh Bruce is citing, James?
>> Um, that uh that sounds familiar, but my colleague uh Nick Ames is a little bit more wellversed in it than I am. >> So, I could >> Okay, >> I can certainly provide you, Dave, if we excuse me, you know, that the applicant
agrees to extend the hearing. Um I certainly can provide you with the reference to the third party engineer and hopefully by that the next hearing of the commission we would have a uh postclosure use permit from D which will
site those um I can I can give you examples from other permits but we'll cite those um specific things. Um, what I've had other commissions do for projects like this is to require um, and and the one I'm thinking of right now
was a project at Haveril permitted over the last couple years where was uh, there was an environmental monitor designated for the project that had responsibilities related to um, reporting to the commission and you know the site and the planning board or you
know whatever town boards, board of health, whatever other boards would have to be prov provided that and that that person acts through and with the third party engineer um out out there that um that is required by D. I could certainly
provide you that there's references in the regulations to you know citations for that out there >> uh because because the commission does have the legal authority to hire its own consultant at the applicant's expense.
Um, so I yeah I I guess you know a couple questions. You know the um or I guess the commission could hire the third the third party um monitor that you're referring to uh as long as that
reviewer is qualified. Um or or yeah may may be uh you know there's this other approach that you've described Bruce but again I would I would like to see that in writing. Um >> so so again I I I I think the
>> I I think the hearing should be kept open. That's that's the commission's call at least under the local bylaw. >> Okay. And I'm not I I that's I'm just more responding to the actual specific, you know, the spec specific request
about the uh third party um you know, oversight. >> So I I think I I what I think I'm hearing, what I'm understanding is that it's possible that the the already existing or planned to be
existing third-party overseer of the project could incorporate what we're looking for into what they're doing. and given that they're third party if they're qualified to to do that. And I think the question becomes, can we get confirmation in the meantime that that's
the way it will work? >> Well, I thought I I thought I just heard from from Bruce. Maybe I misunderstood Bruce. I thought you said that, you know, some of the commissions do hire their their own person to work with the person that the No,
>> no. What I I'm saying is that that what they've required is that that there be a designated um person hired by again hired by the applicant but working for the applicant not in the R like not in you know the current arrangement that that that that
you know that was with Weston Samson for the review of the documents um out there but there's a designated person who's responsible um you know for for that and the project I referenced has some significant endangered species aspects to it and things like that. So
there's a you know there's a per a portion of the environmental monitor is is responsible for you know tape permits and things and things like that um out there. So it's you know it's different than this necessarily but it's in the same realm out there. >> Well so
>> but it's not a not this the arrangement that we have now you know sort of similar arrangement for how the funds get transferred. So, in the interest of moving forward, let's go around the commission, get some questions, um, and then we'll we'll see where we stand and then see if we can come up with a way
forward. Okay, >> John, you want to start? >> Yeah. I just really have one question. This battery storage, what what is that? I know there's something going over in Tukbury. They're all upset about
batteries and this and that. Is that the same thing? I I honestly don't know anything about the Tukesberry the Tukesbury battery storage out there. Um this is this is a relatively small, you know, battery storage setup out there. I I don't
really know anything about what's going on in Tukesbury. >> It's all over the news. >> Oh, I'm away. Use that excuse. >> It's been over the news for months now. This I will I will I will Google it once
I get off. I just I'm not familiar with >> I don't I don't think I think that's a much larger storage facility in >> than this one >> than this one >> there there are some acres and acres and acres of proposed battery storage facilities around yeah they're much much bigger >> yeah okay
>> and obviously with that comes much more concerns >> John do you have anything else >> no I mean just >> that was prim primally >> thinking of that because of what's going on over to >> All right sir >> bill >> uh yeah I want to go back to the base where the where the uh the
cover you you mentioned some uh sand and stone at the base. >> Guess this detail that's on the screen. Yeah. >> Yes. Does specify how much sand? How much stone? What will What were you looking for for You said a little bit of sand. >> Oh, so I think it was um and James,
correct me if I'm wrong, four to six inches of sand across the bottom of the area where it says extrusion weld new HDP micro spike liner on the detail. um just above that black line was going to be four to six inches of um you know sort of sand that's already it's sand
that's already out there that's being stripped off of this just be put back in that area. >> Okay. I just wanted to know I just wanted specifics on that. So okay that's the only question I have right now. >> Okay. Thank you Mark. >> I have nothing >> no questions Carl
>> Chris. No questions. All set. >> Peter >> uh yeah just quickly uh question for James. Um there's over a hundred solar farms on closed landfills in Massachusetts and I know your firm was
involved in a lot of them. Can you comment just super super quick? This is a typical design and installation on a landfill. Yes, >> I would say this is this is fairly typical. I think the one thing that we see here that's maybe a little bit
different than than ones we've been involved in is the the installation of this particular um cover system. Um we don't see we don't see it often, but uh that's not to say there's anything wrong with it, but
yes, we you know, we do see lots of these installed and and this this is not really that unusual. >> Thank you. And then my other comment is um it is very common to hire a thirdparty independent monitor
for big environmental projects including landfills. The key is if we go down that route that environmental monitor uh in in bigger projects anyway do not report to the contractor. they report to
either a D type oversight entity or a local commission. Um, so we can talk about that later. Um, and I just want to make a comment about the battery. John, you asked a good question. Uh, our country is building, the world is building storage batteries everywhere.
And people that don't want to see trees cut down or they, you know, are afraid of fires, uh, have made it a big deal. The news picks it up. And if you look up the statistics, yeah, sure, sometimes they catch on fire, just as the asphalt plant down the street does, just like,
you know, this building might. So, there certainly is a risk, but in my review of this over the last couple of years, that risk, I think, is uh overblown and being used by people as a reason to stop a project because they don't want
it. So, I like the the idea that it's a smalls size battery, I believe. And um you know I I don't consider that a big deal and it certainly I don't think is in our regs in any fashion but it's a good thing for the electric grid and good thing for these projects that don't
generate power at night and the battery is used to make the project better to feed our homes and businesses. >> So just want to share that. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, now we're back to Well, let me just see. Are there any any
questions or comments from the audience from the public? It's it's a public hearing, so but not seeing anyone. Okay. Um, so now we're back to the question about this. So, might I suggest that we uh
keep the hearing open to the next meeting and in the meantime try to work through a proposal for how this would work for monitoring. >> I'm not sure we need monitoring. I mean, this is way off the cut, but I do think we need to give our agent a chance to
come up with some special conditions. Maybe one of them is monitoring. Well, I I I definitely I c certainly I don't think we should uh require the applicant to pay for you know a duplicate you know uh monitoring but I think at at the very
least at the bare bare minimum I think someone needs to be out there on a regular basis to to uh inspect the erosion control. I don't have the time to do to go out there even once a week. Um I I don't know. I don't know if DPW is going to be doing it. Even if they
are, they're looking at different things. >> We don't think so right now. >> We we we don't think so. I So I think at the at the very least that that needs to be a scope, but again, that's something I' I'd like to work with and Samson on to come up with an appropriate scope.
You know, again, not not to duplicate effort, not to make the applicant pay for the same thing twice, but you know, just to make sure that, you know, someone's someone's looking at it that works for the commission. >> Okay. And and to Peter's point, works
for the commission or in our interest. Yeah. >> Yes. >> You know, I I I agree with David and I think if you drive around that landfill and realize how steep the side slope is. >> Yeah. And then you've got receiving water below it. You realize that is an issue. Um
>> yeah, >> for everyone, not just us. But >> we should continue this to the next meeting. >> That's kind of what I'm thinking is I think I think it it this should be a fairly fairly similar you may have some back and forth on this, David, with with Won Samson and with Bruce.
