to officially open up our Littleton Conservation Commission on October 21st, 2025. And what I'd like to do is to start with if we have any additional administrative discussions that we would like to add to our agenda this evening.
>> Yep. I've got a couple, Sarah. Um, Mass Trails grant application uh is one and then the other one is uh Foster Street uh reconstruction that's been going on. >> Okay. And then I just have one just to
briefly go over the draft order of conditions for uh 64 Beaverbrook. And then just as a reminder, the next meeting will be November the 4th. Okay. So, let's go ahead and get started. We're going to start off with the approval of the minutes from October
7th, 2025, which have been sent out to everyone. Does anyone have any comments or corrections or concerns or anything on that? >> It looks great. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> A couple I sent a couple comments over
to Lauren and Tim or this morning. I think they're mainly editorial. I think the only one that might have some reference or some something that we should talk about um was the minimum tree size that we were looking to have um tagged out on that King's Street
property. Um it said 5 in diameter, but I think we usually go 6 in 6 in diameter. I wasn't sure if it was just a typo or if we agreed on five inches. That's fine. But >> I think you're right, K. I think it was six. >> Okay, great. So, we'll make that
change. And then the other editorial ones. Um, that being the case, would someone like to make a motion to approve as amended? >> So, move. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. And Andrew, will you do us the favor of doing the roll call, please? >> Of course. All right. Roll call vote. Ed. Edai. >> Michael. Michael Livingston. Kyle >> Kyle Mfield I >> Carl
>> I'm Elmer I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> myself I it's unanimous >> okay great hi Jim wanted to welcome you >> thank you Sarah I appreciate it nice to see everyone again >> yeah Jim >> All right so let's go let's go ahead um
and open our 731 uh continued public hearing notice of intent 87 Tahadawan Road Mass D 204-1 1027 construction of a two family residence. Who's here to speak with us on this evening?
>> Good evening. Can you all hear me? >> Yep. If you can just go ahead, Justin, and introduce yourself that would be great. >> Yep, absolutely. So, for the record, Justin McCarti engineering here tonight on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.
Uh Brian Marchetti had a conflict tonight. So he asked that I attend tonight's meeting in his place. If the commission wants, I can share my screen with the most revised plan. >> Yes. Go ahead. Thank you.
So, >> and then Justin, while we're waiting, if you can bring the commission up to date, I think you had referenced in the last meeting that you had board of health approval but needing um planning board. Is that correct? >> So, my understanding is that, excuse me,
is board of health was addressed and it was uh currently going through the ZBA process that they were that Mr. Marcetti was in front of them regarding the structure itself. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, that was supposed to be the 16th. Do you know Do you know how that went? >> No, he did not let me know how that went. I think overall he told me it's progressing forward. I think there's just a few minor details that they're trying to
iron out right now regarding the structure itself, but he didn't go into the full details of what specifically they're looking for. >> Okay, Justin, if we can hold off for just a second, Tim, there's someone Mel
that has their hand raised. I'm not sure if they're in part of this discussion or not. Is that someone that's relevant to this? Uh Justin, does um Mel Lions uh teada um is that somebody that's with you?
>> No, the only one No, the only one that should be on I don't I don't know if that's the name that's under is uh Carolyn Reed of Habitat should be calling it from phone. >> Yep, she's she's in as well. Okay, let's carry on and then as protocol for our
hearings, we'll go ahead and hear and commissioners will have conversations and if someone has their hands up, we'll ask them to identify themselves and speak and they'll be moved over to be allowed to do so. Okay, Justin, go ahead. >> All right, so this is the revised plan
in front of you here. the comments. I believe the commission requested as part of the revised plan with some colors uh demarcating the wetlands, the 50 foot buffer and the 100 foot buffer zone. So here in the blue is your delineated edge
of wetlands all the way down to the end here. In the bright green is your 50 foot buffer zone. The dark line here is still the erosion control barrier that was shown on the previous plan. And then in red is
the 100 foot buffer zone. The other thing that the commission had asked for was the tagging of trees, anything over 6 in of DBH. Mr. Mar did tell me that him along with the commission went out on site, walked
the site, and the only tree that was shown to be removed is approximately here in the corner. The structure that was the one tree, it's approximately 12 in DBH. that will be removed and a
minimum of five evergreen trees will be planted which was shown here on the right under note six. This just states what I had just said and then the commission had asked to show the
material storage and the soil stock pile area which is shown here in the dash line with the note in the middle. Septic is still shown as is. The structure shown as is with the driveway, the Pstone diaphragm and the dry well, which I
believe the commission had seen as part of the last plan that was submitted and discussed at the previous meeting. So, with that, I believe that covers everything that the commission was looking for.
