Right. It's 7 o'clock. >> Compacting the roots is the problem. >> Maybe that's too much. >> 7 o'clock. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. 7 o'clock. It It is uh October 14th on a Tuesday. I'm calling this meeting of the
Chsford Conservation Commission to order. My name is Carl Bishoff. I'm the chair of the commission. We'll be following the published and posted agenda. This meeting is both in person and through the zoom. In the case of the zoom not working properly, we will keep
the meeting in person going. This meeting is being broadcast and recorded by chumps or teled will be available on their website and on YouTube. We have a full quorum here. Um, we are uh likely
to continue the discussion on 265279 Chelmswood Street, but uh to to continue that hearing without discussion tonight. So, if you're here for that, you may not want to sit around till we do that uh
uh until we uh continue that discussion for I think it'll probably be late in November. Okay, first thing on our agenda here is we have uh open session. Do we have any citizen concerns that are not on our agenda? Anything that anyone would like
to bring up about something in town or one of our reservations? I don't see anybody coming. Okay. And the first thing on our list here is Donna Farbert at 27 Dalton Road, removal of invasives in a 100 foot buffer zone. David, do you
want to talk about this for a moment? >> Uh, sure. Um I don't see her here. Um, so I I was alerted actually by um I was alerted in a couple ways that um Courtney had had told me probably a
couple weeks ago that someone had left a voicemail uh for her asking about asking basically the DPW could remove some invasives um at this address and because it's you know most of the property is
wetlands she forwarded the voicemail to me. Um but the next day I was alerted by the building department um that there was work being done in the buffer zone at that address. Um and so I
I went over um and found out well that's what they were doing was removing hydrocontracted to remove the invasives in the buffer zone, but it was it was really tearing up the ground right next to the wetland. So I uh I told them they
had to stop and to and also to to smooth smooth it out and to uh you know put some kind of ground cover to stabilize it. Um so they assured me they they would do that. Um I was hoping to be able to get out there today um to check
it. I wasn't able to do that and expected them there uh here tonight. Um, I think it's it's just a matter of, you know, filing an RDA. I mean, it's nothing that the commission wouldn't approve. It's something the commission likes is getting rid of uh invasives,
but they just really should have filed an RDA. And I mean, I think that's what I would have told them if I had had a chance to speak with her before they did the >> Okay. Well, yeah. Yeah. Like you said, we we are all in favor of removing invasive plants. Um, we think that's a
great thing, >> but the process is within the buffer zone to to file an RDA and uh certainly that I I don't think we would have any trouble with that. Um, uh, you know, we want to do it in the in the right manner, but uh, yeah, Peter, you have something to say?
>> Uh, yeah, question just we don't need to discuss this. I just I'm curious as to how the patch of vegetation was labeled invasive. And what we're really for is removal of
non-native plants. But I think the point I'm trying to make is I've seen plenty of places around town, forums and whatnot where invasives gets used as a catch-all for a messy area. So that's my question and we don't need to
>> based based I can just say based on what I saw out there when I was there in the area that they had not yet gotten to it was probably 90 95% bittersweet. So no doubt in my mind that it was invasive. >> Yeah bittersweet. >> Yeah. >> Got it. Thank you.
>> So uh okay. >> So don't thank you. >> Don't know why. So, I guess we'll table this, but I you know, I I can't speak for the whole commission, but I think we all feel like yes, it's good to get rid of invasives, but please follow the process. >> Yeah. So, I I'll I'll keep an eye on the
site, you know, make make sure that uh you know, there's no serious erosion problems or anything like that. And, you know, uh I I had asked her to send me an email, which she didn't do. So, I'll as time permits, I'll be keep on top of
this. Okay, thank you. Um, next up is the report of the planning board liaison. Uh, hello Chris. Good evening. >> Good evening. Chris Lavali, chair of the planning board. Um, we've had two meetings since, uh, I was last here. Uh,
so in those meetings, we've kicked off the managed growth strategy task force. Um, we have approved the special permit for uh, the Chumpsford Water District PAS treatment upgrades. We approved 242 Bill Reka Road. We've had a lot of
continuences for 152 Steedman and 133 Princeton. Uh we had a traffic discussion for 191 185 Riverneck in our next meeting and we've got more coming uh or in our last meeting and more coming in the next
meeting. Um next meeting is next week um in the middle of the two town meeting sessions. Uh we're prepping for that. Um and we've got a uh town meeting um preparation
meeting tomorrow. Uh so if any of you guys are town meeting reps and want to hear about the zoning uh articles ahead of time, feel free to join us. >> Is this part of Paul's Yeah. session. >> It's the Paul's uh Paul's prep session.
Um and then we had um approved sead applicability for 345 North Road uh and 91 Kingsboro Road and those are pretty much the projects >> you know I'm just curious town meeting
is your planning board it's all of those are going to be bundled together on the second night. So, all of our zoning articles are going to be done on the second night on the Thursday. >> And the expectation is everything else will be done on the first night. >> They're going to try and get everything done. I think Paul said we may or may
not be able to get everything done. Okay. >> Um, anything that isn't done will go after the zoning articles on the second night. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Chris? >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you very much, David. Do you know
all those addresses he threw out there? Are there any looming on us that we're going to be seeing that you know of? >> I think just the 242. >> Yeah. >> Road. Okay. >> 91 I think is in flood plane. >> 91 Kingsboro Road cuz the
>> Oh, yes. Yes. And actually had a preliminary conversation with Matt who's here on another matter tonight. >> Okay. >> Um so yeah, we will be >> couple of those will be seeing it. Likely seeing it. So yeah. Well, >> good good catch mark. >> Okay. Next up, we have a request for
determination of applicability town of Chsford, DPW, 91 School Street. And the uh applicant is uh Courtney Thompson representing the town. I will note that uh as I understand it, this is linked with the uh application following this.
>> Yeah, but we're Yeah, they're related, but we're going to take them separately and and go through this. Good evening, Courtney. >> Hi. Um >> uh we have to read the notice. >> Oh, sorry. >> Chris, can you read the notice? >> Yes. Uh Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Mass General Laws,
Chapter 131, Section 40, and the Chanc Wlands Bylaw, Chapter 187, the Ched Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here at room 204. on Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 7 PM to
consider the request for determination of applicability filed by the town of Chumps Department of Public Works on behalf of property owner Hall Family Trust for proposed work within Intermittent Stream Bank and associated 100 foot buffer zone at 91 school.
Further identified as assessor's map 47/block 199. The project entails removal of large stones and non-native accumulated material and sediment, installation of rip wrap, stabilization, and repair of
culvert head wall in order to restore the flow channel of the existing intermittent stream. Remove material will be disposed of offsite. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Okay, >> great. Um, I'm Courtney Thompson. I'm the storm water engineer for the town of
Chumsford. Um, so yeah, I'm seeking an RDA to remove non-native accumulated material from the swale at 91 School Street directly upstream of the covert that runs beneath School Street. Um, right now there's a lot of exposed
material and a lot of siltation, other non-native accumulated material in the area we're looking to clean out. And then the following the RDA following me tonight is going to discuss removal
of more non-native accumulated material along the property within the vest of the intermittent stream swale or intermittent stream bank or bed. Um all of which has accumulated over years and
it kind of causes a flat area. So when the stream does flow, it kind of just runs into the yard. And right now, a lot of sediment is being rushed into our storm drain system. So we're hoping to remove as much material, accumulated material as we can from the street. If
we need to, we will come in with a compact machinery, remove what's necessary in that that area immediately adjacent to the cover. Um what we remove will be disposed of offsite and then we will come in with compact machinery and
put rip wrap to secure the to stabilize the banks and then the residents um after both projects are done will stabilize with clover or or another type of you know seed mix that makes sense for the area. Um,
we will be doing this work in no flow conditions, which is right now. Hopefully, it will stay that way for a little while. Um, and you know, it's it's all pretty straightforward. I did consult with um
the residents at 91 School Street because, you know, them cleaning their area, which they'll discuss right after this, is beneficial. It's a win-win for all of us. So the area where cleaning doesn't just refill with the sediment from
>> from that rest of that that segment in their yard. >> Um >> so this this is downstream in this direction, right? >> Yes, we're directly downstream of the stretch that they're going to be discussing next. Um I met with them and their landscaper. seems like we're all
on the same page and it's it's kind of a win-win in my opinion for all of you know for everyone for the conservation commission for us for them. Right now it's very clear that's been years and years of just fill in. So when it does flow it just kind of planes out over
their yard um kind of disperses all that. So this is we're just trying to restore it to near original conditions that you know to get some flood plane um you know capacity and let that stream flow where it's supposed to be flowing.
So >> okay David do you have uh comments? >> Uh just one question Courtney. So what what type of um machinery what kind of vehicles would you be using? Um, it's my understanding that the storm water division would want to use, you know, a
small excavator, you know, you know, a compact excavator. Hopefully, they can do most of the work from the road if they need to go into the yard. Um, that would be just for the very end and then they might need to go into the yard to put some of that that rip wrap stone in.