>> That's what I'm planning >> but and perhaps coordinating it as you said with the planning board. Um, so that we're we we want to we want to reduce the burden on the applicant as much as possible but still meet what we're trying to get. >> Yes. >> Does that sound reasonable? I I just I mean I don't want to reiterate to you
know oh take your time but there is a lot more oversight of this required than than if I this was just a building project you know in town or something like that that was okay >> you know going on there you know in reporting and things that that's >> that that I think will serve your
purposes and has served your you know similar commission's purposes well and I I'll I'll take and again with the continuence again we'll request it formally but that I think we can give you a sense of what's um uh you know a sense of what that is.
>> Yeah. I think Bruce, if if you share that what that looks like with David. >> Yes. >> That that's Yeah. Yeah. I think that's good. So I'll I'll take a motion to continue. >> I move that we continue this hearing until our next meeting which is scheduled right now for December 9th, 2025. >> Second.
>> Motion from Chris, second from Mark. All in favor? >> I I Okay, Bruce. Thanks. >> Thank you very much for taking me early here. Great. Also, Won Samson, appreciate the work. >> Okay, >> thank you, David, on that. Um, okay, now
we're at the next one. Notice of intent. Gail Small Done, 128 Warren Avenue. Moren Herald from Norse Environmental Services is here representing the applicant. And we do have a notice to be read by the esteemed Mr. Garahan.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Mass General general laws chapter 131, section 40, and the Chancellor Wetlands bylaw Chapter 187, the Chancellor Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here at the Chumps Town offices at 50 Road on Tuesday, November 25,
>> 2025. Oh, the um to consider the notice of intent filed by property owner Gail Small Dome for proposed work in 100t buffer zone to aborting vegetated wetlands at 128 Warren Avenue, further identified as Cessence Map 85/Block
324 wide 85. The project entails construction of a 271q ft attached garage with associated driveway widening and roof runoff management, installation of utilities, grading, landscaping, construction of a deck, removal of
existing pavement and stairway and relocation of two existing sheds. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you Chris. Good evening, Moren. Could you talk tell us about this project? >> Sure. Good evening. Moren Harold uh from North Environmental Services. So, the
plans I handed out to you, they're the same plans that were submitted as part of the notice of intent filing. They're just colored so you can hopefully see things a little bit easier. >> You appreciate that? >> Sure. So, we filed a notice of intent to
remove some pavement steps, relocate two sheds, construct a garage deck, extend the driveway. We are providing rooftop infiltration for that imperous area, grading and associated utilities within the 100 foot buffer zone. The BVW on
this plan is colored in green. It's actually located off the property. It's offsite. We show the 25- ft no disturb in a purple, a 30 foot, the 30 foot no impervious in a pink, the 50ft no build in a purple, and the 100 foot buffone is
colored as yellow. We show the erosion controls um highlighted as orange on the plan. Um the good news is this is a buffazone project. We meet all of the setbacks that the commission likes to see. We maintain the 25 foot no disturb
the 30 foot no impervious and the garage is proposed greater than 50 ft from the resource area. Um the lot is fairly flat. Uh really minimal grading will need to be performed. Um, that concludes
my presentation. Trying to keep it short and sweet and open it up to the commission with any questions. >> Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Um, David, you've been out to the site and do you have any comments or looks pretty straightforward. >> Uh, yeah, I I think so. I I just I just was curious, Moren, I don't and I don't
know if you you're able to answer this question. Um, maybe Gail can. um that that the dimensions the dimension of the garage closest to the road is 16 feet where the other side of the garage is 16 feet 5 and 1/2 in.
So just wondering if you knew why that was, you know, not not a perfect rectangle. It was slightly >> I'm sure there's a good reason for it and I just don't know that reason. >> Wall thickness. >> Sure. Come on up. It's it's the wall thickness in the rear rear of the
building. >> Okay. >> It has to be because you you're butdding into the house. You're butdding into the house on the front, but you're lining up the outside the inside with the It's fine. You're perfect. Don't worry about
>> the wall thickness. Okay. >> So, I I I don't I don't have any concerns. It's going to be a standard order of conditions. >> Okay. Uh, Peter. >> Uh, I'm good. Thank you. >> Allie. >> All set. Thank you, >> Chris. >> I think uh just uh is this a twotory garage?
>> No. >> One story. Okay. Uh No, it's fine. >> It's fine. I appreciate the coloring. >> Makes a big difference. Believe it or not, >> I believe it, John. >> No, I think it's great. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> This is a public hearing. Are there anybody from the public' like to speak up and comment or question or whatever? Nobody moving. Okay, I'll move to close the hearing. >> Motion from Chris. >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor to close the hearing. I
>> Okay. >> I move, Mr. Chairman, that we issue a standard order of conditions. >> Motion from Chris with standard order of conditions. >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you so much for your time.
>> Thank you. Sorry for the wait. Gale, your brother was a commissioner, wasn't he? >> He was here for the EPA. >> Wasn't he here, too? >> John was here. >> He was here for eight years. He wanted me to say hi to Chris, but I didn't want to do it. I remember John. Well,
>> he didn't say hi to me. I was here, too. >> Sorry. >> That's all right. >> It was It was further back in time. No. >> All right. Thank you. Good luck on the project. >> It was back in the 80s. >> Yeah. All right. Let's keep moving here.
We are moving right along. Notice of intent. Joanne Googliotti uh 30 bowl road extension lumford assessors map 41 block 140 lot one. Patrick Meyers MG Architects LLC is here representing the applicant.
>> And we have another notice to be read. Another legal notice. Pursuant to the prisons of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, master general laws chapter 131, section 40 and the chimps wetlands bylaw chapter 187, the cha conservation commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 204, Chstown
offices at Tuesday, November 25th, to consider the notice of intent filed by property owner Joanne Gugliotti for proposed work in a 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 35 Bowl Road. extension low mass further
identified as chsert assesses map 41/block 140/1 the project entails construction of 418 square f foot addition to an existing single family dwelling with associated grading and landscaping. Mr. Chair,
>> thank you Chris. Hello, good evening. Could you uh give us your name and uh tell us about the project? >> Hi, my name is Patrick Myers. from MG Architects representing Joanne Guggliotti, resident of 35 Bull Road. Um I'm accompanied by Gary Garfield of
environment or Garfield Environmental Management. Um so this project is for a um a resident who um she's been living in the home for about 25 years or so. Um you'll see on the plans that there is a
um a handicap ramp from the driveway up into the first level of the home. Um she was diagnosed um with ALS and her motor skills are unfortunately uh deteriorating and um right now she has
one of the acorn lifts to assist her to get her upstairs to her bedroom. Um unfortunately they're seeing that um that's just becoming more and more challenging for her every day. So they um you know reached out to us to come up with a a solution to um allow her to
live in her home for um as long as she can. Um so what we came up with this was this 22 by9 ft addition. Um it's a single level ADA compliant um primary suite. So it has a bedroom, bathroom and
a closet. Um we would be uh also it would have a uh a track system to help uh her maneuver about the suite. So um our main focus was to allow her to stay in her home um and make it as accessible
as possible for her. Um and yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Um this is a interesting project because this is a house that um actually there's two two
of them in a row here in our agenda. This one and the next one are both LL Chelmsford uh straddling uh the line. So, if I remember right, this one is uh in the house is in Chelstford, but some of the properties in Lel, I think
>> a majority of the house is in uh ll. >> Um and then you can see the uh town line of course goes right through our addition. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Proposed addition >> and but the only accesses from Chsford. Um I mean the only access driving to the
house is through Chsford. >> Yes. Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. just it's just it's it's an unusual it's right it's straddling here David uh you uh did you didn't get out to the house >> uh no no uh I have not um I because I in
all honesty I I only just realized today that that the access is entirely from Charles you know the physical access >> um so um but uh you know I I think that I I we'll talk about it I think I I
would like to see this hearing kept open uh as well. Um and and and if it is, I'll I'll plan to get out there and and take a look at it. Um so my my main question uh at this point, so so I think
I think this is so so the addition uh goes into the 25 foot no disturb. I I think this is a legitimate hardship case. Um I I don't uh so I think that's something the commission can and should approve. But but but the per the pvious walkway going and back which is going
further into the um 25 foot no disturb and it's actually coming quite close to the wetlands. Um is is is there a great need for that that walkway um back there? It looks like it's to get to the deck the deck and back
>> there. Yeah. So currently there is a um a walkway. You can see um a dash line there showing the um where the previous one was. >> Oh, okay. >> And so that's just asphalt paved right now. So um you know, we just we'd like to maintain
access because as part of this we're going to have to pull a foundation um and so we were going to keep um the lower area for storage and treat it almost like a shed um underneath. So just wanted to be able to maintain access for them around back to the deck
and to the storage space below. >> Um so so so the existing walkway uh is asphalt, correct? >> So that's going to be removed. Then then the location of even though the location of the proposed new walkway is going to
shift a little bit closer to the wetlands. Um or yeah, a little bit closer. Um not much, but a little. It's gonna be it's gonna be pvious. >> Yes. Correct. >> So So So what's it gonna consist of?
