Um, it is now 7:30. We'd like to go ahead and open Littleton Conservation Commission via Zoom. It is July 21st, 2026. Um, what I would like to do, we've got two sets of minutes to do. Let's go
ahead and go through the June 23rd, which was an epically long meeting. Um, does anyone have any omissions, corrections on those many pages? Many, many pages. I just have a couple
of very minor things. under the public hearing for 136 Mil Road. It says Matt Morrow a couple of times and it should just be Matt Marorrow M a R O. >> Oh yeah. >> And then I just had a very minor change
under continued administrative discussion. The Nvidia volunteer project at the very beginning of that paragraph for like the header, it just has like NVIDIA. >> Yep. The B in the bold. Yep. >> Yep. >> Okay.
Okay. Anyone have anything else? If not, do I have a motion to approve June 23rd, 2026 as amended? >> I'll make a motion that the commission approve the meeting minutes of June 23rd, 2026 as amended.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> All right. Roll call. Uh uh Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> Ed >> Ed full time >> Kyle >> and myself I it's unanimous.
>> Okay fantastic. Moving on. Let's carry on to July 7, 2026. The U minutes. Do we have any omissions or corrections? I have one on the third page. um where it says top paragraph, Mr. Bar
will reach out to D for a status update. The line after that says water uh reach out to the water department to discuss permission on their property. Is was that permission to access fire their property permission to pull on their property,
right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if we just >> It's both. >> Well, both. Yeah. >> Okay. So, if we could just clarify that. And then just for my own clarification on the second page under public hearing notice of intent 16 Pickard Lane, this
is for um Cobb Pond. It says, so basically D had gotten back. Treatment would not occur near the Beaver Dam and would target less than 70% of the lake. Wasn't it less than 70, like a significant number, or was that the
number that we referenced? >> No, it it it was 70. Um D's comment said they didn't want more than 70 treated. >> Okay. Okay, great. Those are just the two questions and clarification I had. Does anybody have anything?
Okay. If not, can we have a motion to accept July 7, 2026 as amended? I'll make a motion that we accept the July 7, 2026 minutes as amended. >> Okay.
>> Second. All right. Roll call vote. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seward. I >> Ed >> Ed full. >> Kyle >> Kyle >> and myself I. It's unanimous. >> Okay, great. Um does anyone have anything they'd like to add to
administrative discussions? Yeah, I had one one thing about the um updated weather protection act. >> Okay. >> And water quality. >> Okay, great. Let's go ahead and start continued discuss discussion enforcement
order 172 Wickham A. Tim. >> Yep. I'm going to share my screen. Um if you guys remember, this enforcement order was issued not too long ago. I believe it was oh boy might have been last fall I believe. >> Sounds right.
>> And you can see this is this whole area um where you can see there's there's a very clear difference in the height of the new growth and the um the growth in the back. This whole area was cleared um and so it got seated this uh
this spring. Um, so this is actually 172 Wickcom as well as the water department parcel back here. Um, both of which have been receded. Um, and they're coming in extremely well. Um, and because of that, I thought I'd put it on the agenda to see if you guys felt that this was
comfort that you guys were comfortable enough um, with how this is coming in and if you thought the enforcement order could be lifted. >> I think that looks amazing. >> Yeah, it looks great. I have some more photos, but they're upside down, so I
don't even know want to see them. It's a a formatting issue here. >> No, that's good. I I would be happy to remove it. >> Sure. >> Also, I apologize. My dog is going to be coughing all meeting, so I will try to do my best at muting myself.
>> Not to worry. Yeah. So, do we have someone that would like to make a motion to lift the enforcement order on 172 Wickham A? >> I move that we remove the enforcement order for 172 Whitam A.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Se I. Ed >> Folultzy. >> Kyle Kyle Max >> and myself I. It's unanimous. Okay. Um, this is a continued request for a
certificate of compliance 9 air road D number 204-0858 U43-3. Tim. >> Yep. Um, for this one, we were just waiting for the monitoring period for the plantings to elapse and that was
last fall. Um, and so we got out there, I got out there yesterday, um, to look at them and with the, you know, 20 plus plantings that were out there, there were only two that did not survive. Um, and so that was the last thing that we were waiting on for this request.
However, um, the erosion controls were still there. So, I I asked the uh the applicant to let me know when the erosion controls um the waddles had been removed because we still have to to wait on that to issue um the certificate of compliance. Um and so I thought it was
going to be ready for tonight, but it's it's not quite ready. I'd imagine it's probably going to be ready for the next meeting. >> Okay. So, we'll just carry it over. Next is North Bridge um Q20 groundwater monitoring report. That was emailed to all of us. Yes, this was emailed to you
guys uh in your packets. Um I I don't believe the folks No, the folks um from North Bridge and GCA are not here tonight. I know at the last meeting that uh they were in front of us, they wanted to discuss the data on site. Um and so initially we had a meeting date set up
um where Kyle is actually going to meet with them out there and they had requested that we uh find a new date. Um so we're we're working on figuring out a new date for that. >> Okay. So, let's just carry that forward as well. Um, Kyle update D.
>> Um, so I I heard this today randomly, but um it sounds like there is updates to the Wilder Protection Act and it's out for public comment right now. um the WPA and the 401 water quality which I
don't think affects us as much but I guess I wanted to poke Tim and see if they had been made aware or um have seen it. >> It's a short window. So >> yeah, I believe I actually saw an email today about that. I didn't get a chance to to dive into it and see what the
changes are. >> Yeah, I haven't either. >> Certainly do that. And >> I think we all I cuz I got something but I didn't open it. So that's probably what that was from MAC. >> Yeah, I got that tonight. I I was in a couple meetings earlier today where it got brought up. Um, yeah, seems to mimic
what MAC sent. I didn't read the email. >> Kim, if you could just send that update to the commissioners, that would be great. Just to make sure that everybody has that in their uh email. >> Okay. Um, Kyle, do you know what the time period was on that? I know you said it was short.
>> Yeah, it was really, really short. like middle to end of August and maybe the 20th of August or something like that. >> Okay. >> I think it focused around honestly I think it focused around permitting. So like streamlining permits and making the process easier but I that's just >> Tim. Let's see if we can put that on for
the next meeting if that falls before the period is closed. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, great. Um all right, let's go ahead and open the seven Oh, we can't. Sorry. >> Oh, it's only 7:39. Um, >> tearing right through the agenda tonight.
>> Being a little too efficient tonight. >> Um, >> well, have some other updates on some things. >> I could try to think of some. Um, Monday, this, so yesterday, um, Solitude
did their pre-treatment survey of the aquatic invasive species of Long Lake. Um and they said they should have the maps um turned around to us within 48 hours. So I would expect those uh tomorrow and then we're going to get a date on when the lake is going to be
treated um subsequently after that. >> So they say how far out they are? >> Uh they did not I I don't think it's it's too long that they're going to be pushing it out. >> Okay. Um, Forge Pond has been treated uh twice
in the I think since our last meeting. Uh, let's see what else we have. Um, we're still making progress. we on the um on planning for the the Braille Trail, we did get a letter of support or approval from the disability committee
today on the design. Um and so we've we've been meeting with some folks out there um to try to nail down uh details and and timelines uh in order to get a lot of the work completed
before the Nvidia volunteer workday in October. How did the parking and everything go this past weekend for Apple Man? Anyone know? >> I didn't hear anything, so I assume it went okay. >> Okay, we have three minutes.
>> Never happens. I don't know. >> Not not recently. Not in a long time. >> What's uh Tim, what's the date of the next meeting? >> Uh it should be August 4th, I believe. >> I have a question for you then, Tim. Um
just as we're >> going back through things, I think you had sent out um if it was like the feasibility plan for no pond removal. Do you have any idea what the plan is going forward as far as
public engagement or you know next steps? Are they coming to us or what do you >> I don't I think we're I think we're a way we're a ways out from any sort of public engagement. Um the water department has been the one that's been taking the lead on this.
>> Um so it it's possible that Lauren's actually heard some more about this since she's over at the water department. uh every Thursday. So, I can I could follow her on that and see if she's heard anything or I'll just reach out to to Matt uh Silverman directly and ask.