Any additional questions, more than happy to answer. >> Okay. Thank you, Justin. Commissioners questions. >> What was what was the type of tree that I can't remember? They they mentioned that that's going to be t coming down.
>> I'm I'm not sure. And I did ask Mr. Maretti. He was unaware the specific type, but he did say that a lot of this area was overgrown, rap, and invasive. So I think he even said it was kind of hard to
judge just based on the sheer and space of species wrapped around that tree. >> Where I was going with it is um they want to put do you want to put evergreens in it or in its place but I don't remember there being a lot of
evergreens there. So why that? So the evergreens as part of discussions with the abutter here >> Mhm. >> they the one request they had was to provide some screening between the
proposed development in their property. So the idea of the evergreens is that once they're planted and matured, it'll provide that screening between the proposed development as well as the budding parcel. So that was the intent
of the five evergreens. And again, it's the one tree located here. Everything else tree wise is located outside the 100 foot buffer zone. And my understanding
is that between the wetlands and the 100 foot, it was a lot of It used to be a field, so it's overgrown with scrub brush, prickers, various invasives. >> Yeah, it's a rough field. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Other commissioners? Yeah, I wasn't able to make that sidewalk. So, I was kind of curious how it went if everybody was comfortable with that. It seemed like a very overgrown areas. I'm not surprised there's invasives. I was kind of shocked to hear there's only one one tree larger
than six inches in diameter that's going to go. That's >> in the area of the house. There's not a lot clear that it had been a farm field at one time. And uh there will be a whole bunch of trees being taken out but
inside the inside the hund the staking showed only one tree >> and it's mainly Japanese barbar multifllora rows on the ground. It's it's hectic in there.
>> Thank you. Okay. Um, we do have a hand raised. So, if commissioners have asked their questions, we'll go ahead and ask Mel to speak. Um, Tim, do you want to go ahead and promote? >> Yep. She is permanent to talk. >> Hi everyone. Can you hear me?
>> We can. Thank you. If you could where you reside. >> Yes. I'm Marielleen Lions from 79 Tadwan Road. And I apologize I wasn't able to change that uh screen name. Um, but I did join the walkth through the other night. You can see my property line. You
can see my name on that plan. Um I did, you know, join that walkth through the other night just to, you know, see what was going on, what the new plan looked like. But just, you had referenced the zoning board meeting in the beginning and I did attend that zoning board
meeting last week and it it is not progressing in terms of um getting zoning because it doesn't qualify. Uh there's no two family zoning in this area. So um I know there was another engineer that presented uh Carolyn Reed
from Habitat wasn't able to be at that meeting. He gave a brief overview of you know the plans, but it it was it's so surprising that this has been going on since this per this land was purchased in 2000 2020. and you know they've been
talking about this project for all these years and then it became clear that at the 11th hour they were asking for a zoning waiver. So that hearing was continued to November 20th. Um, and they're going to continue to discuss it,
but basically they're telling them that it's not going to pass unless they file for a 40B, which I'm not familiar with. But, um, I I was able to share some of my perspective from just having watched this project for the last 5 years. So,
you know, I just I did have a few questions because the original intent uh for the Littleton Conservation Trust from, you know, for buying this land, uh and obviously trying to conserve it, which we were completely in favor for. Uh talked about the the impact to Long
Lake, the impact to, you know, the there's a pond on that property, a lot of the wildlife. uh they in their brochure about why we should have bought it. It was talking about the you know the rain on the lake and the prop development of this property would not be in our best interest. So you know I
know there were only two two places they could put out an affordable house and I know some of you were not on the um conservation trust at that time but it was decided this this would be where it was. So, I guess my my question is with that septic, which I know Ed, you you
mentioned how much uh you know, they're saying one tree will be removed to build the house, but does the septic concern anyone just the location of where that is? And again, it's a it's I I know they'll have to see if it passes again,
but um as one of the other abutters that was there last week mentioned, you know, this this uh perk test was done at the you know, during a drought and they're talking about like the maximum number of bedrooms. So, >> so Mel, you've asked. So, let me go
ahead and turn this over to Justin because we have a full night tonight. So, we want to make sure that everyone can get heard, but we certainly appreciate your perspective. So, Justin, if you would like to address um >> that would be great.
