Okay, so let's go ahead and get going. I would like to welcome everyone to March 3rd, 2026, Littleton Conservation, and we are on Zoom. I see we've got some others coming in. Um Tim, I'll let you take care of that. Okay, let's go ahead
and get started. Um, we're going to do uh approval of minutes from February 17th, 2026. I'd like to do a shout out to Andrew. Thank you for running that meeting, by the way. >> So, does anyone have any um omissions or
corrections to February 17, 2026? >> A couple of very small ones. Uh on the first paragraph under the controlled uh burn uh in the very last sentence it says a slowmoving hut burn would be the most effective type of burn to remove
invasive plant material instead of plant material. >> And then um just another very minor one at the end of the second paragraph um it says Mr. Faultz moved to support the CPC applications for boardwalks at Webster Woods. Boardwalk at Castle in the Trees.
We should just probably put a boardwalk at castle in the trees. >> Okay, >> and that's it. >> All right, great. Anyone else have any other comments? If not, do I have someone that would like to make a motion for approval for
the uh minutes? >> I'll make a motion that the commission approve the meeting minutes of February 17, 2026 as amended. >> Okay, great. Do we have a second? I'll second. >> Thank you, Michael. Um, Andrew, would you like to do roll call for us?
>> Sure. Roll call vote. Uh, Kyle >> Kyle Maxi. >> Ed >> Edi. >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Chase. >> Chase Kerig. I >> myself I. It is unanimous.
>> Okay, great. Let's move on to administrative discussions. Do I have one to add? Does anyone have anything they'd like to add to the list? No. Okay. Mine is just more of a observation and a little bit of a rant
in regards to walking on quite a few of the trails and the amount of dog refu that is left behind on the trails. And I don't know if we want to work on signage on some of these, but it is really overwhelming on quite a few of the
trails. So that's my discussion. Okay, let's go ahead and start with Reed Roberts scout project review town forest off balsom construction and installation of a kiosk. Who is here to present?
>> Promote and read over right now. >> Okay. >> Hi. Can you see me? >> Yep. Go ahead. So, if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and where you reside and the floor is all yours. >> Okay. I'm Reed Roberts. I'm in Troop One
Littleton. I'm a life scout. I'm working on my Eagle Scout project. I'm in sort of the Sarah Dublet Forest area near on Fort Pond. Um, and so I guess I'll be quick. Um, my I plan to build a kiosk at
the Balsam entrance to the town forest. Um, I got the plans from for the kiosk from Tim. Um, I'm looking to fund raise my last quote. Um, he said they said it was going to be $500, but they left one
item off and that was I think about a $200 item, he said. So, um, I'm looking to fund raise around $700. And so, I'm just going to ask a lot of, um, friends and family and, um, like the Rotary Club. And it seems like that's a
reasonable amount to ask for um for local friends um for um and also I was going to ask the Rotary Club. Um I had talked briefly with somebody on the conservation trust and they said
that when I'm placing it I have to be worried because there was um an an Native American like view of the sunset that I have to be um aware of. But I I wanted to just touch base with you guys about that. Um is that do you guys know
anything about that? >> Um that that's the first I'm hearing of it. Reed, I can actually pull up a um a figure. I'll share my screen and I'll show everybody where the uh the kiosk um is going to be going.
Hold on a second. >> Reed, while we're doing that, can you tell us what your time frame would be? like when do you want to start construction? >> Yeah. So, I'm hoping that I can do fundraising the next month or two and then um start construction shortly after. So, if it's March, um I hope that
I'm going to be done with fundraising by April and that I'm going to be able to do most of the project by May and hopefully be done by the end of May. >> I hope that we won't have any frost in the ground by then. >> Me, too. Can you guys see this?
>> Yes. >> Yep. So, um this is Blossom Lane right here. This is town forest. Um and there's the the path that gets mowed. Um and here is the tree line. So, um we I think Reed, did we meet with Jim out
there? I know it's been some time since since we were out there. >> We didn't meet with Jim. I met with um Oh my goodness, I forget her name. Um I don't have the paper right in front of me. I met with one of your I think it was your assistant Lauren. Yeah.