But we would work from the street as much as possible and um that area is already a bit exposed. So, we're just trying to remove that material. Um, but it would if any material needs to leave, if any equipment needs to work off of the road, it would just be a compact
small small um excavator or, you know, vehicle to bring the stone in. >> Thank you, >> Peter. >> Hi, Courtney. Good evening. >> Um, I might have mixed up the two uh applications, but I was looking at a map
that showed a dump site >> on the property. If I got these mixed up, what what do you want to do with your >> So, our material will be disposed of offsite, but I did consult with the applicants coming up next. >> The dump site that they're proposing to
put their material in is far away full of just I think it's poke poke >> poke >> just it's it's a very overgrown invasive area far away behind their shed anyways. and we're talking, you know, less than 20 cubic yards of material is what
they'll be talking about in their um RDA. But I did meet with them because like I said, it's advantageous for us. So what we clean out doesn't just get refilled in. And it I mean, you can't even at some points tell where the
stream bed is supposed to be through the yard. So when it does rain when it does flow, it just it just becomes an ice skating rink back there. So >> and and one other question the idea the rip wrap that you described what is the total length
>> oh >> the whole project or just by the culvert? >> Just by the culvert. It would just be where flow would be getting possibly quick through our um approaching our culvert to try to prevent sedimentation from entering our MS4. It would just be
a small amount of rip wrap. I the length of ours I mean it's just that area circled in red. I guess I don't know the length. >> Yeah. No, that's good. And then >> it would just be right along the edges just to secure that before it enters our storm drain to try to prevent that. >> I mean, it'd be like no more than 10
linear feet. Whatever. What Whatever Whatever DPW thinks that you need to make it work. >> Yeah. It wouldn't be a lot though. No. >> Yeah. Good. And I just I'm sorry. I'd like to make one more comment. I've seen some of these projects in town where uh there were native shrubs in the bottom
of the ditch. I'm curious if we have a policy or does your program have a policy when you go to to improve a flooding problem, which is something we're interested in too. Um, can you leave vegetation like a shrub in the in the in the drainage ditch itself or does
that sort of violate your whole design concept? >> I guess it would it would depend on the situation. In this particular site, there's really no shrubs in the drainage area of what we're talking about. And further on with what they're talking
about, it's a lot of just overgrown mess within the channel. Um, I don't think we'd be necessarily opposed to a shrub that's not causing inhibitive inhibitive growth, but right now in this channel that I'm discussing right now in the RDA
that's going to be following me, it is very much inhibitive growth growing within this channel, but you know, we're very much on board with native shrubs and such stabilizing the banks. If I might just add I I think the
appropriate policy to has if if a shrub if vegetation is growing in the accumul accumulated sediment then I think it can be removed. >> Yeah. >> And that's ve there's you know it's very much a foot or so of accumulated material. It's >> in other words it would have to be
removed to achieve the flood goal. >> Yeah. And and it's growing in stuff that shouldn't be there anyway. You know it's the non-native accumulated sediment. >> Yeah. And it's not like it's a a big treat like it's >> we you know you want that flow to continue like how it's supposed to be. Yeah. >> Okay. Ally,
>> you're all all said. Chris, anything? >> Yeah, it's a win-win. >> Yeah. No, it seems like a normal thing to do. >> I'm good. >> I'm good. >> Okay. I don't have any questions. I think it looks like a good good thing to do. It sounds good now. It's a public hearing. So, if there's anyone from the
public who'd like to comment on this part of the this RDA, uh, please come forward with comments or concerns. I don't see anybody. So, I'll take a motion to close this hearing. >> I move to close the hearing, Mr. Chairman. >> Motion from Chris. >> Second.
>> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Okay. So, the hearing is now closed. Take a motion on this hearing. Do we have any special conditions? Um I I would say just to do it uh when when it's dry. I mean certainly when
there's no flow, but ideally when the soil is dry as well. >> Okay. >> All right. So I I move then we issue a negative determination uh number three I believe with a condition that the work be done when when the conditions are
dry. And and I would and I would I would also say to the maximum extent practicable remove only the non-native accumulated sediment. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. Motion from Chris. >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I
>> I Okay. >> Yeah. And I I'll stick around for their RDA, too. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, that one's all set. You'll get an order of conditions from David. And um we will now start with the next um the next one. So, this is an RDA for uh Charles Hall
at 91 School Street. Uh the applicant and um we also have another uh lovely legal notice for Chris to read. Pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Mass General Laws chapter 131, section 40 and the Chsford Wetlands Bylaw, Chapter 187, the
Chs Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 204 at the town offices on Tuesday, October 14th to consider the request for determination of applicability filed by Charles Hall on behalf of property owner Hall Family Trust for proposed work within
intermittent stream bank in associated 100t buffer zone. at 91 school street. Further identified as the cessus parcel map 47/block 199 lot 9. The project entails removal of non-native accumulated
material/sediment in inhibitory vegetation to restore the flow channel of the existing intermittent stream. Remove material will be placed on site. Mr. Sher, >> thank you Chris. Thank you very much. So
who is speaking to this? uh project. >> Yeah. All right. Um if you want to just given that we just heard the first half of the story, you can just kind of tag on your part of the story here. >> In the part we're doing, >> I'm sorry. Can you give your name and
address, please? >> Charles Hall, 91 School Street. >> Thank you very much. >> In the part we're talking about, there is quite a bit of uh true invasive. We've got multiffllora rose and a lot of bittersweet with you
know like that. So, there'll be some of that involved in this, but mostly it's sediment that runs down the back of the slope from up on Monument Hill, and that's primarily sand and clay, and
it makes a pretty serious uh flattening out of the stream bed. And it does flood. And when it floods, it's at times in the late winter and the spring, there is a a real fast current going through my yard. So, it it should
be uh what the point is to try to make that stream be a stream and not have it be u just clay and sand. >> Okay. >> Okay. David, do you have any uh any comments? Uh you have been to the site, I think. any anything further on this
part other than >> uh no um not not in terms of you know observations I think you know I would probably add one more special condition when we get to that >> okay all right start this end time this time John you got any questions
>> I think he's going over and above to straighten this problem out in his yard >> and working with the town I think it's a great thing >> okay Bill I agree okay same Yeah, I I agree too. I mean, it's it's all about flood control and we want to
minimize the adverse impact that they're having as property owners. So, I'm I support this. >> Ally, >> same that they just said. And then just to clarify, obviously, we're not rerouting anything. It's just scooping and >> we're going to try and identify the natural stream course and follow that.
>> There's some parts where you probably can't, but >> Sure. >> Good question. >> Thank you. >> Good. Thanks, Peter. Um, if you can dump the debris on the multifllora roses and not not the pokeberries, which are a hardcore native plant, but you'll have
to decide. >> The pokeberries we like because they're deer candy. >> Yeah. >> And we love our deer. So, >> so the part that the part that we're doing is actually behind most of the pokeberries and there's really not much there because the bear has trampled it
all down. Thank you. >> All right. All right. So, uh again, this is a public hearing. So, uh if there's any questions from the audience or from the public on this? No, I don't see anybody coming up. So, I'll take a motion to close the hearing.
>> I move that we close this hearing. >> Motion from Chris, second from Mark. All in favor to close the hearing. >> I >> I Okay, so the hearing is now closed. Um David, you said you had a condition on this one. Well, so be so it' be same as the other one which is you know dealing
during completely dry conditions um and removing only non-native accumulated seed sediment to the maximum extent practic practicable. But then a third one would be just me working closely with their contractor prior to
the start of work just to make sure that we're all on the same page about you know the work sequence and where the uh the removed material will be deposited and you know managed that thing. >> This is the contractor Wayne Carolyn. >> Okay.
>> Hey Wayne, >> what's the name of the firm? >> Bear Hill Landscaping out of Western >> Bear Hill Landscaping and Western. Okay. Thank you very much. Good. Yeah, we can just make sure they connect with David. Yep. Okay, that's a that's the one >> additional uh condition. Okay,
>> I move that we um issue a negative three determination approving the project as described as as with the three conditions that our agent just um announced. >> Second. >> Second from Bill. Motion from Chris, second from Bill. All in favor?
>> I Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate you coming in. Good luck with the project. It's >> a good thing a chance. >> Okay. >> Well, when you have a chance, you know, Courtney and um uh Charles have my email
as well, so just just get in touch when you have a chance. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Good. >> All right. Uh next up, we are just flying here. Next up, we have 242
Ilka Road. Notice of intent. This is continued from uh August 25th, Avatar Construction. Mr. Oh, we have familiar faces coming up. Date. Mr. Cowell from Hancock Associates representing the applicant. Uh this was opened on August
12th. Uh yeah, our last meeting was the 26th. And as I recall, we had a tree maintenance plan that we did see um that came to us. We have that. Um, what else did we have that was open? Tree protection for site plan. I think we
were looking for >> I also wanted to see where the access for the tree planting was going to be. >> Um, it's not on this plan, it's on the site plan, but >> that's right. >> Okay. >> So, um, yeah, thank you, uh, Carl for
leading. Um again for the record, David Cow with Hancock Associates here on behalf of the applicant uh and uh Doug Duchaine's uh uh attorney on behalf of the applicant. So um yeah, this is a continued hearing in this matter. Um as of the last hearing, uh we had
coordinated uh David had actually sent us a list of comments received from the last hearing and I believe we addressed all of those. Um as of our last submitt, we submitted um revised site plans. uh we coordinated the site access and added
those to the civil set. Um we did have James Emanuel revise the landscape plan to show um the the uh tree protection detail. There were some questions about how we're going to address watering and and we've put that in there. Um there's
actually a third um submitt that that James did as well uh which is the tree maintenance plan which is a it's a two or three page um narrative that I think we were asked that we could provide. um you know as supplement to the plan for
how we we intend to you know operate and maintain this uh after it. Um and with that I think I'll keep my presentation brief. Um we we are open to any further questions and and uh considerations from the conservation commission and um
ideally we'd like to be in a position where we can start to talk about special conditions for the for the site. So with that I would turn it back to the comm. had only one one thing that I picked up on that tree the tree plan was it didn't have the property name on the plan
itself not on >> on the landscape plan not >> on the tree maintenance plan I think it was the the word document >> oh the third the word document >> yeah it was just super generic it was which was it was perfectly good but it didn't say like tree plan for >> for 242 bill Ricker wrote
>> that little nitpick >> no no no but that's that's recognized um I And I I hope that wouldn't hold up the potential to close the public hearing, but that's something we could certainly revise to add site location and provide that shortly. >> That's very simple. >> Yeah. No worries.
>> Um David, do you have anything else that you were >> uh No, I'm I'm actually pretty good um with everything that's been submitted um you know, in in response to the requests. Um really I can't think of much of anything
else. I I I am just curious forformational purposes where do things stand with the board of health. >> Oh yeah, that's Doug's Doug's role. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good evening. Um um we actually >> Sorry, say your name again.
>> Oh, Douglas Duchaine from Finner and Nicholson. >> Thank you. >> Um representing the applicant. Um we were actually at the board of health last week. Uh we went in to talk to them about their proposed testing requirements that they had imposed and
um we have hired an LSP to come in and help us oversee the action. Um he did a presentation on um the prior use of the property and the suggestion that um it's a low-risk site given that it's always
been residential. However, the board of health did point out that they have experienced problems with contamination and more often PAS at every kind of site whether it's residential or otherwise.
Uh and so they did um although we asked they did not um back off on their required um testing. However, um we've agreed to do it. uh they have agreed to allow us to do the testing as we begin
construction so that when we get out there to start moving soil uh and we're going to address the existing septic system to see what is still there. Um they did provide us a plan for required testing. I believe our LSP is going to
provide a testing protocol for them. Um but we're in agreement. um we can move forward as long as we uh agree to do the testing and we're going to do it. So, I think we're in good shape. Now, what happens when we find the testing? You know, we will if if we
do in fact find something, we will be required to report that as you know, um and would likely report it to both this board and the planning board as well. Um >> did was there anything with the water district also? >> The water district had um the water
district was actually comfortable. they didn't require any testing or or any action on our part which is why we you know then wondered why the board of health u but they have separate jurisdictions and separate uh responsibilities so we understand but
we've agreed to do it and they've agreed to let us move forward. >> Okay, we're good. Thank you. >> Okay, >> so why don't we ask the commission if you have further follow-up questions? We've been on this road for a while but not not a while but yeah, Peter, you want to start? >> Um no questions. I just wanted to thank
you and your team for a wellthoughtout landscape plan and I don't know some of these sites uh you know they're a challenge because you're trying to get a big footprint on a small site and you guys worked hard to show a lot of native vegetation and come up with plans and
respond to this commission's comments and I just appreciate that. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> All righty. >> Thank you Peter. >> You're good. Chris, anything? >> No questions. Carl. >> Yeah. Mark. >> No, I'm glad to see the the board of
health having to do some testing out there. I wish the water department was so active as that, but uh I'll find out why. Thank you. >> I like the plan. I think it's a good plan. Thanks. >> Thank you, >> John.