>> Um I haven't discussed it completely yet, but we were anticipating some sort of like crush stone or um u Yeah, that would be >> okay. >> Kind of hard back. >> Yes. >> Um so um that those were my main
questions. Um and I would so so I gather the Lel Commission hasn't heard this yet. No. So I I should have uh led with that as well. So we have filed with um with LOL Chelmsford in the state and we have we are scheduled on the December
10th agenda with uh LOL's conservation commission >> which is which is a day after the commission um is meeting for the last time this year. Um, so I I but I think the hearing should be kept open. Um, you know, just out of courtesy to the lower
commission, see if the L commission has any concerns um that maybe haven't been addressed here that they would like to see addressed. Um, and I and I don't know I don't think a file number has been assigned yet from D for this one.
>> I don't believe so. I filed with the with them um later last week. >> Okay. So, I think that's really another reason it really should be kept open. On the other hand, don't want to unnecessarily delay this. Um, probably the applicant would like to get it done as
>> we're doing everything we can to expedite the process. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. Um, yeah. I I kind of feel like we if if our next meeting is before the L commission, then maybe we want to communicate. can you contact their agent
and see if there's any any thoughts from them if this is if they're going to dig into this because I'm okay with us continuing this and we haven't gone around with questions yet and we will in a moment but I'm also thinking that um >> uh you know from from the applicant's
point of view nothing's nothing's going to happen till December 10th and we meet on the 9th I would rather not be waiting for after December 10th because now you're into January >> so I'd like at I'd like for us to um probably think about continuing to the ninth but not beyond that.
>> That's kind of where I'm thinking. So, Peter, would you like to ask some questions or do you have any questions? >> Uh well, just an observation you've all noticed. Um most of the house is all of the house is in the current 100 foot buffer. This is one of those legacy kind of buildings. So, I guess that
affects my thinking and I don't really have any comments. >> What when was the house built? I believe early 2000s. >> Early 2000s. So if if this if this were if the house were in Charlesford, it would not be exempted from the bylaw which >> would be 1990 though.
>> It would have to be built prior to 1982. >> Oh, 82. Okay. >> But I don't you know since since the house isn't in in Chelmsford that I don't I don't know how you deal with that. But but I think there's a legitimate hardship case here which justifies it. >> Yeah. So I'm I'm I'm fine with it. >> Okay. Allie
>> also. Thank you, >> Chris. >> No, just my um my sympathies to your client, you know, having a diagnosis of ALS and the challenges that she and her family have to face. So, my sympathies to your client and certainly I'll do whatever I can to help her get through
this our small way we can do on this commission. >> Thank you very much. Very much appreciated. >> I'm also in favor of, you know, getting passing this. I I I just like to see the uh the back walk of something crushed stone, but but not uh
not stone dust cuz I just just like concrete. >> Okay. >> But uh no, I don't want to hold this up. >> I agree with everybody. I don't want to hold it up either. And I think keeping it open till December 9th is fine. Won't
hurt them. Give you a chance to talk to LOL. And then at that point, I feel like we can vote for it. >> Yep. >> Regardless of what >> Yep. >> happens. >> I agree with everybody else. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, this is a public hearing. Are there any comments or questions from the
public? >> Seeing none, uh, I'll take a vote motion to continue to >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue into our next meeting December 9th. >> All right. Motion from Chris, second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I. Okay. >> Good project. And hopefully we'll get
this wrapped up next time. Awesome. Thank you guys. >> So if so, if you could please just email me the name and contact information of the L my lower counterpart. >> Yeah, I'll connect you guys. >> Or even Yeah. do an intro email. >> Absolutely. Excellent. >> That'd be great. Thank you. You too.
>> Okay. Where are we going next? >> All right. We are now request for determination of applicability. the Courtyard Condominium Trust 360 Old Littleton Road, >> Hilda Karpawich, >> High Point Engineering representing the applicant. And um
>> uh Chris, do we have a uh >> we do we have >> another notice and my voice gives up. Someone else may have to >> sure >> step up. But uh pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts I can't remember so many legal notices in one meeting honestly long time. A pursuant
to the provisions of the wet of the Massachusetts wetlands protection act master general laws chapter 131 section 40 in the Chsson wetlands bylaw chapter 187 the chs conservation commission will conduct the public hearing here at room 204 at the chumps of town offices on Tuesday November 25 to consider the
request of determination of applicability filed by property owners courtyard condominium trust for proposed work in riverfront area Beaverbrook and 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and inland bank at 360 Littleton Road, further identified
as assessor's map 107/block 405 lot one. The project entails repaving all asphalt parking areas and drive aisles associated regrading, restriping and replacement of the Cape Cod Burm, adjustments to accessible
parking signage, installation of two new catch basins, resetting frame grates and rims of existing drainage and utility pertinances. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you Chris. Good evening. Can you talk to us about your project? >> I'm Hildy Karpich. I'm from High Point
Engineering and as me as he mentioned it was for the courtyard condominiums. Um if you're going towards Westford right after the Elks, it's on the left. Um if anybody's familiar with that. So most of this project um it is within the buffer. It is within the riverfront. Um, and
there are border lines. Um, there's it's all associated with Beerbrook and there is a flood plane associated with that, but that is all well below the elevation of the project. Um, so we're not working in that one at all, so I won't um elaborate on that anymore. Um, could we go to the site prep plan?
>> I'm sorry, Hilly. >> Could we uh go to the site prep plan? >> Uh, which sheet is that? Which >> I think it's the third. >> Third. Okay. >> Might be the fourth. more. >> Okay. >> C100.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. Um, so most of it is repaving as I mentioned. Um, so we're going to have the erosion controls everywhere that uh we have a straw waddle with a silt fence everywhere where um it pitches downward
off of the property. Everywhere that we don't have a straw waddle, um the land is pitching towards um the pavement. So that way any silt or um sediment that is um coming from the pavement will be captured by the uh silt fence and the
straw waddle. We also will have silt sacks in every catch basin around the property. All of the storm water right now goes towards the closed drainage system. It's a network of catch basins, um, some drain manholes, and then it discharges out of
a culvert, um, into Beaverbrook. To make sure that, um, if anything actually gets through the silt sacks, we're going to put some straw bales at the, um, at the culvert. So that way anything that makes it way through will be, uh, filtered out before it gets to Beaverbrook.