>> Yeah, Lauren. Sorry. >> A couple years ago, I I remember walking this with Jim. You know, we were deciding where do we want this kiosk to go because over here we have the parking area. Um but it's not a formalized parking area. It's really it's really just grass. Um it's where we've been
parking. Um and maybe one day we will get a formal parking area right there. Um but for the time being, we don't have one. And so we thought it would I think me and Jim came to the consensus that would be best if we had the the kiosk basically uh right before the tree line
along the u the path to the trails. >> Yeah, that's what I talked about with Lauren, too. I just wanted to make sure. And I'll have um it was my friend's dad, so I'll have him look at it or I'll talk to him about it again one more time. But I think that that's that's reasonable. I
think that he thought it was going to be closer to the road. Um, but it was just something that I wanted to I thought I'd bring up because it came up for me. >> Probably better for uh mowing, I would think, too. >> Right. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Is it is it under trees or is it right as you approach the woods? >> It's it's going to be right as you approach the woods. It may be under some tree or or one tree. Um,
but we would put it we would make sure it's going to be in an area where there's it's going to be clear of there's going to be clearance, right? It's not going to be uh encroaching any any trees. >> So, it's an open area. We don't have to break any um rock walls to go through to
get to put it there. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um that was I think most of what um Tim had suggested that I go over. Are there any more questions? >> Yeah, Reed, are you um
are you adding anything to the kiosk or are you just building the structure and letting conservation trust or commission um populate it with trail maps and whatnot? >> My plan was to just build it. Is there anything that you want me to add? I can >> I can add that if if you guys would
like. >> I mean, other than a trail map off the top of my head, I I don't I don't know what else we would I know usually it's property specific. Um, >> yeah. >> So, yeah, I would I'm sure we could talk more about that with you on what would be some some ideas off the top of my
head. I don't have anything. >> Who's actually doing the signage on the kiosk? Like, who's going to put the sign or engrave it or is the trust doing that? Are we doing that? Are you doing that? >> I hadn't even thought of that. Are you
saying like engraving the kiosk or putting like a like a pl or something on it to say the name of the property? >> Right. I I think that's I think either or we could certainly find that in our budget or >> Okay. >> I'm sure it wouldn't be much funds um on
top of what Reed is already raising. Um >> do we know how much that is? Because if that's like I can fund raise for that too >> because that's really someone routering in the wood to to put the sign in. Correct. >> Yeah. They just need to make a sign that
you can attach after the fact. So >> Reed, in your um proposal, does that have the plexiglass in that for materials? >> Yes. Um that was one other question. Um
it was either plexiglass or um sorry, there was another material that um it was lexan. Does it need to be plexiglass or can it be lexin? I haven't really worked with I haven't worked with thin thin Lexen before. I'm
not sure. Anytime I've worked with Lex, it's been cloudier, not as clear. I'm sure that at this point it's an equal um to plexiglass, but >> um would we feel comfortable reaching out to Jim and asking him? >> I I can look into it and I can
communicate that with with Reed. Yeah. >> Okay, great. Other questions for Reed? Reed, you had mentioned um was it Dan Bedilian from the trust that had mentioned to you that it was potentially in line of a Native American view?
>> No, it was um Dustin Neil. I'm friends with his daughter Moxy. So I was over their house this weekend. >> Gotcha. >> And so I just asked because I was there. >> Gotcha. Yeah. I mean uh Dan Bedilian, who's al also on the board for the trust, he's an expert in all things uh
uh locally, you know, Native American sites. Um, so you might consider reaching out to him too. Um, and I'm sure Dustin can connect you because they're on the the board together. >> I can't imagine where he's putting it that there's any view that would get blocked. >> Yeah, I assume they thought it was any
closer to the roadway at the time, right? And that was the concern. >> Yeah, I think that was what that was his under that's what he how he how he described it. Do we need a vote for this or? >> Yeah, I think it would be best.
>> Would someone like to make a motion to support Reed's project? >> I move that we support the Eagle project being presented by Reed Roberts. >> Do we have a second?