>> I'm good. >> Good. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm good. I I I'm uh I I think there's some challenges with how you're going to get into the back area and all that. That's a very tight squeeze, but um but that's Yeah. >> Oh, do you want to talk about that or >> I want to mention only by way of
thanking our neighbors. >> Oh, >> but um in fact um Hub Foundation, >> which is our bordering neighbor here. >> Yep. >> And they have their parking lot, you know, about to right here.
>> Okay. They have fencing and materials here, but they've agreed to allow us to remove the materials, uh, open up their fence, and it allows us to get >> Oh, nice. >> right in there with little or no disturbance whatsoever. That's great. >> Great. And then we've promised, you
know, actually by the time we get here, we're literally planning, you know, on the back and we told them we would rake and clean on the way out. So, I just wanted to recognize that they were very >> neighborly in working with us. We had a hearing with them. Yeah, we had a hearing with them like four or five
years ago. They were good as I remember. It was good to work with them. Was a while ago. Um Okay. All right. That this is a public hearing. So, are there any comments from the public? If we have any input or questions, comments from the public. I don't see anybody moving. Um I
will uh entertain a motion. >> I move that we uh can that we uh close this public hearing. >> Okay. We have a motion to close the hearing from Chris, second from John. All in favor of closing. I Okay, it's unanimous to close the hearing.
>> Uh, so do we have any special conditions on this? >> I guess uh let's just Yeah, David. I mean, do you need some time to write some special conditions or how do we shape up? >> Um, I think I think I actually have a pretty good handle on that at least up here. So I think um you know a standard
condition is that you know I typically go out and review the installation of the erosion control you know after that's been done. I don't I don't know whether whether I'll be doing that in this case or DPW will be doing it. I think DPW generally um you know moni
monitors these these kinds of projects. So I'll I'll talk to them about that. But um but but that's standard. But but in this case, I I would also want to review uh the installation of the tree protection. Well, the the protection for
the trees that will be remaining. Um so I I'd like to review that, you know, once after that's in and before any further work starts. Um I also like to be once once the tree planting in the rear uh commences like to be given uh a
daily report. I don't know how long that would typically take. give me idea how long >> to do >> to to plant all of those trees in backwood. I think I think there how many >> estimated on the back trees? Three days. >> Okay. >> A couple days. >> Weather weather. >> Yeah.
>> Um, you know, permitting. >> Okay. So, >> and rocks permitting. >> Ideally, I'd like to have a progress report, you know, uh, daily, you know, so if it's three days, you know, you know, three reports at the end of each
day. Sure. um by uh by your contractor or who was ever doing the planting. And then and then just it's it's basically again more standard just just uh monitoring and reporting on on the progress of um the the uh tree
plantings, you know, the success of the tree plantings. I think did you say you'd be agreeable to two years or three years on that? >> We'd of course prefer two years, but we'd be amenable to three. I think we had talked about that. I thought five was a long period. >> Five. Five's tough. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, so you're okay with three? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um again, I can I can come up with the the exact language. Um but again, it's it's something that's actually rather standard at this point for things like plantings and wetland
replication. I can >> you >> Okay. >> Can I add can I add one thing? >> Yeah. I just want to make a comment more for your guys' benefit because you're committing to long-term survivability, but uh we've seen some challenges in
town on tree planting details >> and a lot of landscapers miss the part about how deep to put the plant. >> Yep. >> And your experts know the right thing, but a lot of landscapers don't. And we've had cases where we've actually
asked people to replant trees because they were too low. Not not the commission, but in town. So just a word to the wise it might save you all some trouble if you can get a grip on that depth part. >> Absolutely. Yeah Peter that that comment is recognized as I do a lot of um although I albeit I don't do
installation I do monitoring of installation as a restoration ecologist and that is a common problem that we we either either they they bury it more more often than not it's not that they bury it too deep but they bury it too shallow and it's called crowning. So if if you know with trees or especially with potted plants, if there's so much
as as if they don't dig it deep enough and there's a 1 in where the crown sticks out, those are far more prone to mortality than if they get those in at a level detail. So again, I I think that David's idea of having this monitored on a daily basis during um um execution
would um hopefully prevent that to have to have an expert working with the landscape contractors while they >> It'll save your client money in the end. >> Absolutely. Yep. And that's how I explain it to clients is that if if this fails then you're you're on the hook, you know, and of course and we expect some sort of performance standard. I
would recommend 80% survivorship. I know that was a question of the conservation commission as a standard by which we would deem it successful. So if if you know eight out of 10 trees are anticipated to survive after the three-year monitoring period and be on
on trajectory toward success. >> Okay. Yeah. And and we might coordinate with the planning board. My understanding is they have a imperpetual requirement for landscape shrubs although I don't know that firsthand. >> Right. We it it was a comment I think
that David you might have provided us was was after the monitoring period was that whether or not well and it is it's up to the conservation commission if you if you condition it that you you've already conditioned that they need to do inspection reports once annually for storm water. And with those once annual
reports, you can also ask for them to to, you know, their landscape company to um opine on on the trees as well. So that's that's not fair. >> You got that, Chris? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I'm ready to make a motion then.
make a a motion then that we um issue our order of conditions to approve the project and that we have a number of conditions as you've just heard that we have the erosion control reviewed by our agent to make sure that everything's going to be satisfactory um >> the tree protection >> tree protection and yeah we'll consider
them both tree protection and erosion control BMPs will be installed >> he's getting to it >> I was getting to it Chris >> it's all right so yeah so the erosion controls and then moving on to the the tree protection basically you know, we we want to have that um review going on
at the pre the tree protection and we're looking for those uh daily reports for what we anticipate to be three day three business days of work. So, the daily reports um for progress on that and then also the um you know the the three-year
viability for the trees as well with a success rate of 80% surviving over the three years as a standard and we have reporting provided to our agent on that. Anything else we want? >> That was it. >> There. >> Okay, that sounds good.
>> Okay, so motion from Chris. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Ally. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, >> thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. >> Good luck on this project. Okay, next up we have uh this one's
continued from our last meeting. Notice of intent. Dylan Lee for Russell Road. Matthew Hamour is here from Landflex representing the applicant. Um okay. So, as I recall at the end of our last
meeting, we had a straw vote on this where we approved it on the straw vote. Um, and David has done a draft of the special conditions based on that. And, um, I trust you've had a chance to
review them all, but u, maybe you want to take a moment to I don't know if you have something you want to talk about here. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, chair and members of the commission. Uh for the record, Matt Hammer, Lamp, uh Lamplex Engineering, uh 60 Fletcher Street in Low, Mass.
So, there was a plan change uh that was requested. Uh we added dimensions to the plan uh from the structure to the Freeman Lake. Uh additionally, we added a work sequence uh to the plan. Um
we also uh added a temporary uh sedimentation basin uh if it's needed uh for dewatering to install the footings. Uh so we added that detail as well. We also prepared a operation and
maintenance plan which is um tied into the deed restriction which which outlines the uh maintenance and the inspections and the reports necessary to maintain the uh catchbas
and structures at the mainly at the intersection at uh carp path road and Russell road. So there's a full document uh in that regard and then additionally there was a deed restriction uh document
a draft document that we provided um um to Mr. Coons as well. Uh we also uh have met with uh Mr. Coons to go over some of these uh materials and we've uh reviewed the order of conditions that
was uh drafted by Mr. Coons as well and we're agreeable uh with the uh order of condition uh special conditions in its entirety. >> Okay. >> I can put it to the commission. >> Okay. And we've had a chance I I think
we got it. We got it in the package that you sent Friday, right, Dave? >> Yeah. So, we had a chance to look at it. >> Um so, I'll I'll go around the commission. Uh John, do you have any questions on that? >> I'm I'm abstaining. >> You're abstaining. >> I'm abstaining. >> Okay.
Um, Bill, do you have any? >> Um, I have a few questions, but so are we at the point where have enough votes to override the waiver? Is that what we're looking at? Are we
>> That's how That's how it came up. >> Okay. All right. I had a couple questions and then I'll I'll come back to my reasoning um why I'm asking these. There's a some fencing up along Grton Road like six
sections of uh fencing that's kind of fallen over into the wetlands. >> Okay. >> Is that on your property? Is that part of your property? >> Uh I do not know where that fencing is. >> You know what I'm talking about? Um, >> Crossman Senior Center along Graten Road. There's fencing
>> all the way >> all the way up near the red house. >> White House. The Davenports. >> Yeah. Is that your fence or their fence? >> No, that would be their fence. >> Their fence up that that far. >> Okay. Um All right. The the road that's depicted
on your plan, right? That's not what's there. the road you that's depicted in this plan uh with the heavy black line that's not the road that's what the road >> so
>> supposed to be right it's not depicting the the road that's there existing >> so we do depict the road that's existing >> yeah in a very light line >> that line is here >> right >> y >> so you show I'm just want to clarify I'm
not you do have it marked on the plan edge of payment. >> Mhm. >> But for with the existing road, but the it's very confusing. >> If you look at this plan, that Russell Road that's shown here isn't there. That's not it. It's because you've got
14 ft from that road to the front of your house. >> So I can >> proposed house, but you've got you show it at 14 ft. >> This is correct. So this is the right of way the layout of Russ >> but what's there is five feet from the
house >> the pavement itself >> right >> correct >> the reason I'm asking I'm not I would like to see on the plan the set of plans that we finalize that that be highlighted the existing road because you can't tell unless you really know
what you're looking at you can't tell that that that that road that the layout isn't what's it's not what's there >> so Yes, we've we've we realize that the plan can be confusing. >> It's deceiving that >> there's a lot of lines, right? >> You're right. But you show you don't I
want to be able to see I want somebody to be able to look at that and say, "Okay, the actual road that's there that isn't going to change. It may be on your property, but it is 5t from the front of the house where you it the average person would look at this and say, "No, you're 14t back from the road."