And that is most of the site prep plan. So, could we uh, go to the next sheet? this the layout and pavement. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So, this one um I don't know if you guys are familiar with the property at all. Basically, the pavement is just
in complete garbage condition right now. Um there's a lot of alligator cracking. They put speed bumps um in the low points. So, the speed bumps extend across the gutter lines, so it's just damning up water. Um, there are no
concrete pads for the dumpsters, so there's heavy riding where the tires are and um, a lot of it's a it's a trip hazard. Um, there's drainage problems, so most of it is just regrading in generally the same elevations. Um,
there's a lot of match points because there are a lot of concrete walkways. Um, so although the grading plan might look extensive, in most places it's not changing by more than a couple inches. We're just trying to get a little bit more of a crown on the pavement. Um pitch everything away from the um from
the parking spaces a little bit more, but we're not changing the hydraology at all. Um everything really just goes to the closed drainage system and it will continue to do so. Um the ADA spaces just are not done correctly. They aren't
up to code. Um so while we're out there regrading, we're going to make sure that they have the right um the right slopes, the right signage. um that they will actually connect to walkways as where some of them don't today. And um we're adding some bike racks. Uh one important
thing to notice is that we actually have more pavement than we need per zoning. So pretty much the entire perimeter we're reducing the impervious area. We are not expanding impervious area in any location. Um it's a little it's probably
a little hard to see up here, but if you look at the pages, you can see the existing uh Cape Cod Burm and edge of pavement, almost all of that's getting pushed in. Um so we will be reducing overall impervious area. We're going to be keeping a little bit more distance to the wetlands. And then everywhere where
we're moving pavement, um it's going to just match the exist existing lawn area that surrounds it today. So, so you are moving the pavement back slightly along the wetland side, right? >> Wherever we can. Um, so we reduced, well, a lot of the drive aisles were
about 28 ft and Shelster only requires 24 ft. Granted, the parking spaces were only 18 ft long and they need to be 19 ft, but that still leaves us with um a few feet of slack where we just pulled it into the dead minimum for zoning, which is perfectly adequate for cars.
>> Okay. Anything else to present? >> Um, >> okay. >> I think so. >> All right. Um, David, you've been out there and looked at this? >> Yep. Did did the site visit with Hildy. So, um, first first question is, um, so
so what is the purpose of adding the two new catch basins? >> So, that area is incredibly flat nowadays. So, the storm water slightly pitches towards the catch basins near the entrance, but it's at approximately 0.2%.
Um, even a half a percent is terrible. So, what we wanted to do was add some catch basins and actually get the storm water to pitch towards the drainage system instead of just ponding there because it's simply too flat. Um, I was originally hoping to lower those catch
basins, but at that point, um, the entrance is a little bit fixed because they wanted they have like a nice vertical granite, uh, median at the entrance there. So, we're pretty fixed on those elevations. So, if I drop the catch basins, um, the driveway entrance
is going to be tilted too much and this the grading didn't work. So, I had to add the two new catch basins just to connect to the existing system. But again, the storm water does eventually go to that system regardless. We're just trying to get it there uh efficiently instead of just ponding for a while.
>> So So there's no there's no increase in the net volume of runoff. >> No. >> But is is there any increase in the rate um of runoff, you know, even temporarily? >> No. I mean, we're only removing impervious area. We're not adding any
impervious area at all. We're not adding any storm water to the system. It is just a reduction of impervious area. And I'm not trying to say that we are removing a ton of imperous area. It's usually a couple feet around the perimeter, but it is a reduction.
>> Okay. Um so, um I think this can be a negative determination. Um I I think it's primarily erosion control. You know, there's there's there's there's really um you know, I think it complies with the regulations. you know uh it is
uh you know it is um work in degraded riverfront area. The regulations say you know an improvement needs to be done. There is there is a slight improvement that's that's being made. You know the storm water regulations say you know improvement to the maximum extent practicable. I'm I'm I'm satisfied
that's that's being done. Um so I personally think it can be a negative uh determination. D seems to have some maybe other other ideas. So this is this is just an email
I received from Jenna Parada of D. Um it appears the proposed project is subject to the provisions of the wetlands protection act and the notice of intent is required as described in the RDA. Proposed work includes full depth repaving and addition of new catch basins and resetting existing drainage
and utility features. work would occur within the riverfront area itself as well as buffer zone and does not appear to fall under under any category of the minor activities described in 310 CMR 10.022 B2. Well, but it doesn't have to
be exempt. You know, it it it if it does not, you know, alter uh an area subject to protection, it can still be a negative determination with conditions. Again, I think I I I think the concerns can easily be addressed with erosion control. you know, even even though it's
full depth, you know, uh re repavement. Um again, you know, this this is not my first rodeo. I've I've seen plenty of projects um like this where yeah, the main issue is erosion control. So, I I think again, I think it can be a
negative determination with with a few conditions. Having said that, D, you know, it's their prerogative to appeal it if they don't like that, in which case, you know, they would have to come back and file a notice of intent to enter anyway. Um, and speaking with Hildy, it sounds like, you know, they
wouldn't be planning on doing the work until next spring anyway. So, uh, so I I think I think my understanding from you, Hildy, was that, you know, you're willing to take or the applicant's willing to take their chances if the commission decides it's a negative determin. Yeah, they would much rather
save their money. Um they don't have a strict schedule and we honestly kind of filed pretty early for what they needed. Um so we do have time. So if there's anything about that they would like to save on the um a lot of a butter notifications and uh the state filing
fee and whatnot. Um so it that would be preferred >> just Okay, I I'll be quiet. Um Peter >> um hi. >> Hi. >> I have a couple questions. Um,
so our regulations say our regulations assume there's an impact on the environment of any project unless there's evidence to the contrary. Mhm. >> So that's kind of what I the way I've been thinking about this and
the environmental impact that I see is direct discharge to one of our cherished streams, albeit not very big, Beaverbrook. So I'm thinking what happens in the winter when there's a flush of salt? I mean, I assume that
uh this HOA put salt on on their um uh pavement. I would u So my question is, isn't the peak you your calculations show there's no increase in runoff >> because you're not changing.
>> We didn't do calculations because we're reducing the impervious area and converting it to grass. There is just um there is a peak reduction in flow. um it wouldn't be increasing from removing the pavement and replacing with grass. So, we didn't actually run the calculations. Um
>> yeah, and I'm not asking for calculations, but here's So, a couple quick questions and then we can move on. We don't need to make this a big deal. >> Um but you could help me understand this. >> Um if the current pavement is broken, >> that means there's some infiltration of
storm water through the broken pavement. So, if we're going to pave the whole area flat with pavement that isn't broken, to me, that's a potential increase in runoff. But my real question is if there's two additional catch
bases. So, let me back up. The the impact that I'm thinking about is the salt salt can kill the invertebrates, the critters in the mud in Beaverbrook. >> Um, but we don't have any data to show that. So, that's, you know, shame on us. We don't really know what's going on.
However, the way these things the way the salt kills the the base of the food web is when the salt con concentrations are higher than a cert you know than the baseline and those become higher when it rains after you've put salt on the
pavement. So my question is by adding two catch basins, aren't you increasing maybe not the total amount of storm water, but the volume that in a given hour that gets flushed into the stream. So what
I've been thinking about is if we're flushing more salt at a faster rate into Beaverbrook, the question I'm asking, how do we know if that has an environmental impact on the brook? And of course, the answer is we don't have the data and it's probably beyond the
scope of this hearing to get into that. But I wanted to put some of those ideas on the table and uh why don't we go on to other questions. >> All right, Ellie. >> All set. Thank you, >> Chris. I I like the ideas that that our
agent was was suggesting earlier. Okay, >> Mark. >> Uh, excuse me. You're doing all regrading. Weren't all the all the areas being regraded? You're not doing any planing at all there? >> Slightly. Um, every it just isn't
crowned correctly. It isn't tilting away um from the paved areas correctly. Uh the regrading is very minor, although it does look extensive because I tend to overgrade my grading plans. Um the whole thing is getting slightly regraded to
match all the existing walkways which are not changing. >> So you're removing all the existing >> all the existing pavement. Yep. And the Cape Cod BM and replacing it. >> Uh no, I'm good. That's >> okay. >> Cool.