>> So, the short answer is the septic was tested that was coordinated with board of health, board of health agent out there, submitted, reviewed,
and approved. per the title five which dictates and sets the standards for testing as well as system design for
any any structures that require a septic system. So that would be my short answer to that. In regards to the amount of trees that there are trees that will have to be taken down, but again, and
I'm not trying to sound harsh or uh sharp with my answer, but it is outside the 100 foot buffer zone, which is outside the conservation's jurisdiction. So again, this was
reviewed by the board of health, the system itself, and approved with the appropriate design. >> Okay. With that said of the of the knowledge from the planning board that there may be some hiccups here, what are
your thoughts on on continuing this? Um, historically it's it's in the best interest if you don't have your permits to keep that open, but obviously as the applicant we can't tell you what to do. >> Um, >> but what are your thoughts on this?
>> Yep. So, in regards to the commission's purview of the development itself, the proposed plan obviously in front of you right now says a proposed duplex
that is going that is being talked about back and forth between us, the ZBA, as well as the town and how to best move forward regarding the proposed structure. And the reason I use the word structure
is regardless of what ends up being constructed, whether it's a duplex, whether it's a condominium, whether it's I know the 40B was thrown out, but whatever it is
is not going to be any larger than what is shown on the plan in front of the commission tonight. So, the overall >> and and we and we appreciate that. We just have to always tell you that if you're going to have any changes after
we've closed this, if they're not minor, you'll have to file all over again. >> So, >> where where you're having a meeting on November 20th, I would ask the commissioners their thoughts. It would be my encouragement for you to extend,
but as we discussed, you are the applicant. >> Yep. And and I would just the reason why I explain it this way is that the structure has shown is a
certain size and whatever structure ends up being for whatever reason one or the other if it gets changed will not be larger than what's shown. If anything, the scope in the development would shrink it
just as an example. >> Okay. >> If it ends up being a >> So, what we'd like to do is to just affirm what what are your intentions? Would you like us to close this or would you like us to continue it? I if the commission is
open to in even wanting to put a special condition that a revised plan be submitted >> uh upon determination from the >> once we once we close it then you'll have to submit that there won't be any special conditions put in the order of
conditions >> commissioners >> that's not I'm not comfortable with a condition saying a revised plan of a completely different structure is to be provided. I I think Sarah, you're right. I I you can tweak and take a straw poll if you want before you decide to have us
vote on this, but I'm going to tell you my opinion is that I want to see a final plan in front of me. Um I don't think we're not going to close our hearing and have a plan in front of us that isn't indicative of what's going to be built out there. And it's if it gets changed
to one building, two buildings that are smaller, I understand that the overall impact is smaller, but that's not what's being presented in front of us right now and we need the opportunity to still to see what that plan is going to look like and that would be considered a major change, right? Not a minor modification. So again, like Sarah's telling you, you
can ask us to close and vote tonight if you want. Um, but that those are my two cents. Could I ask for to take the commission's temperature run? I I know. >> Yes. That >> Mr. Maxfield, you you spoke. I
>> Yeah, you can you can you can do that, Justin. If that's what you're asking, we will ask um Andrew to do >> that. So, uh the assumption would be that um this would be closed this evening. And what we're being asked is
would you um affirm this in a in a positive manner or would you um have a negative? So Andrew, if you would do us the kindness of doing a roll call, that would be great. >> Sure. All right. We'll do a straw poll vote. Uh we'll start with Carl.