>> A second. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay, we'll do Oh, sorry. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Ed. >> Edi. >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I
>> cheat >> Kuring. I >> myself. I It's unanimous. Thank you, Reed. >> Good luck. >> Good luck, Reed. >> Thank you. >> Go forth and build. >> That's great. Okay, next is CPC application update. Yep. So, this is
just quick update. Um, at the February CPC meeting, um, our applications for terrestrial invasives control um, and aquatic invasive control both at Forge and Long Lake and the lake management
plans. All of those have been um, approved. We presented the boardwalk um, applications as well, both for Webster Woods and for Castle in the Trees. Um and the committee is is generally generally comfortable with it. We were
just waiting on um to see if we had any other quotes that were going to be coming in. We had two quotes. Um we knew there was potential to possibly receive more. Um and so that was all it was. If if there was a uh a quote that was going to come in lower than our lowest one
that we currently have, we're just going to adjust the the CPC applications to reflect that. um and and go from there. If not, um it's not something that's going to, you know, change the way that the CPC feels about um voting on the
funding. >> Andrew, does that sum it up pretty good? >> I think you nailed it. >> Okay, great. >> Just quickly. >> Okay, thank you. Um, so the last update would just be mine regarding um, dogs
and usage. Do we have any appetite to add some more signs or some of the other towns and communities have a lot more signage than we have? Just as a reminder, I >> think it's a good idea. It has been getting a little rough out there. Um,
nobody wants to step in that going for a winter hike. And maybe some signs to help people just remember, hey, if you want to knock it off to the side or, you know, bag it and take it with you, that would be great, >> right? Um, okay. Maybe
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> I was say that's what blows my mind is why why do people go through the the trouble of even bagging it if they're just going to leave it there? I mean, anyways. >> Yeah, I'm I'm all for pack in, pack out. So, um, I'll work with Lauren and Tim to
maybe I've got a laminator, so we'll just kind of come up with some signage and try and get some more out on even even put it on some of the trees and that. So, it's just it's the point where it's really not a I mean, it's kind of a health issue now for a lot of the other animals, too. So, okay. >> So, that was going to be my question for
you guys. Do you want to see um just things posted on kiosks or sign boards or do you want us to we can order signs and uh like aluminum signs and get them posted on the trails as well. I I think where it's winter, I'm okay with just coming up with, you know, a sheet, piece
of paper, and laminating it, just getting them on some stakes and some trees just to get through just for awareness. I think we have a lot of people that um may not have read and a lot of these places don't have kiosks um where they're going, especially up um when they go up AT&T and jump in from there.
>> Yeah. >> As well. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Okay. Let's see. It is 7:45. Let's go ahead and open the 745 public hearing notice of intent 17 Westerab D. We're still waiting on D um replacement of
septic system. And then you'll see there were some notes for this filing that was sent along to you as well with a narrative. Okay. Who's here for this? >> I'm here for that one. >> Okay. Can you introduce yourself? >> Yes, of course. So, hi, my name is
Nathaniel. I'm with Stamps McNary. We are the uh civil engineers and surveyors for the project at 17 Worcester Drive. Um if you're ready to go, I can share my screen and walk you through the project. >> Thank you. >> All right, that should be visible now.
>> Okay, so this plan is basically a um septic system replacement plan for a single family house. So this is the lot. It's off of Worcester Drive um on the south side of the street. Um, so there is the so it's bordered by Wester Drive to the north which is on
the top of the page and then um by kind of like an open space area of land to the south which is where the wetland is and the 100 foot buffer zone projects on basically the entire site. Um there's also 50ft no disturb zone associated with it. So um right off the bat this is
an extremely small uh piece of land so it's only uh 4,000 square feet. It measures 40 by 100. Um and there's a single family house on it. So um it makes for a very constrained um septic replacement plan, but um you know we
it's certainly possible. We had a you know good passing soil testing um and you know a design with a leechfield and all the components are possible despite um all the constraints. So that is what the work consists of. All of the work is within 100 ft of the wetland. I'm just going to zoom in a little bit more. and
a a good portion of the work is within uh 50 ft of the wetland. That being a no disturb zone requires a waiver to Littleton's um bylaw. Uh we filled out the request form uh as uh Tim directed um sent that to him I believe at the
beginning of this week. Um so basically the with the house on the left side here, it actually extends over the lot line funny enough a little bit. The only usable area for Leechfield is in this area right here that I'm hovering over, which is between the house and the property line greater than 50 feet to
the wetland. So, the key setback for Leechfield is that it has to be 50 ft to the wetland. Fortunately, the available space in the lot allows us to make that happen. So um the leechfield we're using a perk rate system which is a very lowprofile type of alternative septic
system to reduce the footprint of it as much as we can because like I said you know the constraints we have to fit this thing between the house the property line and the small available space we have. So it takes up a a very large portion of the available space and that pushes the tank and the necessary pump
chamber and lines um back on the property within the 50ft no disturb zone. Um so that's the work that requires the waiver. It's installation of these two tanks. So a septic tank with a fast unit inside it, a pump chamber and then any lines and a
little hydraulic unit that's necessary for the perk rate for the type of system that it is. um to the rear. Um this is all existing lawn. So the edge of lawn goes back just about to the beginning of the property line and there's a few mature trees. Only one tree will have to come out in order to put the tanks in.