>> Uh I agree with David. I think is an erosion control issue for the most part with all the stuff you're taking out, but I think you're improving this the site. Um, I think I'd go the route of that David was talking about and that's how I feel about it.
>> Okay, John. >> No, I think uh the erosion controls the main thing when you repave and are you going to pulverize this or remove the asphalt? >> Um, we don't have a contractor on there yet. Um, we're gonna have to talk to them and figureing figure out what
they're going to do. >> Usually they pulverize. They come in and pulverize it, regrade it, >> binder and top it, but >> yeah, we'll have to look at pricing. Um, there's a lot of logistics involved just because we don't know where to put everyone in their cars as well,
>> right? >> Um, so we're hoping to get a contractor on relatively soon um whenever we have an idea of where permitting is going. just go next door to the Elks and talk to Katie. >> That was >> She'll charge you like $2 a car.
>> That was actually our suggestion to the board was uh you might want to go make a deal with them. Um or just park on your lawn. I don't know. >> Okay. All right. Uh >> no, I'm good. >> Yeah. Anything else? No. >> N I I just have a couple of um
responses, quick responses to the points Peter raised. So, so, so again and I think it bears repetition there's going to be a net reduction slight but there's going to be a net reduction in the amount of pavement a net reduction in the amount of pvious surface per right
impervious surface. >> So that that means that there's there's going to be um um a net a net reduction in in volume. But but I but I think but I think
another issue too is that is that I I think that the two existing catch basins those then aren't going to be used or they're not going to function after the new catch basins are put in right because the runoff is going to be intercepted before it gets
>> they'll still capture storm water from the entrance itself um because the driveway pitches down from 110 and so that storm water is still going to be going to those catch basins. um we just won't have the storm water between the uh the amenity building that just is trickling very slowly towards the catch
basins but is getting there. Um but they they will still be in use. >> And I did want to mention um when it comes to saying that there is uh infiltration in the cracks that subgrade is so highly compacted that there really
is not much. Um, if you look at the hydraology, you know, if you have um, my gosh, I'm going to I don't know how to not go into too much detail here. Pavement is very close to like a dirt road just because once you drive over it and over it, it compacts so heavily that
it really isn't providing much if any infiltration. Um, there's a slight difference in the calculation, but even a dirt road um, is considered impervious by all engineering calculations. >> Yeah, that that makes sense. But you have to agree that the peak flow may very well be greater if you're
draining the parking lot quicker with the new catch basins. >> Certainly not with the modeling to be honest. Um all the hydra >> We're in the we're in the weeds here. >> All right. Um this is a public hearing. So is there any comments from the
public? Anybody uh online or on the in the audience? I don't see either person moving. So uh >> chairman Mr. Mr. Chairman, make a motion that we close this hearing. >> I'll take that motion from Chris. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor to close.
>> I All right. >> Mr. Chairman, make a motion that we um um approve with a negative determination with some special conditions. What were you thinking of, David? >> Um well, it be a negative two and a negative three. Um >> I think the I mean it's bas basically
standard be just be, you know, installation of the erosion control. you know, I I inspected, you know, then then there are some other pretty standard ones like, you know, no no no no dumpsters uh within, you know, I think in this case we could say the 100 foot buffer zone. If you look if if you look
at um the the overall site, I mean I mean there's probably 25% uh at most of the site is in the commission's jurisdiction. Um, so I think that's another that's another reason it it could be a negative. Um, but I I think
it's basically standard. >> All right. So -2 and three determination with basically our standard conditions. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You definitely have to go look at the version control. >> Yeah. >> That's key to this because he's doing all zigging all that stuff out. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And and and this this one I can handle, but >> Yeah. >> It's small enough. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Motion from Chris. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Second from Alli. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, unanimous.
Thank you. Nice presentation. Good project. Hopefully uh >> it's like >> hopefully we'll uh >> the agenda >> get to the spring and uh we'll be able to move forward. >> We'll see how how the state responds. >> Okay. Uh next up, we are moving forward
here. Notice of intent. This is continued from October 28th uh New England Power Company 100 Ecuador Road. This is the other project that's straddling the L Chelmsford line and we should have Bridget Hilgenorf uh online or Vanessa
Hagen Brussland. >> They have a requested a continuence December 9th. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. >> Working on revised plans. >> That's right. Okay. They have requested Okay.
I missed that one. Okay. Um, so, uh, and you did receive a proposal for storm water review on >> I did, but that was before I was informed that there will be revised plans. So, okay. >> That's going to have to be put on hold pending receipt of the plans. I told I told them that I needed them by noon on
the Wednesday >> prior to the Tuesday hearing >> and it didn't make it. >> So, Okay. >> Well, I haven't received them at all. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Can't we'll continue it. So, I'll take a motion to continue this hearing to December 9th. >> So moved.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Motion from Chris, second from Mark. All in favor? >> I. >> So moved. We will continue the >> New England Power Company 100 Ecuador Road. Ecuador road. Okay. So,
uh, we already did progeneration and, um, finally and then the Okay. So notice of intent continued from July for the let's just say the Chelford Mall all those addresses and the applicant has
withdrawn the NOI uh application. >> Yes. >> So I guess I just take a motion to close the hearing. >> I move to close the hearing. >> Motion from Chris, second from Mark. All in favor? I >> Okay, we'll close that hearing.
>> Thank you very much. Okay, next up we are in discussion and um we had our wetlands and bylaw regs subcommittee couple of weeks ago. I'm sorry I didn't get the minutes out to the subcommittee, but Chris, do you want to do a short update of what we talked about? And
>> yeah, we're looking at a few possible changes uh that we'll be obviously presenting to the full commission. One of them was was trying to um strengthen our oversight over a flood plane. Okay. You know, we've seen certainly flooding as uh an issue that's an ongoing issue
for the town. It's a lot of it's, you know, just environmental changes, but we wanted to have more control, potential control over the flood plane. And one of those things would be to add the flood plane as an area that we'd have have a buffer zone. So, we're the concern would
be is then we'd be able to look at what's going on outside the actual flood plane and how its influence might impact adversely impact the functions of the flood plane. So, we're taking a look at that um relatively um small but significant change and we the
subcommittee was thinking that honestly we thought we'd probably have support at town meeting if we were to go in on that one. >> And so, it's out the town council to take a look at how we might word it and and and address it. That was like one one change for the bylaw we're taking a
look at. Uh then we were taking a look on the regulation side uh of some a couple potential changes with uh one was um again you know lawn you know too often we've seen a new projects where you know they come in and the lawn's like right up to the you know the edge
of our our our buffer lines. And so we're looking at maybe having some sort of a setback for launch new again dealing with new you know new projects coming in not like impacting existing homes out there in the community but we're talking a look at a regulation
change there and whether it's I don't know how many feet were we talking about remember in the meeting >> uh I I think we were talking about a 50 foot uh setback uh from wetlands for lawn rather than the current 25 foot >> right so we're looking 50 foot but we can talk about whether it's 50 foot or
25 foot or 30 foot. But but the idea was to have that set back and and and have it in our regulations and and try to, you know, impact and reduce that. There'd be advantages to the habitat and the wildlife by pulling the lawn back. And um I know personally I've got my my
little place down in Cape Cod and I've got a neighbor of mine that's got like, you know, he mows right up to the edge of the the wetlands, the marsh. He's just right up to the edge. And then, you know, myself and a couple of my other neighbors, you know, we have kind of a natural, you know, vegetation and stuff. So, there's a a transition between the
lawn and then before you hit the water, but this guy's got it like he mows it like right right up to the end and he's throwing, you know, the fertilizers on and all that stuff, which isn't good for the environment. So, we're looking at that change. And then there was something else, Peter, you were talking about as well, too. We're going to have town council take a look at at least
they got a question on >> uh well one of the questions was should we look at future rainfall when we're evaluating storm water management systems because we know they're currently designed for a lower level of
rain than we're actually experiencing. And um I need to finish my conversation with our DPW engineers, but um they are starting to look at uh the rainfall forecast uh for 2070,
not as a regulation, but encouraging uh property developers to design the system to not flood when it rains. You know, because what's happening is what used to be a hundred-year storm. Um and it's not the data is not that clear. It's clear it's raining more, but
basically the hundredyear storms are happening every two or three years. >> Yeah. >> Uh so what means is if you design it for an unlikely event, which is what I was taught when I was a kid, designed for a 100red-year storm, that hardly ever happens. Well, now that amount of rainfall for a 100red-year storm is
happening every couple years. So the question is, you know, do we do anything about that? And I don't I don't actually have a a clear recommendation. and I need to talk some more >> um of our DPW engineers. >> So, we will be doing some more update or
I guess a final I think the hope was that we'll we'll hear from the town council. >> Yes. >> And um >> yeah, I think I think the highest priority at this point is is to you know resolve going to town meeting. Y >> so I think we should tenatively plan to
do that um you know for I guess the next annual town meeting. You know I I think I mean the regulations are just as important but I but I think we can afford to take a look at that you know a little bit longer horizon >> doesn't require town meeting for the regulations.