>> Uh Carl Mber. Nay. Uh >> Sarah. Sarah Seawward. Nay. >> Uh let's see here. Michael Livingston. Nay. Kyle, >> Maxfield
>> and myself, I I would certainly hold off until we have a final plan. Honestly, in looking at it, um, anything within our jurisdictional area, I don't have a problem with. I think, you know, everything that's being proposed seems like it's fine. U, but to have a
final plan in place before we officially vote, I think would be for the best. >> Yeah, I should have said it that way, Andrew. I totally agree with what you said. I'm comfortable with the what we've seen as far as impacts go, but it's not not enough here yet. >> No. And I I definitely respect the
commission's stance on that. Obviously, I have to do my part and ask on behalf of the applicant. >> Absolutely. But with it being hopefully resolved relatively soon, I don't see it out of the realm to request
a continuence to the next scheduled meeting and then hopefully by then >> plan that. >> Yep. So we meet >> we meet on November 4th and on the 18th and then this can be continued. We've
had some that have been continued six months out, one month out. That's your prerogative if that's what you would like to do. >> And Andrew, you didn't call my name, but >> Oh my gosh. Sorry, Ed. >> That's quite all right. Quite all right.
Um I I I would be a no, but I am also I I I appreciate the parts that are not in our jurisdiction. I'm not happy that we're decimating this property, but I also still have a concern about the house and
the property being so much in the hund um you know, a goodly portion, well, half the house and a goodly portion of the driveway. Um I I don't have enough history to know, you know, how much we've approved and not approved in that,
but but um yeah. >> Okay. So, getting back to Justin, what would you like for us to do? Oh, I don't know off the top of my head when the next CBA meeting is. Is it the
>> So, my suggestion could be you extend it to the the fourth, the next meeting in two weeks. You can you can look at your calendar. It can always be continued. >> So, it would go on as a continuation. If you would like to be heard and have us
vote on it at that point, you can. Or you can just call Tim and say, "I'd like to push it out another meeting or two." >> Nope. And and that Yeah. And that's easy enough. So at this time, I request that the commission continue us to the
November 4th meeting >> and between now and then we'll reach out to Tim. >> Didn't someone say though that the the board of appeals meeting was like November 16 or something? >> Right. But this just >> Yeah. This just gives you an opportunity
to take this all in from this evening. Carolyn, if you'd like to introduce yourself. >> Yes, thank you. This is Carolyn Reed. I'm the executive director for Habitat for Humanity and the preference of Habitat as the client will be to continue to November 4th. >> Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your
input. So, with that, Tim, um that's noted. Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Okay. It's now 7:53. I'd like to go ahead and open the 7:45 public meeting. It's a request for determination of applicability 25 Worcester Drive. A
removal of hazard trees. Who is here to speak with that? >> Remoting over now, Sarah. >> Okay, thank you. So, for those of you that have just joined us, just kind of um rules of the road with our open meeting. What we do
is the applicants get moved over as panelists and um they present, the commissioners ask some questions, and then if there's anyone in attendance that would like to be heard, um you just kind of raise your hand and we will unmute you. Okay, let's go ahead and get
started. How you doing? My name is Elias Marrianis. I'm uh I'm the resident of 25er drive. Good good evening everybody. >> Good evening. >> Yes, Elias, if you want to just give the
commission an an overview. Um that would be great. >> Yes, ma'am. >> If you have any pictures that you'd like to share or Tim, if you'd like to share any from the record, that would be great as well. >> Yep. I'll pull it up. >> Go ahead. So, there are four trees in the back of
the house. It's the northeast corner of the house. Uh, three of them are completely uh dead and one of them has a hollow point in the middle. So, what happened back in 23? Uh, a branch came down and broke my
fence. I didn't do anything about it back then. I didn't mind it. But then in uh September of 25, another branch came down. didn't cause any damage. So I contacted Iron Tree and the
arborist came down and uh he found those four trees to be a hazard. Uh because uh I have a microfast device for the septic then it's the fence, the patio and also the house and the trees are tall enough
to reach the the house. So, I'm trying to remove those four trees in case they come down into, you know, the fence or that microfast device or the patio or the house. >> And commissioners, you saw that a letter
was submitted in the filing from the from the arborist as well. Um, I had a chance to go out there today and do a driveby and for sure the trees are not living. Commissioners, what are your thoughts?