>> Right. >> Right. >> So, in the past, we've provided this Yep. >> To to identify pavement green and building so that it was a little clearer by color
>> to show the different differentiation between the primary areas >> of the application. >> Right. >> Yeah. So we that's why we've always had this colored plan to to kind of clarify and and identify where those may >> Well, I think on this on the plan is
that submitted because you're going to go to you're going to the board of appeals for that's correct >> variance. >> So it's it's confusing. I want to see something that shows what's actually there. Maybe highlight it up shade it the existing road and and you can still have your
>> So I can put >> a layout. >> I can provide a copy. Okay. It's just confusing. >> I'll provide a copy to the file of this rendering to make it clear in the file as an additional exhibit which we've always submitted. >> No, I didn't I'm not saying you didn't.
I'm just saying it's very confusing if you look at it. >> Understood. >> Okay. Now, on your areas that you're doing like along the lake, you've got an area that's uh highlighted as restoration area, >> right? >> That's correct. >> Okay.
you the rest of the area along the lake is kind of barren. What is is there no plan to do any plantings there? >> Uh we had identified the one area. >> Well, the one area that's already got trees on it,
>> right? So, we have identified the one area previously as that area to be added to the restoration area >> which I believe was a specific request by one of the commission members. Mhm. >> And then we also added the other three.
>> Do you have a a a plan from Norse yet to excuse me of how you're going to do these areas? >> Yeah, we do. We have a written narrative that was originally submitted >> for res for restoration. >> Okay. >> I've sat down with Mr. Coons and part of the special condition y
>> was to re-review >> specific plans Yeah. >> with Norse Environmental and Mr. coons prior to those restorations. >> So, this this is the wording that I put in up here. >> Yep. >> Oops.
>> It's on page one. >> Okay. So, that's part of that's not something that's coming later on. >> Yes. Prior to the start of construction. So, we'll have to follow those plans. And who's going to approve what if somebody says I'm going to put two plants in?
>> No. So, sorry, Mr. Bine. So, we originally submitted a narrative for all for restoration areas. Okay. >> Which is a which is a >> a collection of trees and shrubs and in and ground >> ground cover plantings.
>> I just don't want to see something come later on that's not adequate for what? >> Yeah. So, so Miss So, so so Mr. Coons and I did discuss that specifically and that's why this is added in as a special condition. >> So you feel comfortable with that, David? >> I'm comfortable with it. I'm but I'm
certainly happy to bring the plans back to the full commission if that's the way you >> I'm just I'm just bringing up some things that I saw. So why wasn't the area that's not that's that's the the along the lake
that's not part of that restoration. Why is that left the way it is? and not included in it. >> So we at the last commission meeting we had shown this restoration area as an area that we were proposing for a restoration
area and it wasn't identified at that meeting that that should be expanded in any way. >> Okay. So >> but you you own that property own that property. Yes. Okay. >> So that's that's the 155 square foot area up here.
No, that's the one that >> Yes. >> circled in this. >> Yes. >> Okay. Because All right. My next question. You're removing a shed. It's like 10 by 20 shed, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it's 200 square feet. Okay. I
brought up at the last meeting, and this is why I think maybe I'm not as f far along as these other people are. I'm only one vote out of the seven, but in my mind, You've got 200 feet of shed you're
taking down. If they're willing to wave the 50 foot on the front of this, I suggested at the last meeting that you also wave and you only wave in the areas that are that are uh you're not waving the whole 50 foot. You wave in just
what's in what's part of the plan. Um, the shape of that house is ridiculous. I wouldn't want to build that house. I would want to see that house as a part of a project. And I mentioned the garage that we had a few
years back that they cut the corner of the garage off was ridiculous. I feel like this is just as ridiculous to make someone have to build this up, whether it's these people or he could sell this as a as a lot to someone else. and someone
stuck with this shape lot. And if you do the calculations, which I've done, it's about 120 square feet of area, three four sheets of plywood laying on the ground that you would have
to wave of the back waiver to to make that a rectangle instead of that shape, the goofy shape you have. I'd rather see I'd rather do this work with them. I I want I would
ask for you in return for the doing that that you would plant along the rest of the beach. It's a little give and take that area that we just discussed on the beach that's not part of your planting. I would like to see because it's a give and take. Mhm.
>> You're you're taking a 200 foot shed out that's in the buffer. >> Mhm. >> And you all you're all I would say is you're trading that off to for 120 ft of squaring that house up to give whoever owns this property the option of putting
something there that makes sense. Maybe it doesn't have to be a 32 foot tall banana like it shows here. Maybe you could put something that's more cohesive with the rest of the neighborhood. It look nicer. So to stick
with that funny-shaped house, I would want a little bit something more from them. And that's why I asked about the fence. If that's his fence, take that down because it's falling into the wetlands. But it's not. But I would plant along the beach. And I would square up that house. And if you're
going to wave the front, and I was against waving any of these in the beginning until I looked the plan last time, and David brought up the fact that there's you've got a street there, you've got area that's been lawn, you've
got a telephone pole with electric service, you've got a a stub for a sewer. So there's it's not a pristine buffer zone that we're just throwing this thing into. So I would rather do this project correctly and instead of building that goofy looking thing that's
there, it's not going to take away from the wetland by giving them 120 ft to square that thing, make a tri rectangle out of that. It's not hurting anything. And I would also uh
So that's my spiel on that. My other thing I've thought about and I've thought about this a lot is to you brought up the drainage down the street. To be honest with you, I would not want to encumber that lot with the problem of
maintaining the drainage that doesn't it's not even on the property. You're on someone else's property maintaining. You're forcing whoever owns this house at any point that they're responsible for drainage is not on their property that's part of the whole street. To me,
that doesn't make sense to do that to somebody. I wouldn't want to own I wouldn't want to own that house knowing that I have to maintain the drainage on somebody else's land down the street. I don't think it's legal, first of all, to do that. Um, so maybe I'm not as far along as
everybody else. If I'll tell you if if it comes down to voting for this house out of principle because I went through the other thing with the garage and I didn't like that. I would vote against this
knowing that you maybe have the other the votes to pass it but out of principle I would vote against it because I don't think we should make somebody put that house that's that shape. I would I would like to see you have the next meeting come back with something that makes sense as far as a house.
You're not taking away from the wetlands. It doesn't do anything to the wetlands. Now, I'm not here to help you build a house. I'm here to look at the wetlands and that's not affecting the wetlands, but I don't want to be a part of something that is ridiculous looking.
So, that's my spiel. >> Thank you, Bill. >> All right. come back to is >> well uh in the in the beginning I was I was against this. I I don't think it's
it's not being consistent with that with our law or regulation, I should say. The uh the House I I hear, Bill, and you can you can put whatever you want there. It's it's what you want to do.
I'm not really in favor of this project. Uh If if I had to vote on this now, I think I would vote against it for a number of reasons. Uh the way it's going to look isn't it I I
shouldn't bring that up. It's not us not our our uh we should worry about. I I just think when we're trying to make something nice and it's something it's never going to be nice. It's a building. It's not a building lot. He's trying to force something in there
to put a house on it, whether whether it be for financial gain, whatever the reason is. So, I'm still thinking no on this. That's it. >> Okay.
>> I just wanted >> I wanted to see if um if David could just kind of take us very quickly. We had it up for a few minutes. the special conditions and and I know I' I've looked at it. I have on my phone too, but >> Okay. Do you want >> we could just Yeah, we just look through those. Yeah, let's just we could walk
through those conditions, make sure we understand them. I think that's important. >> Um but you but you want to go through the first why, you know, this is written from the standpoint of the commission approving it. Look at the reasons why. >> Yeah.
Are we in discussion, Carl? >> Uh, not yet. >> Okay. >> No, this is this is Chris's time right now. >> Thank you. >> So, just looking at what's in front of us now. We've got item one was the commission's determination. would be making a determination that the proposed
dwelling inertinences will have no adverse impacts on the lake. That's the first item. The second item would be that there be no trees removed. Number three, that we have an existing 200 square foot structure and the fencing located within the 25- foot
disturbed wetlands will be removed and the location of the structure will be restored with native vegetation. Number four, the applicant would agree to a perpetual restriction covenant to be recorded in the property's chain of title for the uh maintenance of storm water management of on Russell Road,
which is kind of alluding to a point Mr. Vines was making earlier. Um, and then number five was the approximately 4,162 total square foot of wetland resource area and buffer zone restoration plantings that would be on and off site
as proposed as mitigation. So those >> if I could just add something on point four. Yeah. >> Um town council currently is in the process of reviewing the proposed >> uh restriction covenant. >> If he comes back and says yeah no that's not legal that you can't the commission
can't require that you know that the owner of that property to do something off the property you know then that whole thing is off anyway. So, >> okay. >> I would I would suggest letting council complete his review and see what he
comes back with. >> I mean, Mr. Fines did raise kind of a fundamental fairness question about that whole situation. So, it'll be interesting to see if that's legal or not, but he certainly raised a good question on fairness of it. All right. So, I just want to make sure we're looking at those conditions. Uh, I mean,
I personally see hardship on the applicants. It's a tough property to work with and I'm sympathetic to the fact that uh you know they've been working hard to try to come up with something that could pass muster here. So I'm sympathetic to hardship, but you
know that's where I'm at at the moment. >> Okay, Ally. >> Um >> welcome to the commission. >> Thank you. Yeah. Wow. All right. So, previously you had mentioned um and I couldn't quite make out the number, but it was 11 1/10,000th or 119,000th of an
inch of groundwater impact. Can you confirm if that was based on a lakewide displacement calculation? >> Yes, it was >> lakewide. Okay. So, to clarify, it was not sight specific in regards to groundwater and footing depth. It was to
to show that if you took the um the volume of the the area of the lake >> that that would be the net impact. >> Okay. >> Um and then speaking of groundwater, I know you just had mentioned this um temporary sedimentation basin here. So
last time we had discussed groundwater and um you know dewatering methods and my question was that you know after looking at previous plans was there a finalization on that in terms of method or storage discharge point such as using like a frack tank or frack truck but
obviously you bring this up. So um I guess my concern would be you know a discharge point from that the capacity of it and the maintenance of it. Can you speak to that at all? So the um the dewatering um system is there uh in the event that
it's needed for the footings. Uh these are going to be very uh small diameter footing holes. So we don't anticipate the dewatering volume to be um to exceed the capacity for this sedimentation basin. Essentially the water goes into
the basin. If there is any sedimentation within that water, it settles out in the basin and the water filtrates out of the basin and that would be directed towards the wetland area. >> Okay. And then in terms of obviously getting
rid of the sedimentation, would that be done offsite or where would that be done? >> That sedimentation uh would be taken off site. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. And then in lie of handcuffing us with language, and I apologize because I am new here,
but was there any consideration in the list of conditions for dewatering or groundwater management in our list of conditions since the lake is 40t away? Would that be something we could do or not do? And I apologize if I'm kind of hanging this out to dry with that, but is that something?