>> So the town meeting is for what which one >> the that would be the flood plane. So we be adding a buffer zone for the flood plane to protect the flood plane better by regulating what's happening in the buffer zone. >> Yes. >> And there are other towns similar >> and there's many many towns actually
have that change. In fact, the standard Mass Association of Conservation Commissioners actually has that in their recommended bylaw. So, we would be really just kind of getting in line with what's kind of happening in across the state. >> Yeah. And it's like it's like a three-word uh revision to the bylaw. >> Exactly.
>> Really, >> I don't know how to work the timing wise, what I was hearing earlier in terms of getting a something in front of the select board, we have till the middle of February. So, we would want to review this um and get the wording by probably our first meeting in January so
that we can submit it by the end of January. I think >> that sounds about right. >> But again, that would be for the bylaw. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thanks, Chris. You're right. >> Appreciate it. >> All right. Next up, we are on land
management. So, Peter, we uh had some nice uh new signs uh installed. um dog leash dog on leash signs uh installed at a handful of our sites. You want to talk about that for a minute? >> Well, yeah. I want to give a shout out to uh Jeff over at Thanksgiving Forest.
He took the Well, Carl came up with a sign language. I worked with DPW to get the signs and Jeff spent some time building some special fittings to pound them into the ground. Just a rebar, but
it's a little fancier than that. And I think you noticed Jeff painted them. >> They look beautiful. And then we put them in the ground, didn't we? At uh four locations. >> Yeah. So they're at Thanksgiving, at uh Cranberry Bog, at Russell Mill, and at
Warren Pole. Those are the ones that from my experience, I see loose dogs the most. Um >> uh that's, you know, I don't see them loose so much at Crooked Spring or Oakill or um >> Yep. >> Yeah, those are the most populous ones. So again, that that's a town bylaw. That
is not a Chsford Conservation Commission bylaw that dogs must be on leash. >> But we, you know, being the the stewards for that land, owning, you know, being responsible for that land, I think with some of the incidents that we've seen in town and in Carile, um,
>> we felt like we should do something. >> Yep. >> And I think this is a good medium. We can pull the signs out of the ground fairly easy and get them out of the way for the winter maybe or or leave them there all winter. I don't know. You know, we'll we'll see. >> Yeah. There. And I we'll have to work through this. My my informal survey is
compliance is about one out of seven. >> Yeah. >> But I don't think we want to. >> Yeah. >> I just, you know, trust people to do the right thing. >> Yeah. >> Um but yeah, uh I had two other quick things to share. Sure.
>> Just quickly, I had a chance to uh spend two hours with Scout Troop 75 Saturday. They are working on a civics merit badge. They had asked David if somebody in town could meet with them and describe what you know what government
is doing on the invasive problem. And um I had another member of the tree committee and also uh another fellow that's interested in in getting involved in communications uh and the scouts. So um we can talk
more about that, but that was fun. And then on our communications program, there were uh two articles are coming out next week related to our natural resource mission. Uh uh >> these are in the town manager >> town manager newsletter and I
>> so if you don't get it, you should be reading it >> and uh we're we're hoping that we get those onto the the concom website as well. We'll work on that. But uh one is a a shout out to uh G and Carla Kalpus who was recognized by the Sudbury Valley Trust. I think
Carla you went to the dinner um >> wasn't a dinner but yeah >> or eventual meeting. >> Yeah. And um I think they recognized her for her pollinator work but also three decades of bluebird conservation.
>> So that's great to see a Chelse person recognized by our regional agency. Then there'll be a little article about a a Chumsford Village tree planting. Uh Concom met with the condo folks uh and the tree committee over the fall and
they basically planted 15 trees. They ended up not putting them any in our buffer zones but you know because half of that condo complex across from McCarthy school half twothirds of the buildings are actually in either the riverfront buffer or the 100 foot
wetland buffer. So they that's why they reached out to David. Uh but we're able to help them and and there'll be an article about that. And then the upcoming article uh folks are working on one for Redwing and I think we copied you to get your input on
>> how you wanted to present the concom piece because it was really >> Yeah. >> Indivia folks and and the land trust. So that's another >> community volunteer spotlight kind of thing. So those are the updates. >> Good stuff. >> Yeah. Thanks. Thanks,
>> Chris. Uh, you mentioned earlier Crooked Spring was doing pretty good. >> Crooked Spring is looking great. I did a walk out there this uh this afternoon. Uh, some nice work. There was a a bridge in the in the back trail that needed some work and and uh >> that's the one by the lagoon
>> by that little lagoon over there. And it's been really beautifully repaired. Just a really nice job. So, the it was a bit of a safety hazard before and that's been really fixed up. Nice. Trails look good. A number of large trees had come down in the last few weeks and they were like, you know, um, somebody with a
chainsaw went in and did some nice work clearing the trail. So, the trails were really looking good. Everything was nice out there. I mean, one thing to think about for a possible down the line with Crooked Spring is I know in years past we could it was a nice skating pond in
the winter and what's happened over the last 25 30 years is is it's just filled in. So you you know it's filled in with like you know some vegetation, you get some invasives, you've got you know trees laying across it. So maybe at some point there might be a way that we could
dredge an area of the pond where we could have a skating, you know, you know, get that skating pond back in action again. It was really popular with the neighborhood. >> Does the water freeze around here anymore? >> It does sometimes. >> It does. It does. >> It does. But anyway, just a you know a possible um restoration project down the
line somewhere. If I could comment too, that pond water level probably doesn't change or does it? I'm trying to remember. Like like uh some of the other skating ponds are >> it changes to a certain extent as the dam get is as as buildup at the dam, the
metal dam happens, the water then builds up behind that. And I don't know that it's beavers doing it. I don't think it's that. It's just like um debris, >> but it's probably >> the DPW cleared it all last spring, I think, or last year. And once they
cleared it, the water level went back down. >> But it's probably a safer place than, for example, Russell Mil. >> It's very narrow. It's not very deep to your point. >> Yeah, it's just a couple inches now. Okay. >> It's a couple inches. >> And Mark, anything uh I know we got we got our money on on Redwing. Speaking of
Redwing, that just all cleared. So everything's all done done on the >> Yep. >> That's all. >> The gates are all done. >> The gates done. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. I I haven't been up to uh >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Uh and John, I
just said we put that sign up at Russell Mill, but other than that, I was over there a while ago and it looks pretty good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Looks pretty good. >> What's the deal with those speed bumps out there? The road. No, >> don't don't go there. >> Don't get me going. Come on. I I didn't
>> environmental impact of them. >> Not to mention how they destroy town vehicles. >> Town vehicles. >> And then um >> anybody's taxpayers vehicle. I didn't do it. >> Oak Hill and Deepbrook. Uh I told Bill uh you you said you didn't see the
Beaver Dam. >> It wasn't I was there a week and a half ago and the it wasn't what it is now. >> There's a big beaver dam there now. um right by the the the bridge right coming off the DPW lot. >> It's like you you go to that bridge and
look upstream towards Scotty Hollow, >> that beaver dam is as tall just about as tall as the desks here. It's wow, where did that come from? >> They did it there last year, too. >> Yeah. So David's gonna take a look at it and con we're gonna see we might see if we can put a beaver deceiver in there
because that's enough height to to install one >> and that would uh keep flow uh water flowing through but the beaver wouldn't be able to stop it. So >> and hopefully it's not going to cause a problem for anyone in the meantime. >> Yeah. So I think if we got on that
earlier then uh that would that would mitigate that problem before it becomes a problem upstream. Yeah. So, anything else at >> there's a tree down at Oakill that we have to take care of. >> We got time tomorrow. >> Um, sure.