Um but that's it. And like I said, this is, you know, with the exception of the one tree being removed, all existing lawn and we're going to have a silk barrier that runs along the property line and defines the limit of work. Um this plan has been sent to the health department. It does require waiverss and
a board of health meeting. I got back um the preliminary comments I believe at the end of last week and I went through them. A lot of them just have to do with notes and calling things out. Um none of the comments indicate that we need any type of a change to the layout of the
components that we have. Um and that's really it. Um I could go into more detail, but um that's pretty much all the main points. So I will take questions of course, but I can hand it back to the chair at this point. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um let's go ahead. Um, commissioners start with questions.
>> Where's the existing septic? >> So, the existing uh septic is a cesspool which is right here. This kind of dashed circle right here. The house is only served by a cesspool. >> Quite a change though. >> Oh yeah, it is happen.
>> Improvement. You mean improvement? Change the improvement. I think so. >> Is the cess pool going to be emptied or is it just going to be covered over by the uh the new system? >> Yeah. So, what they'll have to do with the cess poolool following the title 5
protocol, they'll have to uh pump it dry. And then basically because of the location that it's in, um title 5 dictates that you can either abandon a cess poolool or uh fill it in. Uh because of where it's located, right under the new leech field, it'll have to be filled in. So it's fil uh it's
backfilled with acceptable material that title 5 dictates the you know the grain size that the civot has to pass through and whatnot. So it'll be back filled with something like that. >> Do we have any precedence for putting a septic
um in the 50oot zone? We do in a few circumstances, Ed. Um, I don't think there's any precedence for putting a new septic in, but a
replacement system >> we've done within 50 ft before. I would also say that historically we've also thought about the resource area impacts associated with the transition from a uh
cesspool to a septic system. Nathaniel, have you thought or can you walk us through construction where it is such a tight site? Obviously, they'll have to do the construction, move in, move out. You can't stockpile any material there. So, my question would be
construction access and then what are we doing for dewatering? >> Right. So, um as far as access goes, I mean, you know, really the only way is, you know, through this side of the house right here. um you know for the soil testing we were able to get um a machine back here comfortably that was able to
dig you know 10 foot deep um test holes um you know some stockpiling can kind of happen like on the side of the property kind of but a lot of it might have to get taken off site um you know as far as order of operations goes obviously I can only imagine that they would have to go
in and install um you know the tanks first work their way back or use a smaller machine that can access the back uh to back fill everything. Um and as far as dewatering goes, um you know, there is high ground water. When we did testing in December, um I don't think we
hit quite as high of actual groundwater. Um you know, things like um obviously, you know, if dewatering is needed, um it'll have to get pumped to, you know, a still a stealing basin type of thing as appropriate. um which is something that
we can locate obviously you know outside the 50 as needed I don't have details on the plan for that um but if it's something that needs to be added I can do it or something that can be conditioned you know obviously those are the you know that's that's you know the necessary thing to do so we're fine with
that I would like to see it on the plan >> Mhm. And then you made reference in terms of stockpiling on the site. So just to be aware that you won't be allowed to do any stockpiling on the site because you're all within the resource area.
>> Okay. >> So that should be noted on your plan as well. It will be in your order of conditions. >> Okay. >> Let's keep pulling on the thread of this dewatering a little bit. Is the cesspool currently in use? Like is this is this
the property currently occupied? >> Uh legally technically occupied. Yeah. But as far as is somebody living in there right now currently? Um I don't believe so. But you know it's an occupiable house. So I'm not sure if anyone's in and out
>> here. Here's where I'm getting at. I don't love the idea of directly discharging water that we are potentially dewatering in proximity to the cesspool. to a resource area or to a storm drain
or something like that. That they that that's not great practice. U I'm less concerned about if we're far away from the cesspool in terms of handling that dewater with a stilling basin and allowing it to reinfiltrate or
run off. But I would like you to think about how we're going to handle dewatering in the context of the cesspool differently than how we might handle dewatering for the rest of the site. >> So you're saying the fact that the that the dewatering water might have effluent
and whatnot in it. >> Exactly. It has untreated has untreated waste and I I think we need to be cognizant of the potential impacts of that. >> Yeah. I mean, so one option I could I could make it more clear in the notes of the plan that um that dewatering or
sorry that um a pump out of the cesspool if there's even anything in it um is the first thing that happens. Um and then you know I can also verify that the house is has been unoccupied you know and if that's the case if if there's any you know obviously within like a 24-hour
period you know you assume the cesspool has been drained. Um, would that uh satisfy to the point where they can dewater uh as per normal? >> That that helps. I think you're going in the right direction. Um, >> I would I would rather see I would
rather know that this has been pumped and unused for a longer period of time than just 24 hours. I I will tell you I don't think I have the technical expertise to tell you what the right number is. 24 just seems seems it's not very scientific but seems insufficient.