>> You mean add any additional uh conditions beyond what is being proposed? >> Yeah, in terms of list of conditions in terms of groundwater management or and dewatering and disposal of of >> Well, I think I I think I mean that's
that's a general condition. I think it's a question of how it's specifically handled. Um now um here it says see detail where where is the detail on this. Uh okay that's up there.
So I just um you know this would be water that's coming from the ground in a very uh virgin natural state as opposed to a construction site where there's a lot going on with equipment and everything. So I think you're going to find that the water that comes out of if
if it's needed for these footings. Uh we anticipate that it will be for the bottom couple feet that it's going to be a very small amount of clean water that'll be going into the sedimentation basin. I I think it would be important uh in
this case again to work really closely with a contractor because I've certainly experienced times where you know a contractor will look at an engineer's plan and says no we cannot do it that way. Um, so again, I think I think it
would be a matter of Yeah. Um, if if the contractor feels that it can't be done this way, you know, they're going to have to propose something in detail about how they actually want to do it. And, >> right, you know, maybe, you know, it might take a little bit of back and
forth on that, >> but I think it's doable. And and that and that would be reviewed by by yourself >> if they had if they wanted to bring a tank in to do the dewatering. >> Yeah. I mean, if if if I mean, I would certainly be honest and say if if
there's something that e either I didn't like or I didn't understand or I thought wouldn't work. Yeah. Then I might say, "No, you got to you got to bring it back to the commission." But, you know, hope hopefully, you know, the contractor working with you, you know, will be able
to come up with something. if it's not this something that's, you know, just as effective and that I agree will work. >> Yeah. And this is a very common dewatering system that we're proposing to the commission. So, we're confident
that this is going to suffice. And if if it needs to be expanded or a replacement needs to be brought in in order to get these footings in, then we would most certainly need to consult with you, Mr. and bring it and bring it before you to
if you deem necessary to bring it before the commission. >> Thank you. >> Peter, >> uh yeah. Hi. Uh just two quick things because we had a pretty long discussion last time. I don't want to repeat all
those points. Um Bill, I understand what you're saying and I think that's our quandry. you know, there's good arguments for and against, and there's also that consistency argument that we talked about last time. Um,
so I do have one quick question and then a comment. Um, my question is really for you, David. Um, if this were approved, we would approve this site plan. And yet the shrubbery along the lake is not mentioned, I don't think, in the permits. It is on the
plan, but the plan calls it a proposed shrub area. >> Yeah. So, help me out with the legality. If we approve of a plan that said proposed shrub restoration, is that ironclad that that has to be built or should we take out the word proposed?
>> Um, well, it'll it'll >> it's down here on the bottom. Yeah. >> Um, >> just a minor point, but >> well, it's it's you know, I mean, it's the same thing. It says the proposed twotory single family dwelling. I mean, the assumption if the assumption is that if it's shown on the plan, it's going to
be done. Uh now again that's they go back to the special with the special condition that says that prior to the start of construction that specific planting plan has to be submitted to me for approval. Again if the commission would rather I bring it back to you for
approval you know h happy to do that. Um but I mean Norse Norse knows what they're doing. I I trust that they would do something that's you know good. >> Yeah. I was just trying to avoid a situation where it's a year from now and there's a conversation like, well, it
said proposed, not a commitment, >> you know, >> is that an issue or not? >> I I won't sign off in the building permit application until I approve that plan. >> Okay. >> And then and then I guess just just a final comment, then we can move on. Um
u one way I've been looking at this um Bill, I understand what you're saying. Um, I think our job here is to be sure the projects comply with our wetland town bylaws and the state wetland protection act. And I
think we agree this plan does comply with that one big exception, the waiver. So, I think we're in I think we're in agreement that it does meet our requirements, our legal requirements with that one exception, which of course is a big
exception. Is that a fair statement? We don't we don't need to discuss it, but that's my thinking. Yeah. Thanks, Carl. Okay. Um, so my comments are we are focused on
protecting natural resources. That's our that's our job. Um, I don't think that storm water maintenance covenant feels good either. I the more I think about that and Bill Bill framed it really well. I'm like that just doesn't just doesn't feel
right. Um, I think it's a good thing to have storm water maintenance there, but I I just don't I don't see that in there. I'm not comfortable with that. Uh, but we do have a bylaw of 50 ft. And um um Chris, I hear you talking about the
um the uh hardship and I'm I'm struggling there. Um, I really have a hard time with hardship in this application. Um, and I don't but I don't think we want to do a house redesign. I think, you know,
we have to vote on the application in front of us. And I really don't want to give up on the rear wetlands if if there was a house redesign. I, you know, that's like no way. So, I'm I'm really struggling on this one, too. Um
I I think I said at the end of the last meeting that we can't be sure that everyone will stay with the same votes and um from what I'm hearing that's that's coming true. So I think we still I think we need to um close the hearing though.
I think we need to see if there's anyone in the public that uh wants to speak so we we we can ask for members of the public and you are a member of the public so you can speak. Uh Dylan Lee, 20 Russell Road. Um and no, Mr. Vines, I do appreciate with what you're saying in
in May, uh if you'll remember at that meeting, I did come here with a site plan and the building was a rectangle and Old Westford Road was right up before me and you guys made them move that corner of the garage out of the 50t of the wetland and I came up after them
and and you all told me, "We just made them do it so you have to do it." And I I spent another, you know, I' I've redesigned this building three times. I've spent $46,000. And so, yeah, to redesign it again is I
mean, I I I'm I'm running on fumes here, but I don't I didn't want to build a banana house. I I did the rectangle so it could be built modular and there's no construction site. I could just drop three modulars on top of each other and
still do the restoration and and that was fine. And and I was I thought that was a good plan. And I was told to move the corners of that building. So that's you know the way it is. I don't know if I can square it off on the second and third floor and make it look keep the
base the same and square it off on the second or third floor, but you know, uh, redesigning it is and it's the same thing with the restriction for the drainage basins. I mean, these are all things we agreed to because they were proposed to us. We
didn't come up with these things, you know, in all honesty. I these were all told as conditions that we would need to meet in exchange for these waiverss and you know if we go through the history of my street Gloria built their
house in 99 standard you know 5 foot foundation frost wall crawl space Mike's house had a huge addition in 2016 Russell Road uh is one foot outside of the 50 foot and they had to write four sentences to build their house and get a
special permit. You know, our file is an inch thick. You've seen it. And, you know, I know it's a tall order to get these waiverss. Um, I mean, I just I'm not sure what else we could really, you know, show at this point to change your
guys' mind. >> Okay. So, this is uh in in the public. Anybody else that wants to get up and speak? >> Yeah. Laura Luna, I'm 200 row. I'm I don't know what else you you need
from us. We are putting everything and I know you're here and you don't care. You don't have to care like what we have to done to present this project and to keep this project alive. You don't have to care, but you
should because everything has been put it through this. Our neighbors doesn't talk to us anymore. Like I I I I don't know what else you
want from us. We are doing everything by the rule. We come in every other week or every two weeks with more engineers hours, laws, uh lawyers hours,
um architect just tell us because you know at this point just just make a decision even if it's a negative one for the love of God just make a decision. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we're at a point
uh no more public comment. Okay. Um I think we can close the hearing. Oh, >> sorry. May I just >> Yeah. Okay. One more. >> Barbara Madden, 16 Russell. I just want to be sure that even these guys realize
that 16 Russell was an existing house that people lived in and had lived in for more than 75 years, I think. And that's why that house was allowed to be moved a little out of the wetlands and redone. That was
an existing home with people living in it. This is a lot that's just it's, you know, doesn't fit the rules of what a new construction place can be. It's only had a shed on it. And I just I just really want that to be understood cuz my h I get a lot of
negativity because like, oh, I got to build my house. Well, my house was I needed it was it was the h you know what I mean? The house was already there. We lived in it. It was a family home. It wasn't new cons. It was new construction cuz we had to move it, but it was a
house already. It wasn't a shed that nobody ever lived in. the number thing got messed up with my old number. There was never anyone living in the shed. And I think that's really a big thing for the contention of how my house
got built. And there's a lot of negativity that way, but it's not an existing lot that meets the requirements in town. So that really confuses me why they weren't just I hate that they spent all this money and they should have just been told you can't do that from the
beginning. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, um I think we're at a point to close the hearing. Um do I take a motion to >> I make a motion that we close this
public hearing? >> Motion from Chris to close the hearing. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Mark. >> All in favor to close the hearing. >> I I >> I abstaining. >> You're abstaining on this. Yep. Okay.
All right. So, uh, six in favor to close and one abstaining. Um, so now we'll, um, now we are in, we can have any further discussion on this if, uh, anyone wants to discuss it any further or we can go to a vote. >> I'll make a motion. I mean, we can talk
about it, but let me make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we wave uh the 50-foot um prohibition that's under our local bylaw section 1875 which limits um having any buildings
closer than 50 ft of a resource area. And that we make we make that decision based on the provisions that the uh the literal enforcement of that provision would uh involve demonstrated substantial hardship to the applicants
and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying the intent and purpose of our bylaw. That's my motion. >> Okay. There. And you included the conditions
that uh we've seen uh from David's room. Right. >> Well, I was going to just do the waiver now and then we have to then move on to our order of conditions and we'd be voting actually under our bylaw and the state laws as well too. >> Help me out there. So, we going to do
three votes or No, we would just do two votes. One on the on the waiver. >> Yeah, I think I I think Yeah, I think you do the two. So, so you'd combine the waiver with the special conditions uh if if if it's approved, I guess. Um let let
me see. Well, what you can do is you can you you can add to your motion, Chris. You can add, you know, XYZ special conditions. Um and and then we can then we can have that discussion and then if if it's um
if if it's if the vote fails then I guess it doesn't really matter whether it fails on you know the the waiver or fails on the the special conditions. Um let me Let let me think about that.
>> So I don't think we want to separate the Wetlands Protection Act and the bylaw. >> Well, we've done that. >> Well, I think I think we do. >> We have because I mean there's there's there's there's >> there's no justification for the Wetlands Protection Act. >> Um I mean there's that would that would
just a waste of everyone's time to deny under the Wetlands Protection Act. That would be a waste of the commission's time of D's time. So that that actually can be >> I mean I we could take a vote on that first actually address and then maybe that's a cleaner simpler way. We just
take a vote under the state um you know the state wetlands protection act that we issue an order of conditions with the conditions that uh um maybe that's what I'll do is I'll just hold withdraw my motion on the waiver under our bylaw. Let's address the state law which is really I think pretty clearcut right?