>> We'll talk. We'll talk. We can deal with it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> And then, um, we'll talk about Coolis. >> Yeah. Cool. >> Um, a lot of good things are going on at Kulis. A lot of, uh, energies up there doing a lot of work. But uh first of
all, I want to thank this has turned around in the last couple months to where everybody's working together. It's there's a lot of work being done. There's a lot of volunteers. Uh and this comes right down from the manager's office through DPW to those uh
between Paul Cohen and Christine Clancy and Joe Ericson of DPW. One day we had uh a backhoe up there, an excavator, a Bobcat, a tractor, and it was something else. Uh
for equipment on site with guys digging out concrete, clearing the fields in the areas we wanted cleared. I mean, it's really uh I want to thank those people for just being behind the effort. Now,
as far as volunteers, we've got uh Sue and Will Open Obindorf who are the conservation stewards. They go to the site every day. I hear from them regularly as far as their input and I tell them what I know that's going on. And then we've got we've been working
alongside the uh Coolis uh friends of Coolis with John Ray, Dave Dodge, uh clearing clearing the fields along the walls. We've had uh a week ago we had about 20 people from a church on Route
110 volunteers that did a ton of work up there along the walls clearing all the invasives and stuff. Uh last last weekend there was probably five or six volunteers. Uh they cleared an area that's going to be a sledding area on
the right hand side. Uh it was the old silage pit. >> Oh yeah. >> They cleared that out. Uh we had uh uh piece of equipment uh Ken Du brought his tractor down. He's got a claw on the front, cleaned all that out, cleaned along the walls. So that's looking
great. I when I was there that day, that was a week and a half ago, I had say I talked to John Ray and uh mentioned to him, I says, "It'd be nice if we could get a trail extending from the existing trail on the left side around the vernal
pool and back to the parking area." I think within a day uh John had talked to Phil Stamway uh to Dave Dodge and they were out there marking the trail within a couple of days. I went up there walked walked that uh they put rib green
ribbons on the tree if you want to go by there. There's green ribbons uh of the proposed trail. Uh I walked it a couple days ago. David Kun and I walked it today. I explained to him what we were trying to do with the trail. There's a lot of invasives.
It was an old farm road or farm path and there's a lot of invasive. You can't do it by hand. So, uh we're going to get a little machine with the uh uh with the with the claw on the front and clean out where the trails proposed to go. So, we
have a system where we get an idea. People who want to run with it do it. They they contact me. We look at it. I bring it back to the board and we vote on it. whether that's something we want to do as a as a whole. So, we have a good system. Uh we're getting a lot of
input. Uh Phil Stanway, who's been doing most of the trails in town, he jumped right in. He's uh he's the one that laid the trail out. It looks nice. So, thanks to him, too, for helping with that. And, uh those guys are ready to go. What I'd
like to do tonight is get a vote from the board for us to continue that work to get a machine in there. It's dry right now. It's the right time of year to do it and clear out all the invasives and and pile it up. We'll burn it at
some point or and uh just get them give them the opportunity to get that trail going now. The momentum's there. >> Uh we've got the help to do it. So I I'd hate to see us not just keep moving. We've got the town backing us up 100%.
We've got the volunteers backing us up%. >> It's awesome. >> It's awesome. We've got a lot of people. I've I saw uh there's bob I saw a bobcat up there. I saw a huge buck up there last week. >> I mean, there's a there's a lot of things going on up there.
>> I saw a couple kids riding bikes up there, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. I saw that we saw their bike uh their uh >> they weren't motorized. They were regular >> regular bikes. >> And uh there there's people up there regularly walking dogs and there's people using this the site. So, we just
want to keep uh making it a better place to go. So, the motion would be to approve uh using some equipment on a trail. It's close to the vernal pool, but you're okay with it. >> It's on the other side of the wall from the vernal pool. >> I know it's it's it's plenty far away. Enough away. >> Plenty far away.
>> And then then it and then it turns right away from it. >> Yeah. And it goes up towards the there's a uh paper road further up. It goes up towards that because we're trying to get a path that people can come down from that paper road, hook onto this trail >> and and make a nice uh
>> That's the road that the UPS drivers get stuck on. >> Right. Right. Right. Right. >> And and getting rid of those invasives is going to be a huge help. >> So even having a trail in there to give us better access to get in there. Okay. All right. So I'll take a motion. Why don't you >> Yeah, I'll move then that we approve the
commission approves this new trail out there at the coolest property >> as described by Bill It's around in the vernal pool area. >> Near the vernal pool area >> and I again >> and we allow some some equipment to get in there. Right. >> And and assist in the work. >> Right. Right. >> Motion from Chris.
>> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I I >> had a question, but sorry. Okay. >> Uh so excellent. This is great. This is great. Um >> good job, Bill. Thank you. >> Good job, Bill. Let's uh let's
>> Oh, and and so split rail fence. >> Oh, that's another thing. Yeah. Uh so we met today. David and I met with uh the fence company to get pricing for a split rail fence that would go uh around the buffer of the vernal pool area. It's
about 650 ft, I'd say, in that range of fencing total. total. Yes. >> And for a uh >> probably a 70 foot 80 foot uh guardrail between the
parking area and the field. So >> nicer looking fence than there's >> the rocks. Yeah. We'll put the rocks and make it part of the wall and put the guardrail. >> So we'll get that quote. I think we'll talk about the financing for that. We
can either go to CPC, which would be a bit more time, or maybe there's depending on what the quote comes in. He said you'll get it next week. That's what he said. >> We'll figure that out. >> Two too. >> Two real. >> Yeah. For this, it's just too Yeah.
>> Yeah. We're not We're not keeping any In fact, we don't want to keep animals in or out. We want to let them know, >> right? And the last thing is I spoke to them at the quarry yesterday >> and we'll be should be getting our uh granite signed within the next two or three weeks. >> So that'll be all done before the frost.
>> So what our goal is >> keep pushing. We're not we don't want it to drag on. We want to keep pushing. Everybody's working together. Everybody knows the system and the uh way we're going about doing it. So it was checks
and balances all the way through. And uh it's been going great. >> Good. >> Yeah, >> it's awesome. >> It's amazing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> it's good. >> Um I can tell you the um Cranberry Bog uh you guys, I sent you that drone footage um that we did. >> That was Hey, that was cool.