>> Yeah. I mean I say 24 because that's usually what um 24 flows are usually what you size um systems based on. So you assume that it drains out in that period of time. That's where that comes from. >> I I mean if if we could specify, you know, that it hasn't been utilized for a
week or something like that. Essentially, what I want to do is I want to make sure that the waste that was put in there has had ample time to infiltrate and become deactivated by the existing soil around it. I don't want to
risk discharging water that we're pumping out of that to a resource area. >> Yep. I Yep, that makes sense. I understand the concern. Yep. >> When you pump that, aren't you pumping that to take off site? Well, there's a difference I think in my
mind, Ed. I Right. The the cesspool pumping that's that's going off site, right? >> I I'm talking about dewatering when to the extent that they need to excavate in that area. >> That I I don't think they're proposing to take off site. That would be water
that may have originated from the cespool or may not have, but is now functionally groundwater. >> Fair. Okay. Thank you. Um I I also had a question here about you said you've got board of health let's say tacet
approval. Um this looks an awful lot like you got to spend a lot of time with ZBA as well. Is is that a step in this process? >> Um we're not proposing any changes to the house. Um I don't see any reason that this needs ZBA approval. Um the
extent of the work right now is just replacement of the septic system >> construction within 6 and 1/2 ft of a property line. Uh I I'm not a zoning expert, but somebody's somebody should look at that.
It this is a this is a very odd lot. >> It is. So I my ask is I since we don't have a mass D number I I would like to have confirmation from Tim that Marin has looked at this and agrees that ZBA
doesn't need to look at it. >> It is not obvious to me that they don't. >> I'll talk with Martin and Henry. >> Okay. >> Don't we usually also need the board of health to have done their approval before we'll do ours.
Yes, you're you're correct with that, Ed, but also they don't have their D number yet also, >> so we wouldn't vote on this. >> Um, I do have some questions. I don't know if anyone had a chance to read the narrative that was sent to us. I'd like to just kind of reference one of the
paragraphs that brought forth some questions for me. So, if you don't mind my reading verbatim. Um, and this replies to compliance. It says the proposed project is designed in compliance with the conquered wetlands protection bylaw and regulations. Work
within the 50oot no deserve no disturb zone is limited to installation of the septic tank pump chamber sewer lines and associated grading. Because of the site constraints, there is no other area on the property where these elements can be
installed. They will be placed mainly within existing disturbed areas on the site. And then it goes on, one tree will needed to be removed, which we referenced that. So I guess I'm concerned when with a couple of these comments were obviously Littleton not conquered, but they will be placed
mainly within existing disturbed areas. So my understanding was that we were doing a like change of disturbed areas. So, if you could talk to that, um, Nathaniel, and then also with the tree that's being removed, which is in, I
believe, a resource area, are we do we have any plantings to replace that? Those are my questions. >> Yep. So, first of all, I'm so sorry for getting the time wrong. That was a typo, a little carryover mistake that happens all the time. And when I was reading it before this meeting, uh, I was very haunted by it. So, I'm sorry about that. Um and as far as mainly in disturbed
areas, um that is just in reference to the fact that you know a mature tree has to come down. Uh the area all around it that the entire thing is in is all planted with grass surrounding it. So it's not necessarily undisturbed woods, but I'm acknowledging when with the use
of the word mainly that um a tree has to be removed unfortunately because of where it's located. Um at this point we don't have any um you know a replacement tree proposed um you know I think um you know if it's something that you know is
a requirement then of course we can show one um you know but just you know given that it was you know only one that had to come out um for the construction of the septic system not really like an elective tree removal um at this point we did not put any uh replacements down
um and does that answer it? Yeah, I think the reference I was making when it says mainly within the existing disturbed, you had referenced the elements that were going in such as the sewer lines and the septic tanks. I just want to make sure that what is shown on the plan
>> is where things are going to actually be presented in the ground. >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? >> I I have two other questions. Um once everybody else is done,
>> if you shorten your 20 foot pipe a little bit, can don't you then save that tree? >> Um unfortunately, no. Because if we were to move it in that direction, um we would be a couple things. We'd be too close to that deck that's right there to
allow for comfortable excavation. And we would also be then we would be within 10 ft of the house for installation of those two tanks. uh they need to be at least 10 ft from the foundation. Um and also, you know, the little bit that we
of ground we'd able to get um I don't think would be enough to avoid overlapping the tree. Um I did try but I wasn't able to lay it out in a way that saved the tree and also met the setbacks that we had to meet that we had to meet. Sorry.