>> Yeah, I would just recommend to him that the sooner the better. I've had multiple projects get stopped in their tracks because the AM owners have not engaged the public early enough and then come to find out that they can cause a big problem, right? So, I wouldn't be wouldn't be surprised if the same thing
happens here. I would think we would need at least six months for public engagement, Kyle, wouldn't we? >> Yeah. >> And >> yeah, I would plan on the whole permitting thing to take two years at least.
>> And is that be the one that's filing for that? >> I actually don't think it's the water department. Isn't it a stateowned dam? >> It might be DOT. >> I forget who. Yeah, it's
it's not a town entity. Um I almost wanted to say MBTA, but it might not be them. >> I think it's DOT. >> DOT. Yes, DOT. Thank you. Yeah. So yeah, I guess we can't really give too many pieces of advice if DOT is
running with it. But yeah, if our water department's involved and maybe they can help out. >> Okay, >> that could be interesting. >> Yeah, >> Amber, do you have 745? That's what I've got here >> in like 30 seconds. Okay.
>> I was gonna say not yet. I'm sure by the time Oh, and this public hearing doesn't have a D number yet. >> No, neither of the boardwalks, too. >> Okay. >> So, we're going to go ahead and open the 7:45 public hearing notice of intent. We
Webster Woods Boardwalks. Um, still waiting on the D number and this is a construction of seven boardwalks. Um, in your packet, you had the outline for this. Tim, do you want to just walk us through that?
>> Sure thing. And I'm going to share my screen. >> You've got some attendees. Is anyone in particular here for Webster? So, >> um I'm sure there's some here to to listen in. And if anybody has any any comments, um we'll typically hold that for the end. And if you want to raise
your hand, we'll uh we'll let you speak at the end. >> That would be great. >> Um so, I'm going to share my screen here. Kind of skip around this application. And so, as you can see, there's uh seven boardwalks at Webster Woods that we're
proposing to build. We have CPC funding um to build these boardwalks that we obtained uh in the spring. Uh we plan on putting this out as a uh a request for proposals
um because we anticipate the uh the the dollar amount is going to be quite high for these. Um, all the boardwalks are going to be ADA compliant. Um, and so the plan that you see in this application, which I'll
scroll down to, um, it's there there might be some minor modifications with the the design. The footings themselves um should not change. And if the the footings the quantities of the footings do change, we will come back with a
request for either a minor moderate or an amended order of conditions because I know that's what the state cares about as they consider the footings um to be permanent impacts. Um but as you could see, I've uh taken photos for the loca at locations where
the boardwalks are proposed. And these should not be taken to be exact locations. This is just to give everybody a general um view of of the locations of where they will be um and what they they you know will look similar to. Um so this this design is
not what we're going to be going with. Um but just to give everybody an idea I had these generated. So there are a couple uh intermittent streams that we're going to be crossing there. I believe two or three. Um, and
then, uh, I believe two BBWs. And so we did walk the the property with Carl. Um Carl, Lauren, myself, and Joe O'Neal walked this um I believe it was last was either in the in the spring or
or last fall um when we were coming up with the the trail system for the property and we did go over the location for the uh the boardwalk blocks. Okay, so bunch of different designs. I'm not going to go over all of them. Um,
but what I will say is, um, so we're going to be working with Henry to make sure that it's it's all ADA compliant. Um, what what we're going to be putting out as our design and our RFP. Um, and basically it's if it goes above
30 in it needs to have railings or if it's a if it's crossing a stream um or like sitting water then then Henry said it's it's best practice for those to have railings. Uh if not um if the the
decking of the boardwalk is below 30 in uh which all of ours should be um then they only need the uh they call them bumpers on the on the sides of the boardwalks.
So I got a bunch of designs here. Um not sure it's necessarily a good use of time to to look through all of them. They're all extremely similar. Um, but the footings are going to be using these um, uh, camel blocks. And so we've quantified the impacts um,
of those all the camel blocks, added them up, and that's where we have proposed um, wetland replication. And so it's not it's not really feasible to do the wetland replication at Webster Woods. it would be very difficult to
access um these locations with heavy machinery without creating a pretty significant disturbance. Um but on another property like Cloverdale, it's a little more feasible to do that without creating a huge disturbance. Um, and so
we've we've marked off this area and we are proposing to replicate at a little more than a a one to one uh ratio creating um BBW here. And so we will have a uh straw waddles
placed here um before the the excavation occurs. um any area that is disturbed as a part of this. So so the wetland the excavated area will be seated with wetland mix. Any other areas um that are
disturbed during that process will also be seated um so that they could be stabilized. But we're going to have straw waddles there um until the whole area is is is stabilized upgradient. Um,
and I anticipate it may take probably two or three seasons to get this area um, fully grown in if it's anything similar to the wetland replication area that we did um, kind of west of this
picture at Cloverdale two years ago. And that's all I have. Uh, if any of you guys have any questions, I'll do my best. >> Thank you. That's a lot of information. I know it's taking a long time. Um, commissioners, any questions before we
open to the public? >> Yeah. Tim, is that that replication area you were just showing? Is it is that this the whole area that those four stakes that we saw? >> Yes, that is. Yep. And that so that replication area is actually
it's it's combined the quantities of the footings for both the Webster Woods boardwalks as well as the Castle Elementary um boardwalks. Not the boardwalks themselves, sorry, the footings.
So I think if I go back to the narrative um >> Yeah. Can you go to the table that you created to to walk me through that? get so I can understand the square footage because I'm not quite following it. >> Yes. >> So the So sorry, it's not just the camel
blocks that um count as impacts. It's also the end sills on the on both ends of the of the boardwalks as well that sit on the ground. Um, and so we've we've quantified those and you can see that
there's 46 ft of uh square feet of impacts um for the boardwalks that go across PVW, 65 for the ones that go across the intermittent streams um and and 20 on the uh the banks themselves.
And so that that totals out to to 131 square feet. >> Okay. And that that square area that you showed in this packet is 260 square feet. >> No, no. We were proposing a one to one. >> A one to one. You said one to one. Sorry. >> Yeah.
>> Um scroll down to it really quick. I believe it it should say on uh on the top there. Um, >> oh yeah, you had >> 180. 140 will be to offset um the Webster wood the Webster woods uh boardwalks and
then 40 square feet will be to set out offset the uh the castle in the trees boardwalk. Anyone else have any questions? Anyone in attendance have any questions, comments?
If you do, just raise your hand. So, Tim, because we don't have a D number, we're going to hold off on this until put it forward to the next meeting. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. So,
we are still early. We have five more minutes. What is the the ideal time? When are we thinking of you're going to send this out to bid? And what are we thinking time period of this? >> Yeah. Um,
we're going to be working with Henry once once this is permitted um with us. We're going to be working with Henry to put something out within the RFP that is definitively ADA. Um, and then we can get, you know,
the correct or I want to say correct is the right word, but h maybe correct correct designs >> for a boardwalks. Um,
I I'm hoping to get them out by middle of August. I I think the ideal time frame for them to be built is probably October. >> Okay. >> Yeah. At least from talking to Jim, that's what he suggested. Jim O'Neal,
>> is that because there's less likely to be wildlife activity or it's dry, you know, why? And it's curiosity. Why October? >> Yeah, not necessarily. Um I I think it's a couple of things. probably the reduced
um foot traffic of the properties at that at that time of year where it's starting to get a little colder as well as um just the the amount of rain um that we're that we're not getting at that time.
>> And the ground's a little stiffer than >> Right. Can you remind me is um funding been secured for for this boardwalk? >> Yes, we got CPC funding. um in the spring for for both this board, the one
at Castle. >> I couldn't remember if it was both. Okay, thank you. >> And I know this is premature, but are we looking to send them both out at the same time? >> Yeah, pretty much. >> Okay. >> If we can. Yeah, we we'll ideally do
that. >> Okay, we have four more minutes. If anyone has >> Good. Yeah, I have another question and then I hate to go back to this replication. >> No, it's okay. >> But um one to one doesn't seem in line with
what we normally do, right? But aren't don't we usually I know I know trees don't have anything in writing, but doesn't our bylaw say that we have a 3 to1 ratio for wetland replication? >> I'm not sure. I can definitely check on that. Um, and if that's the case, I I
will revise the the application and we'll go out and uh expand the area. >> Yeah, there's space there, right? Like that. >> Yeah, there's a lot of space over there that we can expand if we need to, >> right? I could be wrong, but that's what's in
my head that would that is is one of our rigs. It >> it that totally could be the case. Um, at least yeah, I'll go back and check. So, for those of you that are watching
this and wondering why we're not moving on, um it's 7:57 and we can't open the next hearing until the posted time, which is 8:00 p.m. >> It's a change. We're usually running behind. It's early. Don't Don't
I hear you? >> I'll be cursing you when we sign off at 10. >> Oh gosh. I apologize. One more minute. >> I think your clock on your uh screen saver is off though.