>> Yeah clearcut that it complies with the state >> it's in compliance with the state law. >> Yeah. So, why don't I do that? Why don't I make a motion then that we issue our standard conditions, order of conditions under the state uh under our state regulations um and that we have the
special conditions that our agent had proposed and we had just gone through. Um that's my motion then and it's under the state law. So, we're not dealing with you know our bylaw >> state wetlands protection. >> State wetland protection. >> So, motion from Chris on that, second
from Bill. Uh any further discussion on that? >> So we we have to approve that because it's the state. >> That's the general feel. >> We we we don't have a basis to >> whether we agree with it or not. >> Right. We don't have a basis to deny it.
>> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> So all in favor >> I >> I >> Who seconded that? >> Oh, I did. >> I thought Bill Yeah. Sorry, Bill. >> Yeah, he I saw him raise his hand, but I didn't say it. That was under our chapter That was under our chapter 13
Mass General Chapter 131 section 40. >> And John, did you abstain on that? >> I'm abstaining. >> You're okay. So the record is I think it was six eyes and one abstain. >> Okay. >> Okay. So then turning to our our um
>> so and actually as I'm thinking about this a little bit more I think I think you probably do have to do two votes >> because I I think depending on um whether you vote to grant or deny the waiver, right?
>> You could still you could still issue >> an order of conditions that doesn't explicitly deny the project but which the the special conditions you approve. then effectively make it, you know, denied, make it impossible to comply
with the conditions. >> I'm not following you. I'm sorry. >> So, so you could you could you you could just saying for the sake of discussion, you could hypothetically say um that you're you're not granting the waiver uh to the 50 foot no disturb. So then, but
then you say, well, you want a special or you want a special condition in the order that says you have to get the house entirely outside the 50 foot, you know, setback. Essentially a denial, >> but it's it's not explicitly a denial. >> Yeah. Because we haven't we it's been
many years since we actually did any waiverss of the bylaw, but the last time I remember many years ago, we took the vote on the waiver first. Yeah. Yeah. And then after that vote went down, then we proceeded to the order. >> Yeah. I think I think I do think you need to do it that way and thinking a
little bit more about that. >> Yeah. That's how we did it like 15 20 years ago. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Then we'll do it that way. So that means it is in the end three votes. >> Yeah. >> So one we just did and then two more. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So
>> there's no reason you can't do that. >> Yeah. That makes sense. So again, I'll make my motion that we do a waiver under our chapter 187. on our bylaw 1875 that we wave the 50-foot setback because I point to the substantial hardship to the applicants and that um it's a
substantial hardship to the applicants and and in the end of the day it's not um you know it's not not a detriment to the public good and doesn't nullify or um substantially deriggate our purposes of our bylaw.
So that's my motion. Okay. >> So the >> second >> motion from Chris, second from Bill. >> So we can discuss it now. >> Now we can discuss. >> The reason to wave it would be a hardship. It's not detrimental to the wetlands
that are there. The hardship would be that it's there was a trailer on it before that it was used. Whether not there was a house there, there was a trailer there, there was a lawn, there was a shed, there's a road in between
the lake and the proposed house. >> Is that there's electrical power there on site? >> Yeah. >> And a sewer stub. >> Yeah. So that would be the reason to wave it,
>> right? >> That's how I see it. >> Is there anything else? >> I think that covers it. I I got a store sew a stub on my property and it can't be built on that doesn't hold any credence.
>> Okay, I have to be okay. >> Any further discussion? Okay, so we'll take a vote on this. This is a vote in favor of waving our bylaw of 50 feet. So all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. >> We have two eyes and all oppose say nay. >> Nay. We have four nays and another abstain. >> Abstain. >> Okay. So um then do we even need to do a vote
on the condition on the third? >> I think you have to do a vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have to then do a denial vote, right, on the uh request. Well, or or you or you could, you know, make uh issue an order of
conditions that makes it essentially um denied by saying that, you know, based on the denial of the waiver that, you know, the house has to be entirely outside the 50 foot no disturb um
or I should say no build. So, effectively denying it. So they're they're essentially equivalent ways. You know, I I guess I guess if if if the commission's um inclination is to
outright deny it, then I guess my request would be is that those members who, you know, feel that way need to get together and write the denial. I don't feel that I personally could write a denial. that would up be upheld in court
and I I don't feel it's an efficient use of my time to do that, you know, in all honesty. >> Okay, we'll have to we may need your help >> on how to do that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um, so
how uh I'm sorry I missed Do we need to still do another vote on the >> Yeah, I think I I think you either you either need to approve it with a set of conditions that that may be impossible to meet. Um or you vote to explicitly
deny it. Um and you know uh you have you to if you issue you know an outright denial you have to state the reasons why it's being denied and how it does not comply with the interests of the uh the
bylaw. Not just that it doesn't comply with that particular section. You just you just can't simply cite that section and and expect it to uh be upheld. You have to say explicitly
how this this um house will adversely impact the lake. You have to come up with specific reasons. >> All right. So Chris, how do you want to >> I'm I'm not going to make a motion to deny the project. >> Yeah. >> Because again >> Yeah.
>> I personally don't see the legal basis. >> Yeah. >> If and I again these people spent a lot of money already. they they very well might choose not to hire legal counsel and not to appeal because it could break the bank. But I mean, honestly, it's that I I personally can't I'm not going
to make a motion to deny the project because it goes against what I want to do. So people that are against it would have to make something. You'd have to, you know, >> and and to your point, Chris, I think you also have to keep in mind that if if this is appealed, then you're then
you're asking town council. You're putting them into the position of having to defend the commission's uh decision in court. Okay. So, we're stuck a little bit. I'm trying to figure out how we how we move forward here.
Um, we had a vote to approve it on the state wetlands and we had a vote to not issue the waiver. So that leaves us the either we come up with a vote to deny it outright
um or to approve it with a as you said with a condition that is undoable, >> effectively denies it. and and if if a denial is appealed that an order of conditions effectively denying it will
>> just two ways of doing the same thing that's all really right. >> Yeah. >> Am I saying that right? >> All right. Well, I can't I can't make a motion. At least typically the chair doesn't make a motion.
Um, could we revote? >> Yeah. >> You you can you certainly revote to resend, you know, the denial of the waiver because that does that doesn't involve reopening the hearing. >> Do that.
>> Okay. I'll take a motion to take a revote. First, you have to vote to rescend the denial of vote to resend the previous vote >> on the denial of the waiver. >> Am I saying that right?
>> Yes. >> I'll take that motion. >> I make the motion then that that we resend the previous vote on the denial of the waiver. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion from Chris, second from Bill. All in favor to resend. I
>> I >> and one abstain. >> Now you can revote. >> So now we can revote. >> So I move that we wave the 50 foot set back to to the U provisions of 1875-f
>> second bill. >> I hear a second from Billion. >> Motion from Chris, second from Bill. And and do you have any discussion? >> I think David's correct. the grounds to deny it. >> Yeah,
>> I was denying it because of out of principle, which >> maybe I shouldn't be doing, but >> Well, it's all Yeah. >> Right. So, on face value,
it's hard to deny it based on it's hard to deny it, right? So, just vote on it. Yeah, we don't we don't have a good resource protection reason, >> right? >> I'd love to hear it if there is one. >> That's the thing. I don't see a hardship. I'm sorry. I don't see a
hardship, but I don't see a resource protection. And um so, okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I opposed.
>> Okay. And one abstain. >> All right. So, I think if I counted it right, we had five in favor, one opposed, and one abstain. >> All right. So, now I'll make a motion that we grant an order conditions under our local bylaw, chapter 187, with the
same special conditions that we've listed for the um under our under the state um chapter 131, section 40, same conditions. >> Second. Well, >> no, no, that you already approved it under that. >> Yeah, under the state. It's under the
wetland bylaw, >> right? Yeah, that's what I said. >> Same as same. >> Yep. No, >> run that by me again. Now I'm talking screwed up. >> So my motion for our order of conditions under our chapter 187 local bylaw.
>> Okay. >> Okay. In the special condition, there'll be standard conditions and the same conditions that we just had listed previously that we were approving under the state wetlands protection act. Gotcha. >> Okay.
>> So, motion from Chris. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Bill. All in favor? >> I >> I So, opposed? One and abstain. One. Okay. Same as last time.
>> So, um that is an approval. I think you can tell we aren't thrilled, but that's that's the way it goes. Good luck with the project. Um, >> thank you. >> It's a process and we appreciate all >> we still have a ways to go. Uh, I know.
Yep. Um, I think uh it's just been an interesting very interesting application. Very very interesting. >> We appreciate all your time. Thank you. >> Have a great >> Okay. Interesting. >> Sorry. Sorry I was a little bit uh shaky
there. process. Can >> I can I say something >> since this is all passed now? >> I I think from the day one most people first came before us, they were given wrong information. They were g they were encouraged
what it never should have been. I >> I think they got false hope and they kept on pursuing it, pursuing it, spending a lot of money. >> Yeah. >> Could I make an observation related to that because we Let's >> You want to move on? You've got a good point. >> Yeah. I
>> There's some things we >> There's a lot of things we can learn about this this project. There's a lot there. >> Um but I think we should move on. Although we just lost John. Um I think we can still move on to our next topic though. >> Well, yeah. Next topic is the uh notice
of intent for the 265 279 Chswood Street where the applicant has requested to move uh continue the meeting the hearing until um November. >> Well, yes, November 11th, which is a
holiday. So, um the motion will have to be to continue to November 25th. >> Do they realize it'll be that far? >> I I told them. >> Okay. All right. So I'll take a motion to continue to November 25th for 265 and 279 Chsford Street.