>> Sort of along those lines. I had a very similar question. Is there the capacity to move the leech field? Well, there's the uh let's say plan up um and then subsequently make room for
the septic tanks. And did you consider that alternative in your analysis? >> Uh I did briefly consider that. Um unfortunately this because of the type of um septic system that it is, it cannot be under it cannot underlay a
driveway. Um, and what's being represented here for parking, um, is the absolute minimum, smallest you could possibly have to get a car off the street. And then the system is located basically the closest distance that I was comfortable with putting it to the
edge of pavement there. Um, so it it can't move any closer to Worcester Drive, unfortunately. >> Okay. So, the the type of system that we're talking about here is a type that we couldn't put under the driveway safely. No, I don't the the way that the
um you know manual kind of uh designates how this system operates, it's supposed to be under laid by lawn uh not pavement. Um that this was acknowledged by the health department's review. Also in the email I got from uh Francis who's the agent he you know noted in one of
his points uh he reiterated the fact that this is not a system that you can drive over and that you know we need to be making sure that measures are taken to prevent cars from going over it. So unfortunately it's not possible to put this system under the driveway. >> Okay. Is
the system type a constraint that we can change? Um, in my opinion, um, no, this is, um, probably the lowest profile system that's available. Um, if we were to
change it for something else, um, the system would have bigger vertical uh, constraints and basically, you know, the amount of fill over it would be um, to the extent that we would probably not even be able to fit it in the space available. But, you know, we would be
grading, you know, into the house, potentially, you know, burying the foundation more than we were able to. Um, and then also we would be creating a situation where, um, if we were to change it so that we could put it on the driveway, it would be so high that you
wouldn't even be able to drive and park there and use it anyway. Um, and then basically this house would lose the only um, off- streetet parking that it has available. Um, notwithstanding that the parking issue, um, I did test a bunch of systems to get
it to work and this was really the only one that I was able to um, comfortably fit. Also, it's worth noting that the um, board of health regulations technically do not allow for um, things like fill and retaining walls within um,
I believe it is 10 ft of the property. Um, so we would be putting a big burden on the the waiver, the request that we're asking for there. So, this is also a way that reduces the amount of fill that's being within, like I said, I believe it's 10 ft of the property line. So, we're trying to also reduce um that
waiver as much as possible to demonstrate that we're also doing the best possible system for the board of health's perspective. Um, so you know, all that is to say, um, I don't think that that, um, I don't think that using a different type of system, um, would would fit basically.
>> Okay. >> What if I'm >> satisfied with that as Oh, go ahead. >> What if you flip it around? Then you could put the tanks under the driveway. >> I don't think um that we have the room. No, we Yeah, because we have to be
we have to be 10 feet off of the house. >> Yeah. >> 10 feet off of the property lines. Um, basically when you take those offsets, even if you were to reduce them a little bit, you're not you're not creating an area that's large enough to fit them. >> But you're not 10 ft off the property lines. >> We're not We're 5t off the property
lines, but you know, even so, even if we were to do that, I don't think that we'd be making I mean, they do take up quite a bit of space. Um, >> if you flip the system around, you get it down a lot farther. You save the tree
and you decrease the amount or at least I think you decrease the amount of um what you have down in the 50. I think I'm not sure about that part, but you do say the tree. >> Do we really wanting field? Do we want
the leeching field in the 50 foot area, the no disturb area? Doesn't seem like we want to flip that and get that closer to the resource area. >> Yeah, I think I'd rather have the tanks closer. >> I agree. >> Rather not, but I hear you.