>> That one up there. I don't even think it I think it's repeating numbers actually too. Well, you know, a clock is even a broken clock is right twice a day. >> Oh, this one this one is just not right
in general. I mean, if you look closely, I think like three is listed twice and like the hand is but you never know because it's just it's in the background and you don't look closely at it. >> It's in the corner. Not a very convenient place to look either. No,
I've got to really, you know, >> someone didn't want you to know it was the end of the workday. >> That's right. That's right. But you know what? The sun is still shining out there. It's It's a beautiful day in the big city.
>> All right, it is 8:00. Public hearing, notice of intent. Castle in the Clouds boardwalks. D number to be given at a later date. Construction of a boardwalk. Tim, are you ready for this one? >> Back again. Um,
>> so this property right here is is uh 300 King Street Castle, also known as Castle in the Trees. Um, and at the select board's meeting, I believe it was last Monday. Um, we got authorization to
create a trail going from the playground at Castle in the Trees, um, utilizing the, um, Hagar Homestead access easement, um, and then also, um, going onto the school property behind the ball
field connecting into the trail system that is behind the library. Um, the idea here was to create a uh a way for the kids to get from the playground to the library um while being off the the sidewalk right next to, you know, the
busy um road here. So, I don't want you guys to focus too much on what's showing up as wetlands here. Um, you see this big wetland, this small wetland down here. This area is all uh wet in between. This is just the the core wetlands that are being shown on the
state data layers on our Axis GIS. Um because I I I would imagine if you're looking at this, one of the questions that would come to mind is, you know, can you uh create the trail in a way that it wouldn't need a boardwalk here? Um splitting these two wetlands, but this this area is wet in between here.
Um that being said, this is the location um that we're proposing to build the boardwalk. The boardwalk I believe is going to be about 72 feet. Um, and it is only going to go about, this isn't very
representative, but it's probably only going to go about maybe a foot or two onto the um the the access easement area that goes across Hagar Homestead. Um,
let's see. This is a little little bit more of a uh an up close uh plan of the the trail and the boardwalk. So, you can see the boardwalk's going to be a fairly decent length. And I don't if you can make it out, but
this um there's there's two lines here that show the footprint of the the access easement that we have. So, this is the plan. Um, this one I can't imagine that we will have railings
on this one. Um, the deck of the boardwalk should be less than 30 in off the ground. Um, but we will have the the curbs on the edge in order to be in compliance with ADA standards. Has
anyone done an analysis of how much use this is anticipated to get? >> I don't believe so. >> How do we know that this is a boardwalk worth doing? I can definitely tell you after school
gets out uh during the school year, kids flock from uh you know the middle school, elementary school to the library and you know if they could even do a loop from the library to the playground um even better. But yeah know we um we
get a lot of traffic in that area. Yeah, I selfishly my kids they go to the library after school most days so I can see them utilizing this and going to the playground instead of the library. >> Fair enough. >> Yeah. Yeah. This will be I think this will be very well used to the point
where we might have to keep an eye on it. I'm sure make sure that Hager the homestead there doesn't get too inundated or people stay on the path and whatnot. Um can see some issues coming up that way. Yeah. So, I have been in preliminary talks with with the folks at Hager
Homestead to make sure we are all on on the same page um with this. I going to be meeting um with some folks over there um in the coming week or two because in addition to the
the 300 King Street side of this, um there's going to be some modifications to the other side near the the ball field within the access easement. It's really only going to be um clearing a spot for for the path and not not that that's necessarily
pertinent to this um application, but just throwing it out there. >> Are people going to be able to put bikes on that boardwalk? That's been a concern that um the folks at at Hagar have brought up is in is
allowing uh bike traffic um through that access easement. >> Um I'd have I have to go back and and read it. I I think one of the folks there said that um biking is not allowed across the easement. I'll have to double check on that. >> Okay. The boardwalks get slippery. I
would not encourage bikes. Yeah. >> And I just think it's going to be hard if there's a lot of kids walking and then you've got people on with bikes. >> How do you enforce something like that? >> Well, I think I think Tim it might be in the in the rules for that easement.
>> Yeah. >> No, I'm just thinking how do how to gener generically whoever the how >> signage and education. So, >> okay. >> Yep. That's something that we're going to talk about with uh with the Hager folks is, you know, how much signage
they would like. Um and they've also brought up the concern of, you know, making sure people are staying on the path >> and so we'll be providing adequate signage as well as um blazes if they'd like. >> Perfect.
>> Will there be more trash receptacles on either ends as well with just the additional question >> traffic? Um, that's not something that we've we've discussed, but it's a good question to bring up. Um, if we did have
them, I'm not sure who would >> be say I because I don't think do they even have them at Castle and Shice? I think it's a carry and carry out facility with. So, I don't I don't want to set a a precedent to >> have us have to take care of that
because we install a trail and put trash cans on. >> Yep. >> The um skate park or whatever it is that's beside Castle doesn't have any trash bins. >> I don't believe so. >> Are the basketball courts there? Yeah. No. No.
>> Yeah. Used to be a skateboard. >> Shows how >> my age. >> Yeah. I think there's some portaotties there at most, but >> I think they've shied away from having receptacles there. >> Anyone that's in attendance have any
questions or comments? >> Oh, we do have a hand. >> Tim, are you doing that? You want me to? >> Yep. up. Susan, you should be able to talk. >> Okay. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> we can. Good evening.
>> Hi. Um, yes, I live at Hager and I have some concerns. Um, I know this boardwalk is on the side from the playground to the property, the back of Hager.
There's something on the other end that isn't constructed yet. how it's going to attach to the connect to the library because there isn't following our path. There isn't a way to the library.
>> No. Yeah. So, we're going to have to create a a trail um that goes it's going to it's going to it's going to work off the that end of the access easement um that connects to the the the town property where the the town offices
are as well as the library. Um, and it's going to go up the hill there and basically ride along the top of the slope immediately uh adjacent to the the baseball field fence. So, we'll have to do a little bit
of of trail clearing there in order to make that um accessible. >> Okay. So my first concern is that trail from after the boardwalk when they reach the Hagar property, they're going to be
walking unsupervised young children next to a pond that is not fenced off at all. And at this point, if that's built and there isn't even a connection on the
other end for them to get to the library or town offices or whatever, you know, they're walking onto property where there is a pond alone.