>> I move that we continue this hearing of 265 279 Chsa Street until November 25th, 2025 meeting. >> All right. Motion from Chris. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Mark. Thank you very much. Uh all in favor? I
>> I unanimous. John's not here. Um >> yeah, you just marked that John stepped out. >> Yeah, John stepped out. I don't think he abstained. He just absent. >> Not not present. >> All right. Um now let's get into some
discussion. This is non-regulatory part of our hearing. So um assistance uh a as we see we have certificates of compliance that are outstanding. Some of them for months and some for years and some for
even decades I might add from what I can tell. Um, and so the thought here was, we have discussed this in the past. I think we talked about it at our off-site uh or not off-site, but our strategy session a year ago. Um, David has um
uh there's a person working in the office uh downstairs with u a volunteer um that uh is helping out in the community development area. And we think we can get some help from that person. And I think the idea some help and the
idea is to >> start at least the first thing would be get a list of what are the open order of conditions >> focused on like let's say the last five years that David's been here and get that list so that we can track that and see who's got open orders of conditions
and then keep going you know backwards um in time to find open order of conditions. The intent here is the problem that we're trying to solve here is that often someone is like trying to sell their home or do some kind of transaction, put it into a trust and
there's an open order of conditions and all of a sudden that shows up and it for them it's a crisis that gets dumped on David's lap. >> Yes. and um because it's important, you know, it's an emotional time for the person trying to sell their house or
whatever and all of a sudden it's like it it can get complicated. So, the idea is let's try to head this off a little bit. So, I just wanted to bring this up that I think we want to get everybody um nodding in agreement. I guess I don't think we need to vote on this, but that's the approach we want to take. If
anybody has ideas, I know we've talked about some famous ones. The Grist Mill had one open. I think it's Is it still open? >> It is. It is still open. >> Yeah. >> Um 44 Central Square is still open. Um which is kind of the topic of the next item.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, there's a lot of these and I think it's great if we can get some help. It's just kind of doing some grunt work up front and getting uh getting information ultimately sending out some letters to whether it's homeowner associations or developers. developers
have probably left. But even I think notifying homeowners that this is a situation in their neighborhood, >> even if the developer has been retired in Florida for 10 years, um >> that way they're not surprised in five or 10 years or 20 years when they go to
sell their house. So >> anyway, uh any other comments or thoughts? >> Go ahead, Alan. Do we know, and I, again, I might be speaking out of turn because I'm kind of green to this, but do we know if there's any type of um retention schedule or anything that has to do with supervisor of public records
in terms of retaining these records and then also like kind of administratively closing them on our own if a certain amount of time has passed? Do we know that >> a statute of limitations? >> No. No. No, there isn't. And I I don't think we we have that legal authority.
You can't close it. It's affects the title, right? >> Um Yeah. Yeah, that's entirely possible. I guess >> you can't commission fix it at some point. You got to close it out. >> Uh yeah. And I guess the commission
could do that unilaterally. Uh you know, that is without getting getting a request. But I don't think that's advisable. I mean, nothing like with issues with title, but like for example, the Bill Ricker Road one and one of the conditions was, you know, the three years with the trees. I mean, if that
time's already passed, could that be something we could look at? I mean, obviously someone's going to have to go through and read these, but the more simple ones, I guess simple being a loose term. >> Uh, yeah, I think I think that's definitely the place to start. >> Sounds like you're volunteering for something.
>> I don't know. Again, I'm probably going to put my foot in my mouth, but my expertise is retention and public records. >> Well, well, that's um that's interesting because because it certainly happened, you know, a number of times where I get a request for a certificate of
compliance for a filing that's, you know, 25 30 35 years old and there's no file whatsoever. >> Sure. >> You know, they were probably tossed when, you know, offices moved from the old town hall. So you're in a bit better
position than I am to know is is that legal? Should those records have been thrown out? >> Sure. >> You know. >> Yeah. Depends. >> I you know I've I've I've heard I've heard different sides of that. >> You know um actually heard from your boss that no, we don't need to save these things forever.
>> Right. And I can't speak to the clerk's office. I've only been there since as long as I've been here. Um my expertise is more policebased. So those things there's certain things you that are indefinite. You have to keep them forever. But that's a whole different thing. >> And in that kind of a situation, what I
what I tell the requester is, yeah, I'll go out and do a site visit um without even knowing what the filing was for. You know, if I see anything really egregious though, I'm going to tell you that I'm going to recommend that the commission deny it. So, that usually, you know, gets a lot of response.
>> Okay. And >> I've been able to get a number of sites really cleaned up. >> Sure. work in that way. >> Well, and and that's probably the issue that we want to focus on is where would there be an action? Not not a paperwork thing. I the paperwork thing is a problem if if the seller is trying to
sell it. I recognize that. But for the commission's goal, it's like >> what needs to be done. >> It's really it it's really a very very basic administrative thing which is create a list, get an inventory, what do we got, how old are they, and what needs to be done. >> Yeah. you know, to to get these closed
out. What are we waiting for? >> And some of them will be, we're not waiting for anything, just somebody to push the button. >> And others will be, oh, no, you know, you got to do this, you you know, whatever. Uh, >> it certain certainly, it's a lot easier if if the orders aren't that old, if the
the applicants are still around, >> and I think that's pretty much the case. Um, with one since I've been here today, it's been about 55 orders of conditions. you know, the ones the ones that have not already gotten the certificate of compliance. I I know most of the
applicants are still around like the DPW. >> Yeah. >> Too bad we don't know who to chase there. >> And then that being said, if it's all right with all of you guys, we'll, like you said, do the five-year look back and I can team up with you. Obviously, it would have to be kind of separate from
the town clerk because it would be this, but we'll we'll talk if that's our >> be great to have you help out. That'd be great. Okay, that's good idea. >> Good idea. >> All right. >> All right. Um, good. So, then let's shift to the next thing. Dumpsters close
to the wetlands at 41 Central Square. This is the Oddfellows. >> Yeah. So, uh in back in back of the Oddfellows building, I noticed sometime this summer that there uh there are two dumpsters now that uh were were previously
u I mean they were closer to the building. Um, and they they were I mean still kind of close to the wetlands, but but they've they've been moved now even closer to the stream, you know, right at the edge of the pavement. >> These are construction dumpsters or
>> um No, no, I think they're actually the dumpsters. Well, I don't know if the business is actually operating there or not. Um, >> well, there's apartments there. >> Okay. So, so yeah, I think it's I think it's uh they're they're really related to the operation of the building. I don't think they're really construction
dumpsters. >> Um, and so I I I I told the owner that really think they should be moved. Uh, I think those a little close to the stream. Yeah. >> You know, again, right after the payment, he said, "Well, um, we'll we'll we'll be able to move them." Um, you
know, as soon as the construction winds down and because he was guess worried about interference uh with, you know, the construction work. on on the other hand, there is a dumpsters pl pad shown on the approved plans. >> Yeah.
>> And um so uh so then I so then I said, well, you know, I really got I think I really need to then talk to the conservation commission about that. So so then the next I heard from him last week was he said, well, um we're gonna we're gonna move it. Okay, we'll we're
gonna move it to the dumpster pad that's shown on the plans. Um, and as as I I checked I think the next day or two after that and he still hadn't done it. I wasn't able to check today. Um, but what what
>> Right. directly behind. Right. >> Right. Right. Directly behind. Yeah. No, if if you go to that parking area back there, you can't miss them. >> Okay. >> Um, so I guess I guess what I what I would like to request is maybe a couple volunteer members of the commission just go out and look at them. you know, if if
they're still there, you know, just send me an email telling me, you know, you think they should be moved or or you're okay with them being there. If if you tell me that they should be moved, I'll I'll I'll keep after him, you know, especially where he said he's going to move them.
>> Well, they should be according to plan with a fence around them. >> That's where it had to be approved that way. I don't remember a lot of stuff being approved that but >> yeah as I say the dumpster pad is shown on the plan and I assume yeah that would have a fence uh >> if it's not inside there they were
against violation. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> You want to get over there? >> Sure. Right. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay. Good. >> Yeah. I mean that's right on the stream right on Viva Brook. Yeah. >> We want to make sure we protect it.
>> Yeah. They're right on the pavement. Yeah. No fence. Yep. So, >> all right. Thank you. Uh, next one is update on Freeman Lake parcel boundary surveys. I have not been up there. I keep saying I'm going to go up and look at that. Um, as I do.
>> So, I'm I'm told the three grand bounds are in, which I think you've said. >> Yeah, they've been in for a while >> and and the two iron pins are in as well. So, uh, looks like the job is complete. I have received the invoice. Um, >> been invoiced. Wow. Well,
>> oh no, this is >> Oh, no, never mind. Wrong one. Okay. >> Okay. So, so I think really then the the remaining step or a remaining step is to get the fence put in along that boundary line and then, you know, look look to see what's on the parcel that's not the
commissions and, you know, then work to address that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll get over there and take a look at that. Uh Chris, Peter, David. Um I'd like to try and squeeze in a bylaws and regulations committee meeting on Tuesday
the 4th of November >> at 6:30 if that works because >> Yeah, I should be okay. >> We got town meeting next week. I don't want to do it next week. No way. Not doing it. >> So we got since we can't meet on the 11th because that's Veterans Day, right? >> Which
>> and then we don't and then the 18th is an off week and then the 25th will be our conservation meeting. So we do have a meeting two weeks from tonight and then that meeting will be a week later, two weeks later, what whatever it is.
>> Yeah, that's but um if you can do that, I'd like because I think based on what I looked at the meeting minutes from I think it was June was our last meeting, we should be able to close this out um with this meeting and then come back to the commission with our recommendations.
So, time to do a little homework before that meeting so that we can go through that meeting and close it out, but um I'd like to get this done. Um it's been open for a while. We knew we wouldn't get to it in the summer or we >> But I made good progress so far.
>> Yeah, I think I think we I think um sort of a next step will be to consult the town council. >> Yeah. >> But we'll talk about that. >> Yeah. I mean, we'd probably be able to identify two or three matters that we might be able to say yay on and then over to town council, you know.
>> Yeah. >> All right, let's do land management. Let's talk coolest first. Um, do you have that picture, David? Um, we did get um did get the uh kiosk installed over the weekend. The young man um Dominic and
his dad got it installed and uh it looks good. It's a nice looking kiosk. >> Got a map on there and uh it's trail map and site map and so and there he is. There's >> there's the young man. So, um nice. >> It's good. It's a good good project. Um
>> good community service. >> How many holes did you have to drill to get the >> five holes in the ground to get two good ones? >> Really? Really? >> Yeah. >> Bony up there. >> Yes. >> There's a lot of rock. A lot of potatoes. A lot of potatoes. Yeah. >> Looks good though. Yeah, it looks good.