>> Um, Nathaniel, one other question. If we're worried about an elevated groundwater table and and excuse me if the it's already on the drawings here somewhere, we're comfortable that we're not going to have buoyant septic tanks here or
you've accounted for that with appropriate ballast. >> It was six it was six feet in December, right? I think you had that top left corner. >> Yeah, I think that's where it is. Uh >> yeah. >> Yeah, table six feet modeling at some
point. Okay, I'm less worried about it. We were talking about elevated groundwater there. I got it. I'm good now. >> There there's a saw was at like four feet. So that was I think >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> There there's a calc a calculation I could run. Um I'm sure it's going to
work. There there is something I could run. If you would want to see it, I can >> I just don't want to have to come dig these up again and have to put in a whole bunch of fill. I'd rather know that now and would prefer to see you run the couch. Even though I appreciate in your experience, it's probably self-evident. Let's
>> Yeah, that's okay. >> Let's dot the eye and cross the tea on that. >> Yeah, no problem. >> That's a good point. Anyone else have any other questions for Nathaniel? >> It sounds like we've given you some thoughts. um
you don't have a mass D number nor do you have your variances or such that you need from the board of health. So yep I believe the request would be to continue this to the next meeting which would be March 24th
if you think you would have that data for that for the >> our meeting with the board of health I think is on the 25th. Um, >> so the recommendation would be to push off two meetings. >> Yep. That sounds that works for us. Yep.
>> Okay. And that would be April 7th. >> All right. >> Okay. This is also a tickytacky thing, but since we have time, I would like to see the waiver revised to acknowledge that replacing a cess poolool with >> a septic system is part of our
determination. Part of my determination is that that is in the public interest. >> Yeah, good point. >> Sure. >> And I, Nathaniel, it it doesn't really change anything you're doing, but it's very important to us to memorialize every time we grant a waiver a reasonable basis for doing so.
>> Yep. That's totally fine with me. I can um edit it, send it back to uh Tim. I totally understand. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay, great. Thank you. We'll see you in a few weeks. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Okay. Um Tim, do you want to go ahead and move John in? >> Yep.
>> Okay. So, it's 8:09. We're going to go ahead and open up the 8:00 p.m. public meeting request for a determination of applicability 15 Countryside Road for dock permitting. Um, and John has been here previously and back again.
John, you're on mute, so if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself, that would be great. >> Hi, John Ree. Um, applying for an RDA on a seasonal dock that we discussed in a prior meeting. Uh, so I've provided the paperwork to ask uh Tim to go through my
application. Uh, don't know if you have any immediate questions or if you just wanted me to start rolling through. Yep. I think Go ahead, John. >> Yeah, I just figured we'd start with the photographs, Tim, that you're doing just to show you overall, you know, it's seasonal dock, aluminum dock. Um 38 ft
long, 224 square ft. Um you can see in the prior picture that it attaches to a wooden deck that is pre-existing. Uh it has flowth through top on it, so it's got slots in it. Sunlight gets through, rain goes right through. is pretty much
your standard seasonal dock. Um probably Tim, why don't you why don't you next go to the plans if you're interested in seeing uh actually I meant the plans for the um bird's eye view those I don't know if people want to see
those or not as the state requires just gives you the idea of high water low water high water is about 3 and 1/2 ft low water is about 2 feet dock stands about 4 and 1/2 ft at the deepest point uh where it attaches the wooden deck
about three feet uh from the bottom. And then that's just gives you the idea from lot line to lot line 110 on one side about 56 on the other side 170 ft from the residence. >> Okay. I would think most importantly you
probably want to go over the the uh the list that you guys asked for because that really just gives the specifications which is this page. So, a lot of it's what I just already said, aluminum, you know, aluminum dock blows through. Uh, it's L-shaped up to 38 feet long. 2inch diameter aluminum poles with
8 in x 12 in footings on it. It is manually removed every fall and put back in manually every spring. I hire someone to do that. Uh, doesn't require any maintenance. the dock is shelved or stored, I should say, um on the shore
during the off season. Um I have not applied for an application yet. I can only do the pre-application. So that's all I've done so far. Can't do that until 30 days after I run the ad for the state. So that's uh March 20th. And that's pretty much it. Unless you have
any additional questions, except this is where I plan to store the doc. So it is within the 100 foot barrier mark from or buffer zone from the wetlands. Reason being is that you can see how far
the 100 ft is to bring it out of the 100 ft which considerable distance which the guys who have to carry these things at 200 lb per section are not going to want to carry it that far. Uh it'll cost me more to get them to do it. And the area
where I propose to put it is actually lawn. So it will not be any wooded areas or marshlands or anything. That's existing lawn. So the only thing that'll be impacted by it sitting there during the winter months would just be my lawn area. Okay. Thank you for that, John. So
as a point of reference with this um chapter 91, this is actually a simplified one that he's had to do for the state because he's under 600 square ft. So, this is obviously a tedious process for sure. Um, any commissioners
have any questions for John? Okay, Tim, what are you >> I have a process question for us, but nothing for John. >> Okay, let's finish John first. Um, Tim, what are you looking for us for this? >> Uh, for a vote on on issuing a
determination. Okay, commissioners, if we're does anyone if we don't have any other questions or if anyone does have a question pertaining to this one. Yep. >> My question is just on the process side. Can someone remind me how we've handled
this before in the context of orders of condition or negative determinations? Like I I don't remember. >> We we have done docs as determinations in the past. Is that what other towns are doing?