And what's to stop them from just deciding, "Oh, that looks cool. Let me get into that water. You know, there are like safety concerns that I have and liability concerns. Um, you know, what if a kid I mean this the
ground is soft, so it really should not be used by bicycles, but if a kid took a bike on there and then tripped and fell over and broke their ankle, where's the li, you know, who's going to know about it and where's the liability? Um,
so I I have some big concerns about that. I don't have any objection to the kids going across in principle. >> No, it's it's a good question. U I'm not sure that I have have the answer right now. Um
I can I can talk with some folks at at town hall and see if we can come up with some answers for you. >> Okay. >> We certainly appreciate that input. I'd like to ask Kyle has his hand raised if you'd like to go ahead and um introduce yourself and happy to hear what you have
to say. >> Yeah. Uh Kyle Bob, Ernie's Drive. Uh I just wanted to I guess echo Ed's question about is this really something that kids are asking for? So you have in
that complex over there, you have Russell Street, then you have the middle school. And I definitely see a lot of middle schoolers at the library. But my question is really how many middle schoolers actually want to go to Castle in the Trees. Uh, and I'm saying that as
a a father of someone, a kid who's going into second grade. I I already see the interest in Castle in the Trees and Playgrounds in general weaning. And um then you have Russell Street who I imagine their parents aren't letting
their kids who are in third through fifth grade just wander off, you know, up to the library and then presumably over the castle in the trees. So I would just I question is this actually needed? Um, I like the idea of it, don't get me
wrong, from a safety perspective, keeping them off the main road, but I just don't know how many middle schoolers are actually wanting to go play at Castle in the Trees. >> Commissioners, anyone have any thoughts on that or guidance for
um how to facilitate making sure there is a need? >> Is this being driven by the selectment? I thought I heard early on Tim said the selection >> I am speaking as a member of the public not as a >> No I'm not I'm not questioning that
Kyle. What I'm trying to understand is who's the champion for this project? It's I mean did we decide that we wanted to have this? Did the selectman say this is a trail we would like and then we said well to have it you have to have the boardwalk. Who the ultimate who
started this? >> Let's let's let Andrew and Tim respond to that. >> Yeah. So it is our department that is um you know leading the charge on this project. Um and that's driven by you know previous open space and recreation plans that seek to you know connect
recreational and open space areas. So this um really just seems like a slam dunk for um you know not only the kids but also you know really anybody that's looking to walk uh you know through nature as opposed to out on the main street from you know town hall to Castle
in the Trees. So, I think honestly it'll get a lot of use by the kids. Um, you know, whether they're going to play basketball or, you know, in the future if we do, uh, there's been talk of like a fitness trail, a castle in the the trees. Uh, there's a lot of options. Uh,
but it's really a great way to just keep uh or give people the opportunity to walk through nature as opposed to that main drag kept cars whizzing by uh on King Street. Um, but I I think it'll get a lot of use once it's constructed. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I'd like to ask
um Sarah if you'd like to introduce yourself and um chat. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, thank you. Um, I'm also here at Hagar and um a friend of Susan and I walk my dog every
morning from Hagar over to Castle in the trees and around that loop which goes around the basketball courts. Um, that's my morning walk and I sometimes I do in the afternoon too. I do on the weekends
also when the playground is more in use. That playground is for little kids. Um, I'm not sure. I've never seen a kid older than 5 years old on that playground. I see lots of parents with
2year-olds, threeyear-olds pushing them on the little swings. It's very It's for very young children that particular playground. And the basketball courts are more for adults. Honestly, I've never seen kids throwing a basketball
there. I've seen lots of um guys and mostly guys uh getting together and playing um playing some basketball games, especially on the weekends. So, I'm not sure
the interest of a middle schooler, even a elementary schooler. I know when I was a parent, I don't think I let my daughter be unescorted before she was 8 years old in third grade or fourth grade. I can't imagine
that any really younger kids than that will be walking by themselves or with friends. Maybe they could be walking in a group of friends. So, I just don't know what the allure would be for even um kids eight years old or older
going to Castle in the Trees. So, I'm not sure that that um there's a you know an interest there might I'm not sure about the interest for for uh kids actually going from the middle school even the elementary school
if the parent would even allow that to go unescorted. That's quite a long walk. from that school over to the castle in the trees. >> Great. Thank you, Sarah. Yeah. >> Um Gwen, if you would like to introduce yourself.
>> Hi, my name is Gwen Hodeling and I'm at Two Hager Homestead Way. Um my question really is about the um the Russell Street to the property. um that that
plan seems very illdefined and I think it's um if we're going to do this, it's got to be integral. It's got to, you know, if you don't have a solid plan of how the children are going to get out of Russell Street, cross Hagar Homestead property to get to the playground, if in
fact any children are going to do it. Um I have a child that's a grandchild going into Russell Street School. I'd like her to be able to walk from school over to Hagar Homestead. And I I don't think that there's a clear path there. So if you got if you're going to build one end, you got to build the other end at
the same time. It can't be like a down the road, we'll see what we can do about it. I think it's if it's if it's a plan, it should be fully hatched. That it's I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it's it's a complete idea. That's it. Thanks.
I I believe at the select board meeting last Monday um an entire plan for the the whole um trail was uh shown. Um I can't say for certain cuz I was not there. Um but the the reason why we didn't show the whole thing here is just
because this permit application is just for the boardwalk itself and not for the the whole trail um being permitted. It's it's just for the boardwalk that crosses the the wetland resource area. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Oh, and I do see that Kyle's got his hand up. >> Kyle, and you're muted. There you go. >> Yep. Yeah. I just wanted to confirm that that's accurate. Yes, the entire plan was presented and it was voted and approved unanimously. And I have my select board hat on now. um as as your
liaison to the select board. I just wanted to make that clear that the entire plan was presented. Uh there's a full connection path and it was approved. >> Great. Thank you for that clarification. So, what we're going to do is take this information back. Tim, I know you have more meetings. This is not um obviously
there's no D number that's been confirmed. This will be carried on um hopefully to the next meeting and we'll start to um discuss this further and digest it a little bit more. But this is really how it pertains to the Wetlands Protection Act here. But thank you all
for attending. Um, we're going to go ahead and move on. It's 8:19. We're going to open up our 8:15 public hearing notice of intent. 550 King Street retail phase 2 de There's not a D number. Construction of a retail building with supporting site and utility
improvements. Is there anyone here to speak to this? >> I'm promoting Chris and Morgan over right now. Uh Chris and Morgan, if there's anybody else that's that's here that you'd like to be promoted, please just let me know and I'll and I'll go ahead and do that. >> And when you're on um please introduce
yourself. >> All right. Yeah, we'll do. Uh and yeah. Yeah, that's that's fine, Tim. It's just just Morgan and I tonight. Okay. >> Um can you guys hear me? Okay. Yep. Yep. >> Um all right. I do have a brief
presentation. Is that okay? >> Yes. Thank you. Just share my screen. All right. Can you guys see this? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Excellent. All right. Well, thank you very much. Uh my name is Chris Raymond from TEC. Uh I'm also here alongside uh
Morgan Pearson. He's from uh representing the applicant from 550 King Street LLC. Uh and want to discuss uh discuss with you guys uh a proposed uh phase of the 550 King Street development. Uh we're calling this the
550 King Street retail phase 2 north site. Uh this development as a whole has been split up into multiple phases. Um, so, uh, but the the a project we're coming to talk to you tonight is is what we're calling retail phase 2 north.
>> Chris, if I can just interject, do you have a a do you have a locust that you can Okay. >> Oh, I'll get there. Yeah. Sorry, I'll I'll go through some slides and go and get there. Um, yeah. So, uh just just so you guys um are aware, we're here
tonight uh seeking a notice of intent uh for the retail phase 2 north development. Uh this is going to be a 20 23,500 square f foot uh anchor commercial retail space. Um and we just want to discuss some of the proposed
impacts within the 50ft and 100 ft buffer zones uh for the uh bordering vegetated wetland. um which was the it's the existing storm water pond that was constructed as part of the IBM site.
Um, so project location. Uh, so, uh, you can see here, uh, this is the 550 King Street site. Uh, it's the old IBM can camp campus. I'm outlining the entire site for you right here. Um, which you can see it's just located off just, you
know, right off the exit. Uh, you got King Street uh, to the to the south and you got Great Road uh, to the west. In the site that we're looking at specifically, you can see in the top right hand corner, um it's the parcel uh
furthest to the to the west. Um and we in the bottom right hand corner of this slide, you can see we kind of zoom in. Um that is the uh the piece that we're talking about and it's a big chunk of the existing parking that was uh the at the west side of the IBM campus. Um just
adjacent to that uh really large storm water basin that was constructed as part of that development. Um and just going over some existing conditions for you. Um you can see here uh just to the to the north or at the bottom of the page here we've we've
highlighted this storm water basin, the existing storm water basin um that has become uh classified as some uh BVW. So we've outlined uh our wetland flags as well as the uh associated 50 and 100
foot uh wetland setbacks. Um, you can see to the north of this, uh, was that existing parking field that I was talking about that used to, um, uh, support the IBM campus when it was a fully functioning, uh, office campus.