>> It was very cool to to watch Pete uh Pete Du who's not I don't think he's working tonight, but he's with CHS from Tele Media. But, uh, in case anybody wants to see this, the if you look on YouTube, look up Peter Du's photography, DEWS,
um, photography, and he has a YouTube channel, and you can find drone footage of the Cranberry Bog was taken last week. I think it was Wednesday. And, um, it's pretty much the raw footage that he took. And he did a really good job. Um,
there's no, sorry, there's no music or any anything fancy. There's no um no titles, no anything like that. Um but it goes from the it starts at the uh more or less at the dam and then goes around the let's see it goes around the east
side down all the way down to the Carile side. Comes back to the dam and then it goes around the island which is on the north end up near Hart Pond. does a circle around the island and then there's another section that goes down
the west side of the uh water flow down to the cranberry bog in Carlile and it's a really good view and it's a very interesting perspective to see this um but Peter D's photography on YouTube you
can see it anybody can see it it's very interesting to see >> and he's very enthusiastic about doing more of this >> so we're going to look at doing that at Um I want to do it at Warren Pole, at um Russell Mill and at um um at Kulus. And
then um I I don't know how much it would help to do it at like Old Oak Hill, which is all trees, uh Lime Quarry, um some of the other sites. We'll see. Um it might be worth trying it somewhere else, but um but yeah, uh
>> it's all pretty much canopy, >> right? >> Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I mean, >> does he need does he need an an advanced pilot's license to drive fly through trees? >> He's got pretty sophisticated technology and he's got his license. He does have he's a certified
>> but not through the woods. Not through the woods. >> It's actually the device he has, the the machine he has has sensors that will not allow it to fly into anything. It's it's pretty it's pretty. In fact, if you watch him go around the island, it suddenly stops because it realizes it's
close to a tree and he's like, "Oh, I'm in a tree." And it was on the far side. We couldn't see it. >> And he had to like take it up and then over and then come down. It was It was very impressive. It was quite impressive. >> Um I'll tell you, Warren Pole, the DPW has started doing some cutting in the
area between the parking lot and the kiosk, that area, and the brook. So, um, this morning they were over there cutting that area. So, we're talking about doing some kind of an accessibility trail in their area in that area. And, um, this allows us to
have a much better view in there. Um, it's it's a rough cut. It's a brush hog, so it's not it's not it's not grass or anything like that. Um, but it, uh, they're going to do some more cutting of the of the fields there um, depending on the weather and their timing. But, uh,
Joe Joe did that. Joe Ericson did that. It's great job. look good. Um the um right reservation, a couple things. Number one is we are having an ATV issue. Um we have an um someone is um visiting that site on an ATV coming um
through the site and going in or out of the power lines um over by Burning Bush Lane, Burning Bush Road, whatever that is. So, we're going to have to figure that out. Dave and I have some ideas. We're talking about maybe getting a trail cam
and doing something this we can try to get some better um understanding of what's really happening there. So, we we're um probably going to chase that because I think I think for us to have a trail cam makes a lot of sense for uh the reasons of these kinds of let's call
them disruptions on our site that are not something we're in favor of. Uh second thing is if it's doing nothing else, we can have wildlife uh you know looking for wildlife and I think we could also do some I wouldn't want to do it with faces but you could do it with
feet at some sites just to get an idea of of number of visitors. You could just have it kind of looking at how many feet are walking by including four-leggeds or whatever. So there's some there's some good use of of a trail cam for us I think on on our different sites. And
historically, we have had issues. We had some issues at Crooked Spring in the parking lot a few months ago, quite a few months ago. Um, we've had other sites with issues. So, um, I think we I think we'd get good use out of it. So, it's we're talking like a hundred bucks,
130 bucks for a drill cam. It's not a lot of money. Um, >> and then, uh, sorry. And then the last thing is just there have been uh at at the right reservation one walkway was removed and the trail was rerouted um to
uh we had the approval from the historic if you guys remember I left a meeting here in July for 10 minutes to go to the historical commission. We got the approval so that we can move a couple of rocks. Well, we did that last week. We moved the rocks, got rid of the the wooden walkway. The trail's now been
rerouted, so that's good. Another bridge was replaced on Wright reservation last week and another bridge was repaired today at Wright reservation. So, a lot of stuff happening there. It's getting upgraded. There's still a lot more there. There is a lot of structures on
at the right reservation. We still have the lime quarry bridge on our list. Um it's it's a small but yeah, but it's um but we got to we got to get there and get that fixed, too. And good to hear that the crooked spring line was
repaired. Sorry, Peter. You have Okay. Sorry. Uh and then David, you were gonna talk about there were a couple of events uh requests. >> Yep. So, the um the day before Thanksgiving forest walk. Um it's tomorrow. Um and so we we we uh that
that that's all been approved. Um I guess fire chief said he had approved essentially approved the burning. >> Yeah. What I understood we just talked with them earlier tonight. What I understood him saying is he doesn't see any issue with that is it's a uh was expecting rain overnight
>> and the way the the crew's been handling that uh fire management over the years very comfortable with it. So that's that's good to hear. It's good. It's a great event. >> A great event. If you haven't gone to it, I recommend it to everybody. It's a lot of fun. >> Two o'clock tomorrow at at Janet Road or
you can go in via Gary Gary Road. I think it's the other entrance. So, and then and then um cause is also doing the annual tree decorating event at Thanksgiving forest, coolest farm, and cranberry bog >> and other sites in town, but those are
three on our site on our >> those are the conservation property. That's >> glad to see that continuing. Yeah, >> that's a great event to get people out. Um I hope we get them cleaned up afterwards, but um yeah, it's a great event. the the uh it gets a lot of families out, people out to see
different sites in town. So, it's a good thing to see that continuing. Okay. Anything else, David, on your >> not on the agents report? >> Okay. So, next is the CR for the 255 Princeton Street. I did read it and feel
comfortable with it. Um we need to just vote and approve >> and and sign it >> and sign it. Okay. >> So, but there is there is one other thing on this. So, um, we got to discuss how this is going to work. Is it has to be notorized?
>> Okay. >> Um, so your boss is a notary, I believe. >> Um, Maria is. Yes, >> Maria is. So, uh, so some somebody and maybe you can check with her. >> Me. I'm a notary.
>> You're a notary? >> She needs to tell me these things. >> I can come in whenever. You want me to sign it? Um, well, what I don't know is is I if whoever is the notary is, will they want everyone because it says because it does have a list here for everybody.
>> Oh, boy. >> So, do they So, would they want everyone to to personally appear? >> Let me suggest we do it at our next meeting if Vivian can be the notary. >> Do that. >> There's there's up for that, right? >> No, I don't charge.
>> Joke. >> I could. >> Can we sign it now? No, you can't. You have to sign it when the notary is >> because I have a I have to fill out, >> but she has to fill it all out. She has to have her stamp and all that. >> Okay. >> My wife's a notary, so so I know I know
how it works. And I I never push a notary to stretch the rules, >> right? Okay. Well, thanks for piping up. >> We can we can put that on. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then a CFC for 28 probably.
>> Uh yes. Uh so and a couple of things. So, an extension >> parley and a certificate of compliance for uh 24 shed lane. Uh on on the certificate of compliance, that work was never done. So, that's the the box that's checked in valid order of
conditions. >> Okay. >> So, I think I think you know these both can be uh done in a single motion. >> What? And what exactly is the extension? It's just to >> uh they've they've been delayed. The work has actually started. This is this
this is a new um can't remember there's a new addition or a new a garage. >> Okay. >> But for for some reason it it got delayed and it's it's well underway now, but they need a little bit more time. I I just put an additional three years. >> Okay. >> You know, I don't think they're going to
need that much, but >> Okay. >> Carl, I make a motion then that we um approve the extension of 129-0938. That would be a 28 Parley Road. um for three years as well as the prove the certificate of compliance with respect
to 129-0883 for 24 shed lane >> for a non execution >> an invalid order >> invalid order in order >> the work was never started >> the work was never started motion from Chris second >> second
>> second from Ally all in favor I >> I Okay very good >> take a motion to adjurnn >> no >> Christmas party >> uh let's talk after >> Oh Let's let's let's do that out offline. >> I move to adjourn then. >> Second. >> Motion from Chris. All in favor? I.
>> I. >> Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Chia.