So, it's a good step. Hopefully, we can get that pad out of there soon, but I know DPW's been busy. >> Just brought something up when I saw that that fell standing next to the sign there and what he what he built and there's a glass over it. I think all signs that we put up on this on the
reservation should be behind glass or plastic. I >> I would like >> I don't want to see them up here and down here. >> I I Yeah, they don't look great. No, I know. But it's >> I'm always against it. I know, but we need bigger kiosks, and this is the one
we got. So, we'll see. I in principle, I'm with you, but >> All right. Uh, let's do uh So, anything else on on Coolis? >> Uh, we went up to Coolis last week in, uh, cut all the grass,
uh, weed whacked John Ray, myself, and, uh, I don't know who else if anyone else came up, but we cut the grass. I think probably the last time this year. Yeah. >> So it looks it looks good. >> Question for you. Um
cutting grass. Did we get a decision on the town meeting? Is that article going to go forward or not go forward? >> As far as I know, it's still going forward. Um we're we've met with John and we're in agreement with the plan of the site. >> Yeah. >> But he's still going forward. So I'm a little >> And you've updated it on a town website,
right? >> And it's now on the kiosk. Yeah. Yeah. We have an updated plan, but he's still he's still going to go forward. And I'm a little bit at a loss of >> why >> why, but um because we met >> because it sounds like we have agreement as to what could be cut, not cut. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. We we agreed on I thought thought we agreed on everything, but >> Yep. So any Yeah. Um uh anything else? uh >> Deep Brook and Oill >> the uh well at Culis the uh
>> they're going to be able to make the sign this year. I'm going to get the uh >> the proposal from them. I was up there today and so they're uh they're going to have it by the before winter for us. >> Okay. >> Good. Good.
>> Uh up at uh Oak Hill, somebody spray painted on rocks up there. Um I it may be on the church's land. >> Oh, it's up there. >> Part of the quarry. >> Okay. >> So, we'll have to take a look and see if
uh >> might have to take a walk up there and take a look. See if it's on our land or not. Either way, if we can take care of it, it' be a good idea. >> Okay, >> that's it. I will say slowly but surely we are making progress towards getting
um trail clearance for those properties up there. Yes. But >> let's not go too far yet. It just >> it's a slow slow process, but we are it's it's not it it's actually >> encouraging, I think. So, we'll see. But
that'll be great if we can get that. >> Um Chris, uh Crooked Spring, anything going on? >> Hey, looking good out there. Um, parking lot, beautiful job keeping that clean and trash free from the volunteers. The trails are looking good. Pond itself, I
mean, it's really filling in with sediment. I mean, it's it's so low. It's so low. I mean, you can't get I mean, no fish can survive out there given just how low >> the uh the depth is. So, um I'm not sure what we're going to do with that pond.
Yeah. >> I mean, at some point you'd either have to dredge it so you can actually get some fish that could be, you know, live fish in there or >> or not. Um I took a a a walk up the um the trail that leads up to that cliff area and that was really nice. That's a
that's a beautiful spot there looking up at the cliffs up there. >> Yeah. >> The pines. All the pines. >> Yeah. Yeah. You're just completely surrounded with pines going in and out. It's it's nice. It's a nice nice property. And the trails are looking good. Good.
>> And Mark Redwing. >> Redwing is going to be very busy Friday. >> Yep. >> With uh 30 volunteers and some stewards that like to help out a lot. The fence is going to go in. Hopefully it gets >> We have to close the site actually for
the day for that. Um not open to the public. So yeah, >> hopefully it gets all done. Yeah, >> it's a lot of work and a lot of >> a lot of logistics involved. >> The material arrived at >> Somerville, so we should uh at Chford. Yeah, it should be there tomorrow.
>> Did you get the uh stone yet? >> Uh either tomorrow or Thursday. Yep. Yep. So, we're it's all crazily it's all coming together. But >> has Chancellor Lumber got >> I talked to him today and he said it's uh it was on the truck to be delivered
to the site tomorrow morning. So, It's good. >> They're going to spread it out. Does somebody have to be there? >> Uh, I told him just put it right behind the kiosk. >> Put it all in. >> Yeah, just put it right behind the kiosk. We'll we'll we'll deal with it from there. That makes it easy. >> Okay. >> Uh, anything at Lamp Quarry? That's
quite as far as I know. >> Two weeks. >> Peter, Thanksgiving forest. >> Yeah, I have a lovely update from our steward Jeff that starts out by saying all's well in the forest, >> especially for the coyotes.
>> Yeah. Um Carl and Steve and Bill, is that you? Bill, cleared the Norway maples. >> Dling Dling >> and Jeff is thankful for that. That was >> Yeah. >> part of the plan. And there is um I did get uh concurrent today from our DPW
director to pay for signs that we want to put up for uh dogs reminding people that there is a leash law in town. So, we'll go with this original sandwich boards and >> yeah, more signs, Mark.
>> I know. I know. >> Well, they're they're they're not permanent, so we can decide >> if they're needed. >> That's a good approach. >> Yeah, but I'll order five and Jeff wanted three because he's got two on the Carile side where people come in. >> Yeah. I don't know you have to cover every but Yeah.
>> All right. We can decide five. >> We have other sites. We have issues at Cranberry Bog. We have, you know, >> is five enough for now? >> Yeah. Five's good. Yeah. We'll move them around. Yeah, you move that way. It's not >> like the police have those things. They move around from >> Yeah. Right. Like the speeding. >> Exactly.
>> We're getting neon ones with remote control. >> So you can change the message. [Music] >> Let's keep let's keep it all to one meeting here. So um because they're going to go to ju >> John, do you have anything at Russell Mill? >> It's been busy up there. I can tell you
that. >> Busy busy place. Yep. >> Not a lot of people walking in there though. >> Yeah. Okay. It's all cars. >> Yeah. >> And bicycles. >> And uh let's see. We did Oak Hill. Cranberry Bog. >> Speed bumps.
>> I knew that was coming up. All right. >> Cranberry Bog. So, we are chasing the chestnut the American chestnut trees. >> Let's keep it Let's keep it to one meeting here, guys. Um we do are chasing the American chestnut tree. American
>> alleged uh at the Cranberry Bog. Um we're back and forth with the American Chestnut Foundation and uh experts. Yeah, nice. >> It's a 40 foot cran uh chestnut that >> um >> they claim it is a chestnut, an American
chestnut. And David's very doubtful. And >> I don't think it is. >> Yeah. So, we'll see. That would be really unusual. It would be a real find. >> It would be a real find. Yeah. >> And and we have nuts. We have uh the burrs. They call them the burrs. But um >> I think it's a matter of getting an expert to actually come and look at it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I agree. It's probably a hybrid, but um we'll see. That's interesting. And uh at Warren Pole, we did have Oxbow spraying the bittersweet and the wisteria. Um so we'll see how that goes. And they will be back doing uh painting of the tree of
heaven and um cutting cut and paint tree of heaven and burning bush. So more there. Right. Right. Reservation is uh I haven't heard anything about any issues there. So, I was there maybe two weeks ago, but it seems to be good. So, um and
David, you did mention though up that you approved upcoming events at Redwing and >> Yes. Um so approved a couple of um uh photography events at Redwing Farm. Uh >> not Friday. >> No, no, not Friday. One one was on the
5th, which I think was the Saturday before last. Um, and then and then I think the the the next one I think is in November. And then a couple approved a couple of uh events that uh training events that uh Ride Like a Ninja is
having at Russell Mill >> on October 25th, 24th, 25th, and 26th. >> Okay. >> So, and I and I have forwarded that approval to uh Barry Moore at NEA as well. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Just so he they're
aware of it. Um they did put up the soccer group did put up the the fences. They look they look okay. They look all right. The ball catch thing. So that's that's all right. Um the only other things I had here are
um so we won't be here Veterans Day. We are meeting the 28th. So two weeks from today, we'll do this bylaws and regs meeting on the 4th. And then it won't be until the 25th of November, 2 days before Thanksgiving, which makes me also
say in December. Our two meetings are like the 9th and then the 23rd. So, we got to think about, do we really want to meet on Tuesday the 23rd? It's a little far away, but I mean, >> we got to plan our Christmas party.
>> And yeah, we got to plan our Christmas party. >> It's at Alli's house, right? every it's always at the new person's title, right? >> You guys are in trouble. >> All right. All right. So, um and then the the last thing is we do have an MACC
conference a week from Saturday on the 25th. I'm going to try and go, but I am having a lot of conflict issues with stuff going on. So, I have not signed up yet. Are you signed up to go >> to the conference? Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. It's a good It's a good It's a good >> Those are good. Those fall conferences
are really I can't. >> Yeah. Peter, are you going? >> I'm away. >> Wow. >> And and yeah, and like last year I zoomed in for part of it, but that doesn't look like there's an option for zooming in this year. >> I didn't see one. >> Yeah. >> Alli asked me. You remember you asked me what I thought would what I would go to
if I was there and I said, "Well, geez, almost all of them." >> Yeah, >> they're pretty targeted. >> There's quite a few. I'm going to one about ADUs. There's another one about 40B in the morning. >> Yeah. And then we had talked after I had signed up. So the other one is um part
of my certification. But at any rate, >> the hint is you can go to anything you want. You just walk in. Nobody >> you sign up and that gives them an idea like Oh, that one wasn't very popular. But >> do it is who signs this sheet. You know, >> you're you're aiming you're aiming for your certification though. So you've got
one of the >> knock that out. >> Yeah. If you change your mind the day of the game, you know, game day decision, >> false mustache on Jim Swinson, right? >> Jim Jimson. >> What twins? >> Allan. >> Yeah, Alan Swinson. Um, and then
obviously we I know it's late. >> I don't know if I'd use that. Yeah, just to let you know. >> Yeah, >> I know it's late and obviously we want to wrap up, but we had also discussed me possibly putting together some type of a presentation or getting some materials to share with you guys at a future
meeting to kind of rehash that conference if anybody is interested in that. >> Be good. That'd be great. >> If it's pertinent. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We generally do have at least a five or 10 minute like >> we did that for what you learned. >> Yeah, we did that for the winter. >> What did I learn over at summer
vacation, you know? a highlight reel, if you will. You know, here's me at this table. >> They'll they'll email you the uh slide deck after. >> Yeah, sure. Two months later. >> Yeah, >> I'll see what I can grab. >> All right, >> you said you're going to a conference on ADUs.
>> So, it's the MACC's fall conference on the 25th in in Devons, Massachusetts. So, it's all different workshops. You guys could probably that >> adus within conservation mixing it with >> I think we should pay attention to that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. That was probably I got to give the credit to him on this one. >> Well, I think we should have paid attention to it. >> Yeah. >> All right. I'll take a motion. Yeah. We don't have any meeting minutes, right? >> No. Okay. >> But we do have a town meeting next week,
which means we will be seeing meeting minutes just flying out on Monday night. >> No. No. I'm busy doing all kinds of work. Who knows how many >> I thought you were up there. I thought you were up there doing the con minutes. That's what you told me. All kinds of things up there. >> All right, I'll take a motion to
adjurnn. >> Move to adjourn. >> Motion from Chris. All in favor? >> Yeah. I >> I being ajourned. Thank you for telling me media. 9:00. Good night.