Uh, you can see, uh, well, you kind of see the contours on here. Um, but to kind of better explain it to you, the site uh slopes pretty dramatically from those buildings, which is page north, um, all the way down to that, uh,
existing storm water basin. So, there's a pretty good slope, um, going from, uh, I guess east to west across this, um, but, uh, across the site, but in this uh, graphic here, it's it's page north
to page south. It slopes down. Um so we're propo uh prop proposing a development uh within this parking field um which is going to be a proposed uh retail commercial building. Uh as I mentioned it's going to be 23,500 square
ft. Um and it'll have associated um parking improvements, utilities, uh upgraded storm water, uh and uh landscaping uh improvements associated uh around the building. Um and as I mentioned, um
um in order to to uh construct this site, we do have to level it out because as I did mention it, there is a pretty good slope that goes from the building down to the storm water pond. So, we're proposing uh to put in a retaining wall
along the uh uh what is the western edge of this, but in this the plan orientation, it'll be the uh plan south here um between the uh between the building and that uh proposed uh storm or the existing storm water pond. We're
looking to put in a a a retaining wall there so that we can raise that grade and we can level this site out to make it um developable. Um and you can see here um uh we've
highlighted in in blue and in green uh some of the uh temporary uh impermanent buffer zone impacts. um highlighted in green and blue are uh actually the the the bottom side of that green hatch is going
to be where we uh put in our retaining wall. And um so that will be within the 100 foot buffer and we'll be raising the grade there um so that we can construct some of the uh parking improvements around the building.
Um, so, uh, once we do that, we're looking at about, uh, 6,000, uh, square ft of proposed, uh, uh, impacts to the 100 foot buffer, um, of the existing storm
water pond. And, um, as part of the onsite uh, drainage system, we're looking to make some uh, dramatic drainage improvements on this site. Um, as you know, it was constructed um, a while
ago. I think 40, 50 years ago. Um, so, um, storm water has changed a little bit. So, we're looking to upgrade the storm water system around this site um with uh deep sump hooded catch basins uh for collection uh conveyed through um
upgraded drainage pipes into uh treatment uh uh treatment systems uh which would be um sediment collection treatment systems before they discharge into a um subsurface uh infiltration system which
you can see highlighted. it in gray here. Um, and the proposed outlet for that, um, we're looking to tie into, so this was an existing storm water pond, and there's many outlets that come into it from the various, uh, collection
systems that were around the site, and we're looking to tie into the uh, one of those existing outlets. But when we do that, we do want to upgrade it. We want to make sure if you've seen it out there, it has overgrown uh, quite a bit. there hasn't been a whole lot of maintenance done on it uh over the
years. So, we want to tie into that existing outlet, but when we do so, we want to make sure that uh it's fully functioning. So, we want to replace the pipe there. We want to clean up that outlet. Um put in a new uh flared end section with uh some rip wrap at the
end. And we just want to really and and as you can see here, so those impacts are an existing pipe and discharge point. Um I don't know. Can you see my mouse? >> Yeah. >> So yeah. Okay. Um so we are just looking
to So those are the those are the limited impacts that that we're proposing within the 50oot is just to go in uh the structure that you see here um is actually an existing structure that we're tying into. So we want to uh tie into that structure, make sure that it's
it's usable. If it's not, we'll replace it. And then we just want to upgrade the um or update the existing storm water outfall that's there. Um and of course uh before we do any of this, we'll uh use the appropriate
erosion control um and sediment control um methods means methods. Um we'll be installing you can see outlined in gold here. Anything downstream of this, we'll be uh uh uh installing silt fence um to make sure that none of the construction
runoff um runs into this uh to the existing storm water pond during construction. We want to make sure that the the resource is protected. Um and we'll be installing silt sacks and any nearby catch basins. Um, and if material is stockpiled on site, we'll make sure
to to protect that from from any runoff. And, uh, yeah, with that, um, that's a brief overview of the project. And, um, welcome any any questions you guys may have. >> So, commissioners, let's go ahead with a lot to digest. Commissioners have
questions. >> Can you go back to that previous picture? Um, so you're looking at, actually one more, sorry. You're looking at 6,000 square feet in the 100. Um, is there a reason why you couldn't have just pushed the building over and not had that
impact? >> So, >> and I appreciate that you're trying to make money. So, >> trying to sound stupid, but >> And it was actually 7,000 Ed, not six, I think. >> Says 6,000 >> 6 thou 6,57. Yeah. So, just about 6,000.
Um, one of the honestly grading gets really tough here. Um, where we show the existing or this uh entrance into the site is the existing entrance into this parking field that's here. This parking field runs right under this building.
And to try to flatten this site out and maintain the or and also climb grade here as it does today. This roadway climbs a pretty good amount of grade. So, we're trying to maintain this existing entrance point into uh into
that site, and we want to just square it off. Uh the more we push the uh the development up into the site, the steeper the other entrance will get. And we're really trying to get full circulation here. So, you can kind of
see in the proposed grading, this does get fairly steep through here. it's, you know, it's it's totally appropriate for a parking area, but if we keep pushing it, that starts to get steeper and we kind of start fighting ourselves. Um, so
that that's one of the main reasons is is we did play with that trying to push it up. Um, and we just kept fighting ourselves with gr with grade. So >> So you're looking to put a ton of fill with the retaining wall.
>> There'll be a little bit of fill. Yeah, a little. If if it's as steep as you describe, I think a ton is more accurate. >> Yeah, >> I'm sure Chris can get you those numbers for sure. >> Yeah, we could we could do a cut fill for you. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but yeah, there'll definitely be some
earth work to to manage or to try to flatten out the grade there. >> Yeah, your your pipe into the into the uh cache basin. Now, you're going to have a lot more traffic here than IBM had. I mean, you're going to have cars coming and going or what have you. which
means there's going to be salt and all that crap. >> So, where I don't see any mention of how you're going to prevent things going into the catch basin that don't belong there other than you said there's that rip wrap thing at the
bottom. >> Um, so the catch basins will all be it'll be a closed drainage system on the site. It'll be curbed um with with catch basins all around the site. But you're sending catch basins into the erosion
into the uh the the the catch basin. >> That's what I thought I heard. >> We're we're directing all flow into catch basins around the site uh which are piped to uh what would be a treatment structure of some sort like a
hydrodnamic separator for um for sediment and debris. Um that's all everything on site is then directed into the infiltration system that's on site and only the overflow
um in the large storm events um will will enter the final outlet. >> Has that been created and designed? You just mentioned that it may not already be designed. Um
uh or >> in terms of your >> the storm water system has been >> Yeah, the storm water system has been fully designed and it's actually going through uh we have present presented this project to the planning board and um the the storm water is getting peer reviewed right now by Green
International. >> Okay. So are you capturing the roof in that as well? The >> Yep. Everything >> Yep. Everything on site will be will be captured, treated, infiltrated um prior to discharge.
>> And are you seeking a waiver because you're working in the 50? >> Um I I guess if that if that is the appropriate um >> Tim, did they a waiver request? >> Yes, they did. They did submit a waiver request. >> What's the basis for the waiver?