>> That I'm not sure. >> I would like to check on that because it seems redundant that we're doing it and the state is doing it. So, sorry, John, but yeah.
>> Yeah, of procedural question for us because we've literally only had a handful. >> Okay. Um, do we have anyone would like to go ahead and um make a motion? >> I'll make a motion that the commission
issue a negative three determination for the dock um at 15 Countryside Road. >> Great. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> I would like to discuss the motion before we vote. Um, if I I guess, sorry,
I'm still confused. If historically we've determined that the Wetland Protection Act is applicable and issued orders of condition, why are we going with a negative determination here? And John, ju we're going to bore you to tears here
with some process stuff. I we just need to think about the right way to do this. I don't think it it really bears on your dock. It's just doing it the right way. So it where are we going with this? Are are we
going down a path of an order of conditions? >> I don't think so because it's I mean this is a dock that's going to go for 10 20 30 years. >> Yeah, I didn't think so either. >> I tend to agree. I I just >> it's not going to get recorded. >> We're going in a different d if I
understood things correctly. We're going in a different direction than we have in the past in terms of issuing orders of condition. I'm good with that. I just want to make sure that that's >> Have we ordered? >> I I think the only time that we've we've
issued order of condition like we've approved docs under orders has been when there's other work that's that's being done on the property. >> I don't think we've we've had any docks come in front of us just solely for permitting the dock and have those
require a notice >> where the access. So if John wasn't doing his other work and he wanted to go ahead and do his chapter 91, he wouldn't have to come to us per se. >> Got it. Okay, I'm good. Thank you for
indulging me. >> I just need to make sure that I get the proper Sorry. >> Right. So, John, once you have your work done for your restoration and and your erosion control and everything, once that's done, this will all go away. So,
um, you you won't have to ever have to refile for this doc. >> Okay. >> With you or with the state? The state says 15 years. >> The state will get you. Not with us. >> Yeah. The state will get you. Mean meaning for us. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> But to be clear, John, if I >> if you do decide to change the waterfront area, then you do get to come hang out with us again. >> Yes, I I've got that. Um, I just have to get the right paperwork from you to provide to the state so that I can
complete their portion, which I'm assuming Tim knows. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll we'll we'll talk offline about getting you that documentation. >> Y Okay, good. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Can I say second? >> All right. It's been seconded. We'll do a roll call vote. Edai. Chase >> Chase big eye. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield I
>> Sarah >> Sarah Seaw word I >> and myself I it is unanimous. Good luck John. >> Okay >> very good. Thank you all. Thank you very much. >> Yep. >> Bye. >> So carrying on with that discussion Tim it would be nice to see what other towns are doing.
>> Yeah. with that in terms of the process and obviously a town that would have quite a few lakes would be helpful, >> right? Yeah. I can reach out to other agents and see. >> Okay. >> Uh before before you guys get ready to
uh adjourn, I just real quick while I have you guys here, um Sarah, like you said, our next meeting is on the 24th. Um talking about Lakeshore Drive. >> Yes. >> Is there anybody that thinks that they're not going to be able to attend that meeting? Right. Because the goalach
we're trying to have everyone there so that we can have a full discussion um with everyone and hopefully come to some conclusion or direction um which would be great.
>> Okay. I'll be out of town but I should be able to uh attend. >> Okay. and we'll put it on so it's a specific time that everyone will be able if you can't make the beginning or the end and you can only get into that that bit of the
discussion, we'll try and make sure that that's posted appropriately. >> Yeah, I don't want to miss this one. >> Okay. Okay, great. Is that good, Tim? >> That was it for me. >> Okay. 8:20. Do we have a motion to
adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. Final roll call of the night. Ed. >> Ed. I. >> Chase. >> Chase. Hi. >> Michael.
>> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle. Oh, Kyle, you are on. >> I Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> myself. I. We are journed.