>> Uh I'd have to go back and >> Oh, no. That's up to Chris should tell you. You don't need to know that at the moment. >> Yeah, let me Hold on. Sorry. Let me stop sharing here. Um, sorry, one second. Yeah, we are seeking
a waiver for work within the 50 foot. Um, uh, from section 4.2 two um for temporary work um at approximately 326 square ft um within the 50ft not
disturbance. Uh it's limited to the replacement of the existing drainage outlet uh infrastructure. Um and we're we'll be upsizing that pipe um from 24 in to >> doing work to upgrade yourself not necessarily to
>> Okay, so that's that's clear. Um, so you're adding I just want to understand you're adding a discharge point. You're trying to put more in, but you have other connections that come into this um
retention area. So, are you going to disconnect some of the others cuz you're going to be adding more flow in? And I guess my question is how many in this basin, how many discharges are coming in presently? >> Yeah. So, currently based on like the survey that we have, I believe there's
four uh in uh outlets into this pond. >> So, you're going to be turning some of those off. >> Uh we'll be reducing um we'll be overall um we are reducing flows into the existing uh storm water
pond. Uh some of them get a little bit more and some will be less. Um but overall we are we are decreasing flows into this um as the o for the overall site >> overall site
>> of the whole 550 or just this particular phase because right in front you're just asking for even though you don't have the D now just phase two >> right we are just just for phase two we are decreasing total flows um but
uh This this is tied into this one outlet, this uh phase 2 north development. Um >> are there any phases that are going to discharge potentially into this unit >> into the storm water pond into the
existing stormwater pond? Yes. Yes. Most of the entire site flows here today. >> Okay. I just feel like we're going to be coming back to this pond numerous times and it's going to be an upgrade and upgrade and upgrade and I I don't see the basis for this waiver, but I'm sure
the peer review will help with that. >> Yeah. >> Commissioners, questions? >> Too many to count. >> Yep. I I got to tell you, Chris, I'm not persuaded by your desire to fill in on
the 100 just so you can have more traffic flow around your building. That to me that doesn't hold water and no pun intended. Uh, you know, it it moved the building. It's the way I feel about it. So
maybe I'm the only one, but this >> Kyle or Andrew, any any questions, comments? >> I would Andrew, you're muted. >> Oh, sorry. I would um definitely echo Ed's concerns and would encourage the
applicant to maybe revise certain areas to meet these concerns. I'd be curious to see the those numbers before we get too crazy if like I mean I'm not eager to see it Phil and the 100 foot
obviously but >> if you're if you can show me what those volumes are first I'd appreciate that before I really make a decision on if I'm comfortable with it or not. >> Okay. So Chris, I think you Chris, you've had some feedback. So if you want to get
those things to us for the next meeting or >> Chris, real quick, can I ask one more question? Sorry. >> Of course. Yeah. >> Um, do what is the storm that would trigger flow into into this basin? I I started to go through the storm water report, but it's pretty lengthy.
>> Yeah, it's very very lengthy. Um, can I get back to you on that one just so I can run through it, too? like it's it's a it's a beast. >> Yeah. >> Uh did you guys want to talk about the uh uh vegetation removal?
>> No. >> No. >> I think that's we're jumping ahead to do that. I think we need to deal with what we have here. >> Yeah. building and the what's going into this uh this pond and what you're going to stop putting in there to allow
yourself to put more from elsewhere >> to get quantity of fill within the 100. >> Yeah, I mean I can't the plan that you were showing um without zooming into I I could not make out
contours there. So you to see what the existing contour was there to what your final grade was I I can't see that. Um >> okay. Curious if we're talking if we're looking at, you know, two foot high retaining wall, three foot high retaining wall or an eight foot high retaining wall, right? >> Yeah, it's about like an it's like an eight foot.
>> Yeah. So, that's a significant amount of fill that's going to be in that area. Right. So, >> and as I stated, I have a concern that we're going to overburden this one particular structure going forward if we're going to add other discharges into it at a later.
>> Yeah. See, that's why I wanted to hear about the storms cuz I'm not I'm not overly worried about that. If we're upgrading those structures, then that's not as big of a concern because they're going all that water is going into >> infiltration areas first and it will only see flow
>> on these what I don't know what but say 100 >> which is under peer review at the moment. >> Right. >> Yeah, exactly. >> There there will be no new new discharge locations. Uh we plan on just utilizing and upgrading uh the existing
uh discharge location the ex existing outlets. >> Okay. Can you have that dated for us for August 4th which is the next meeting? >> Yep. Of course. >> Okay. We'll go ahead and put you on for that. Tim, anything else for them?
>> Uh no, I don't I don't believe so. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. >> Thank you everybody. Have a great night. >> Okay. It's 8:41. We're going to open the 8:30 continued public hearing notice of intent. Beaverbrook DP204-1039 manual removal of water chestnuts. This
is continued from the last. Is there anyone here to speak to this? Dave >> Dave Bars here. I'm promoting him over right now. Um >> Dave, anyone else you want to bring over? >> You muted Dave. >> Hi. Hi. >> No, it's just me.
>> Okay. >> So, um we have a D number now >> and um I provided a revised notice of intent package which
uh does two things basically. It uh includes uh the conservation department as a co-licant for the uh project and it lists the 15 uh land parcels in Littleton
who have provided permission to do this work uh where Beaverbrook crosses their parcels. And so those 15 parcels uh represent the um scope of the work.
>> Is that an increase for you, Dave? You were hoping to have some others sign on. Is 15 the magic number that you wanted? >> It's uh yes, it's it's fine. It basically uh covers everything we need. There's one 50-ft length of uh
Beaverbrook uh that isn't covered, but uh otherwise the whole uh length from uh where it Beaverbrook last crosses under 495 by Hartwell near the Hartwell
Conservation Area uh up to uh the Westford town line. Uh that's all sections covered except for this one 50 ft length. >> Okay. >> So Tim, are we able to close this?
>> Yeah. So DP issued the file number. They also recommended a couple uh special conditions if you'd like me to run through them. >> Yes, please. >> Yeah. Um so they recommended uh implementing that all equipment used for vegetation removal shall be inspected and cleaned before entering any other
water bodies. Um as well as the plant material should be shaken in the water as much as possible before pulling onto the boat to encourage small wildlife like turtles and fish fish species to escape.
Uh, another condition being once the material is on land, it shall be inspected by hand to ensure any small wildlife is removed and any wildlife found should be replaced in the water. And the final condition being that no work shall occur between August 15th and
September 30th to minimize disruption to hatchling dispersal. >> Right. >> Those are all doable, Dave. >> Yes, certainly. >> You guys are ready to go. It only gives you a few weeks. That That's enough time to do that stretch.
>> Well, obviously we would have liked to have started a couple weeks ago. Um the seeds started seed pods started dropping a few weeks ago. So, um, we're going in as soon as we can now to get the, uh, plants out of the area where we
have, uh, identified it so far and, um, scout the rest of the, um, brook to see if there are any other locations. >> Okay. Okay. Tim, what would you like from us? >> Uh, a vote to uh, to issue the order if
you feel comfortable. >> Okay. Commissioners, do we have anyone that would like to make that motion? >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing and issue an order of uh conditions for Beaverbrook uh manual removal of water chestnuts. D
file number 204-1039. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> We need a waiver and special conditions on that. >> Oh yes, with Oh, did we have a waiver for this? Yes, we we should have. Perfect. Um, with associated waiver and
special conditions, >> I ask what the waiver is. What does that mean? >> To do to do the work in the >> in the wetland area. >> Yep. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Do we have a do we have a second? >> Yep. Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh, Sarah >> Sarah >> Seward. I >> Ed. >> Edi. Kyle >> Kyle Maxi >> and myself. It's unanimous. >> Okay. Thank you, Dave. If you can just
>> Good luck, be safe, and just keep us updated, that would be great. >> All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Have a good evening. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Thanks. Bye. >> Okay. It's 8:46. We're going to open up the 8:31 continued public hearing. Um,
this is 2A Catalo Pond Way, D204-1034, Portable LG facility. who's here to speak with us. I would like to make note um Tim had stated that the plan that was requested last week
did not come in until Monday. So, I don't think that we'll be able to. We can go over it tonight, but there may not be full questions um asked because we haven't had time to review the plan. >> Hello. Um thank you for hearing uh the
project this evening. My name is Sam Kefferstand. Good to see you all again. And I'm an ecologist with BSC Group. Um, as um you just shared um we did uh share
an updated mitigation plan and ER map with the commission just yesterday. And so we recognize you may not have had the opportunity to review um and just hope this evening that we can get some feedback on the plan. and um see if
there are any other questions from from the commission this evening. So I in addition to myself, we also have um Casey Lee Bashid from BSC. I'm I'm not sure if he's a panelist already. Um if
it's possible to highlight him as a panelist, so he can pull up the plan and um share some details with y'all, that would be that would be great. >> Sure. Yeah, I'm promoting over right now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tim.
>> Yep. Got in. Thanks. >> So, Casey Lee, you're muted, just so you know. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, Kyle. You were bumped over. Are you able to share your screen, Casey Lee, or I I have it handy if if helpful.
>> I have that handy as well. I'm trying to coordinate the screen share program here. Getting one out of the way to get the other up. share. Okay. Uh is that sharing for us now? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um in the previous submission, we identified the trees that were coming out for the LG facility. Uh with this update, we looked at
removing a portion of the existing gravel parking relative to that uh impact that was made on the 50ft and reveating that. So that's this area in the red cloud.
uh this area we've taken away from the previous gravel and we're looking at expanding our planting. Here's the original plant list and we would be looking to add in a
layer of primarily understory trees to that edge as an improvement to overall edge structure. Um this includes the same species we've discussed previously. Um hazelnut,
hornbeam, hawthorns, and choke cherry as well as some viburnums. This is a fairly straightforward expansion of the planting, but that's all I have to offer on it as a replacement to um
the gravel that was there. Any questions? Can you just an overview of how many more were added again and the impact area? 37.
>> Okay. And the actual square footage of the impact area that this is being replaced with, >> I'd have to pull another calculation to confirm that. I haven't got um a square footage, just the uh width of that
expansion. Well, I think it would be helpful for those that are watching or refresher perhaps you or Sam can go through why we're why we're here at this additional placement. >> Sam, would you like to take that?
>> Sure thing. So yeah, it came to our attention at the at the last hearing that um in between I believe what was it in the in the mid 2000s that there was a a subdivision that was permitted in the
area. Uh but it seems like there was some initial clearing but that was never that project never fully came to fruition. But then sometime I believe 2012 2013 there was an expansion of of
that cleared lot associated with the subdivision and this was prior to the town's um wetland bylaw going into effect in 2018. So it was requested of the after conversations with town council
um in terms of how to move forward. it was, you know, to incorporate some mitigation for that um previous expansion of the gravel lot uh within this project would likely be
be the best way forward uh in terms of uh mitigating, you know, the impacts that had come before. >> So Tim, that was 2006, correct? >> Uh the original the original subdivision got permitted in 2006. Yep, that's
correct. So I guess y sorry. >> So I guess I'm just for the commissioners. So 2006 to 200 approximately 12 it was dormant. So at that point I believe that the order of conditions would have expired and then
they did work unbeknownst to anyone in 2012 and 2013 without a permit. And then now we're backtracking to figure out what work was done
prior to this application. Correct. That sounds accurate. >> Okay. Thank you. And in terms of you know what we're proposing, thanks Casey Lee for sharing that overview. Um
essentially the the strip of gravel that we're um proposing to remove within that it's the red cloud is the portions of the gravels and plantings that's within that 50 ft no disturb. Um but
essentially it is a along that western edge of the facility it's about 15 ft by about 295 ft. Um, so I can get that calculation in terms of the gravel that we're proposing to remove from the lot. And
that would effectively all of the gravel within the 50ft do not disturb um would be removed and then that area would be replanted. >> And there was also some invasive species identified. Uh this is Matt Waznjak with
uh National Grid. But during the sitewalks, we identified some invasive species along the edge there and this plan calls for their their management, their removal, their detection and removal.
>> Yes, thank you, Matt. Um so uh the calculation is it's about an area of 4425 square ft and uh I believe um one of the other
commissioners earlier this evening had had brought up the replication ratio within um the Littleton uh wetland protection bylaw >> um which we we had taken a look um but under under the Wetland Protection Act
or or the bylaw, those those ratios are based upon, you know, impacts to a resource area. And it's our understanding this previous project as well as the project before the commission now um is not um
proposing impacts to to a resource area, only to the buffer zone. And so we're confident through the initial mitigation that was proposed for for this project as well as now the additional mitigation for the previous uh incursion or
encroachment would um restore or protect the values of of the nearby wetland um off the western edge of the the project site. Can you with your cursor um just put where the 0 to 50 is?
>> Okay. So, future reference, we do ask that the plans be colorcoded per our bylaw. >> So, you're removing gravel from that space. What are you putting in it back? Uh this will be a lom uh
compost uh seated with a conservation mix. >> How much of that top top layer of the gravel are you removing? >> Uh we would expect to remove 12 in.
And where is that top gravel going to go that's being removed? >> And the reason I asked, we just want to make sure it's not stockpiled in a resource area. >> Yeah, we would >> removed and disposed off site.
>> Okay. Yeah, we would uh we'd manage it with, you know, out of the resource area and as we're constructing this, you know, pavement, if there's an area to use that gravel, we would, but if not, we would we would dispose of it off
site. >> Okay. >> Commissioners questions. Can I just ask quick what what is the plan that we're looking at? I understand what you've explained, but this now looks like a parking lot, not a
>> I just want to make sure we're getting the final plan here and not >> right. I kind of >> this doesn't show facility overlay of the of the plan we saw at the last meeting. >> Yes. So this this is the the mitigation plan which has some elements of of the
site plan overlaid. Um for example like that that hatching that's around the edge of the lot rep that's the permeable pavement or the pvious pavement just um I also am happy to share share my
screen that has the the colorcoded er map just um due to the scale of the site in order to see the plantings and some some more of the detail with this this mitigation effort um felt that this was more appropriate But I'm happy to pull
that up. Um, >> I just want to make sure we're we're all on the same page here, and I assume we were, but >> And yes, >> Ed, and I think you brought this up the last time in regards to how the water is going to sheet off this site.
>> I think some someone brought that up, and I'm just curious now with this change of the 4500 square ft. if you can just go over Sam how the water's going to sheet and I guess I'm just trying to think of those plants and
the viability for them as well. >> Sure. So, um, essentially the pvious pavement, the the grade of the lot has been established as to, you know, direct water to to those areas and have it like
infiltrate and settle out. when obviously the um initial calculations had accounted for that gravel which is densely packed gravel which is impervious. So when it comes to you know meeting the functions
of uh the storm water standards within the storm water report um when we worked with our civil engineers um regarding these changes um the the prevailing thought is that in adding um you know
these plantings and removing the gravel along the edge it would only improve um you know storm water management at the site. Okay. And then I believe we also commented at the last meeting when we were talking about I believe you're
using pavers and I think we I think someone mentioned pvious pavers or and then we mentioned in the winter when that's frozen how we're going to have water kind of infiltrated. And then we
talked a little bit about also the chemicals used to um to deise the site as well. Any thoughts on those questions that we had at the last meeting? >> Yeah, so we similar to like the snow storage we you know where where we had
shown the areas like along the uh shoulder of the access road or at the uh point of that um uh sewer treatment plant structure or island. um that the um the pvious pavement in order
to function properly has to be you know it can't have snow stored on it. Um so I know that we had addressed that. >> Do you have that plan? >> The ER map.
>> Yeah, sure thing. I'm happy to share. All right. Can everyone see this? Okay. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Okay. Great. So, I think it's helpful just from this kind of bird's eyee view to go through
where that gravel strip of the 4500 ft is with your cursor. >> Yeah. So, right along this this western edge of the fence line. >> And where would access with the
equipment be or come through to to do that harvesting of that gravel? it would come through the site and to enter you know there won't be fencing on this edge if I can zoom in here. So, and this is about uh you know, it's kind of
dwarfed by the size of the site overall, but it's 15 ft wide um and the plan, you know, to work work at this edge and work our way back. And then this area would be um seated and planted with shrubs and
trees as well as there were some plantings um along this this edge as well. Speaking of plantings, I think Matt, you talked a little bit about this the last time because there's some significant trees that are coming down where that
red icon is on your map and we recognize those are having to come down, but how are those being replaced? Cuz obviously they're large. They're substantial diameters. Have we talked a little bit about how
we're going to go um replicate those? to that and um if I can go back to the the planting plan um did that transfer over okay between the
two. Um so that was the original scope that was proposed. Um so the tree removals within the fenced area here and um but Casey you may have some additional details just to to speak to that question.
Not specifically. We can't make up for size, but we've done what we can based on our field observations to see how much we can infill. And we're hoping to achieve a qualitative improvement relative to getting in some of the understory and
then filling the gaps with replacement canopy species, but they'll still be going in at conservation installation size. So, I know um he's not able to be here tonight, but Carl Milberg's going to be keen to look at that with the new
plantings as well. >> I think we had a 2.5 to one ratio of of new plantings to removed trees. >> That's right. It's um in total with the
you know, there are 12 tree removals within the 100 foot buffer zone. Uh but now between the original scope and this additional mitigation, we're looking at about 51 trees and 21 shrubs.
Ed, I know on the sitewalk that you and I went with, and I'm not sure, I believe there's another sidewalk as well, we had asked to have the trees that were going to be slated to be removed to be identified. >> Yep. >> Did you all go back out and see that?
Yes, on the site visit with Tim and Carl, >> believe it was me, Tim, uh Carl, and and Matt. And we had walked through the tree removals together. >> Okay. That's the table that you have that
you're showing there, right? Top left. >> Sorry, what was that? >> Is that this table in the top left here? Yes. So that that in that's you know the tree designation number also the DBH and species. Um
>> so yes that's right. I think we need a picture that shows exactly what you're going to have comprehensive everything on it in regards to plantings Ed or or >> in regards to the project as a whole. This is talking to plantings. this is
talking to what they're going to do with it. But is there any reason that those two can't be together? >> I mean, we can certainly um you know, include a call out like something like
this just to um you know, if to have it all on one plan, that's certainly we can do that. Um just for this discussion we we hadn't because we had figured that there might be
>> some updates or flux to that and >> again just having it all on one just making >> uh it can kind of get uh get a little busy >> erosion control now that we've added with the gravel
removal. How would that where's the where's the toe of that going to be? >> So, we still, you know, we had it on this um the same contour, but we can certainly update it to be on the edge of
the um the edge of the lot. Um so that way the gravel removal is encompassed within these u within the controls. Yeah, I agree with that. Um, but now and
having said that, we're going to throw more work into you. We'll have to have a waiver submitted, right? Because all the work was outside the 50. Your erosion controls were just going to be along the 50 foot. Now, we're going into to do that remediation work. I mean, it should
be easy enough like, but I think it's justified. I have no problem with the waiver, but just need to dot the eyes and cross the te's. >> Okay. So the commission's requesting we u submit a waiver for the work within
the 50 including erosion controls the gravel removal and plantings. >> Yeah. Right. I think that's worth it now. >> Just just want to make sure I understand. So, I guess I'm concerned and I I I've only been on the property once of that
flat grade. Um, if that's going to get really wet. >> Do you mean on where we're proposing? >> Yeah. Where the gravel removal's coming out? I'm just trying to remember when I was out on site because we focused a little
bit more on where the red is on that um map on those trees coming out. >> Okay. for your question. Sarah, how are you preventing the water from coming off
the parking lot into into the into this area when you're going to have and you already said you're going to have salt and other things because you can't very well have snow and ice or your drainage system won't work. So,
did I don't remember there being mention of how you're going to prevent that. I know you talked about storing the snow up in those wiggly lines. What did you say you were going to do to prevent the ice the the salt and what
have you from getting into the bit? >> Like somebody the edge of somebody's yard where you know okay so the road salt killed the grass 6 in or a foot into into their yard. This this is
>> so two things relative to pvious pavement design. Um it's not something that you want to store snow on. So if you collect your snow and pile it up on that, that becomes too much volume and pressure for water to pass through and
it'll dam up. But the one of the bigger benefits of pvious pavement in a temperate climate is that just like catch basins, the open grade below it gives it a convection. So it's uh held
slightly warmer than standard pavement surfaces um which allows it to continue infiltrating um after things have reached uh that sort of shift moment between frozen and not frozen. So this is a significant
improvement to that with the filter media below it. It also has a lot of surface area and the studies show that uh road salting is much better treated by pvious pavements than it is by some
other uh catchment methods. >> Were those studies based in New England? >> Yes, this is about temperate climates. Um >> where a temperate climate We are >> temperate means you get snow and rain, >> means we get all the things.
>> And I think my concern with this and and we brought this up at the last hearing is that once they're frozen, which obviously they would have been frozen this past winter, then what happens to the sources of runoff? And so I guess
I'm based on the last conversation at the last hearing and this one, I'm still not convinced. I am very much in favor of those pavers if it weren't solely the operation is winterbased because this is a seasonal cold climate
facility. >> Correct. And by design uh these will thaw and be open first. Um just like catch basins when >> at what temperature though Sam I mean are we talking below zero? I mean, we
had December last year, some of the coldest days. >> Yeah. >> I guess I'm just >> When we are below zero, the water isn't moving. >> And when we're on that line between the two, um, when things start to thaw,
that's when you start to capture that water. And provided your structures are capturing it before the other areas have thawed um you are capturing the water rather than thawing all together at once.
>> But what temperature does it thaw >> around 32 33? So, as Sarah said last winter, I was feeding my horses four bales a day because it was so cold, that's not going to necessarily get you
to 32 degrees all the time. >> That's correct. But your runoff occurs when you're at a temperature for your snow and ice to become liquid and start moving. So, when it's not moving, nothing is moving. When it starts to
move, this will move first. Sorry, Kyle. Were you saying something? >> No, I think he clarified that, right? That was He's just trying to say that when it's below freezing, water doesn't move, right? It's frozen. So, there's no runoff concern in their eyes.
And then once it does start to thaw, it's going into this permeable pavement because it thaws first. >> So, you're saying underground is going to thaw before the top of the ground. >> That's correct. >> Okay. why we have basements here and now we want instead of slabs.
>> Um Tim, are we doing any sort of peer review on any of this? >> Uh storm water peer review should be running through the uh planning board. >> Sam or Casey Lee, has that been talked of? Is there a peer review going
on? Matt, would you be able to share the the current status for planning board? >> Yeah, we've we've still we've we've submitted the storm water application. Um, but there was site plan review and some other things that the town has
requested of us to do. So, the third party review has not commenced at this time. Okay. But it is it is something that you know has been require will be required for this project.
>> Right. And I feel as though it should be required for this part of the replication and tree removal as well. Does anyone else feel that way or my >> I'm curious that I want to make sure that they're getting this new plan that
we're seeing as of yesterday. Right. if you've if you've already submitted your storm water plan. >> But is it currently Matt? Didn't you just say that it's not currently under review? >> But it's been >> it's not under review because we haven't
submitted the site plan review documents. >> We just submitted the storm water permit documents >> which this is now changing, right?
potentially. So to and I had mentioned this earlier in the um in the hearing that the you know while we are proposing to remove this this gravel along this edge
that across the storm water standards it had essentially improved the site in the eyes of the standards because you're removing impervious and you are um adding in pvious in those plantings along that edge.
>> I don't disagree with that. >> I would agree with that, but not not with the proximity to the wetlands. >> Like if you were, you know, the 50 to 100, I I would follow that method, but we're so close to the wetlands.
I have larger concern. Sorry, Kyle. I overtalked on >> I know I think we're saying the same thing. I'm I'm a dirt guy, not a water guy. So although I my intuition agrees with you, I want to hear that from somebody else.
>> So Tim, where are we going from here? Because I don't think we're closing this. But >> yeah, I mean, if I think if if you guys want to wait to see what the uh the stormwater peer review says if
>> they still have to submit a waiver. >> Yep. >> So you can ask to close it. we can vote on it. I wouldn't encourage you to do that, but it's certainly a prerogative. I believe at this time, you know, we'll want to go ahead and, you know, submit a
waiver, have have this ER map updated to show the proper edge of the erosion controls, and we can u make make another call out or two that was requested by the commission. Um, so I don't I don't believe we're going
to seek to close tonight, but Matt, please um chime in if you feel differently. >> No, let's we got a few things we need to to still provide. >> Matt, we meet again on August 4th. Is that enough time or do you want to go out another one?
It's right around the corner. I think the if we're going to get the peer review process started for the storm water report. Last I heard that was a couple weeks. >> Okay. >> So,
>> and when do we meet after the 4th? >> Uh oh boy. >> Yeah. 18th. That sounds right, Kyle. >> That's what you have on the agenda at least. So, >> yeah. Ben, do you want to push to the 18th?
>> I think that would give us more time to to get the third party review. >> Okay. So, with your permission, we'll go ahead and extend you to the 18th. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Okay, commissioners. Anyone have
anything else? Good. With that said, it's 9:20. Would someone like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I move that we adjourn this evening's meeting. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> All right. Final roll call. Sarah
>> Sarah Seward. I >> Ed full time. >> Kyle >> and myself. I We're adjourned.