I think if they're dead and they're that close to, you know, Elias's house and, uh, and deck and fence, um, they're clearly a hazard. And I don't, uh, see any problem with removing the, uh, the ones identified, >> Chase, I see you. I'm moving you over.
Okay. >> Yeah, it looks like access would be just kind of via crane, right? They're not going to go in there and boots on the ground type thing. They're probably top down. Um, I mean I'm assuming that that's the way to go about if equipment's staying
outside of there and they're working from Looks like they're working from the road basically. Um, >> Elias, you're going to Can you confirm the process that you are bringing in a crane? >> Yes, ma'am. So, they're going to bring a crane. Uh, the crane will be parked in
the driveway of 20 Worcester Drive. I already have consent uh from my neighbor. Uh, the crane will reach over. It's about 150 feet away. They're going to cut the trees and lift them out of there. Uh, no boots on the ground.
Nobody's going to be back there. Just a worker to cut the tree and the grinding and everything will happen either in my driveway or on the road. Uh, I'm going to hire a detail uh because the road will be closed uh for the work for
safety. [Music] >> Okay, great. Commissioners, any questions? >> Okay. If we don't, anyone? >> Not for me. It seems pretty straightforward. >> I had I had a quick question. Um Yep. >> Where on the plan where it says boundary
of water, what does that mean? Boundary. Is there what is the boundary of water? So when it rains, uh there's water back there that uh trickles down towards the street.
>> That's BBW back there, Carl. >> Oh, BBW. Okay. All right. Okay. >> Thank Thank you. >> How far from the How far from the wetland of the trees, Tim? Uh not far uh
within 20 ft. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh replanting plans. >> Yes, ma'am. So, >> can I discuss that? Uh I have uh I was told uh uh eight total trees but I was
advised that I can uh because of the limited space back there I was advised I can mix shrubs and trees. Correct. >> Yeah. >> So I have uh I have a plan. I already um
find some local species. Uh I have a letter actually. I forget. Uh >> yep. I'm blowing that up right now. >> Oh okay. All right. Um to plant trees and shrubs a mix back there. Uh and uh
yeah, like I don't know um what's my uh time frame like and if you guys want me to send pictures back to you with the new trees and shrubs in place. >> So what would we we would suggest that prior to the start of your work just call the office, let Tim know when it's
completed. let Tim know and then look at the seasonal for for plantings. We'll look at whether it can be done this fall or if you'd have to wait till the spring to have higher success for planting. So, >> okay. All right. >> Open communication with the conservation.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Any other questions? >> Uh >> Andrew, go ahead. >> Sorry. Yeah. So, I was just wondering since these are so close to the wetland, I may have missed this, but was a waiver submitted just because of the proximity.
I know it's an RDA, but >> I was going to ask, do we need a waiver with the RDA? If we >> We would need the waiver. I believe it was submitted. Um, >> was it? >> I think I Yeah, I did submit that.
>> Okay, I didn't see that. >> Is it? I didn't see it either, so it's just curious. >> I I might have missed I can check um >> maybe not it might have been submitted separately and not made its way to the website. I
>> if this was submitted without a waiver, I would still be comfortable with going forward if we empower the agent to approve the work in the context of the waiver. I I I don't necessarily want to
hold this up particularly given the potential change in weather conditions in midocctober to mid November. >> Yeah, >> I I do think a waiver is is necessary but >> to to empower Tim and Lauren to give him
the green light once we have a satisfactory waiver. >> Sounds good. >> That's great. Do we have a motion for the request for determination of applicability? I'll make a motion that the commission
close the uh hearing and issue a negative three determination for 25 Worcester Drive for the removal of hazard trees with associated waiver to be collected by Tim and Lauren. >> Second.
>> Who did that? Carl. >> Okay, great. >> All right, roll call vote. >> Uh Chase. >> Chase Car. Carl >> Carl Melber. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle Max.
>> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Ed >> and myself. I It is unanimous. >> Okay, great. Good luck with your tree removal. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay, thank you. It is now 8:02. Barely
on time. Okay, we're going to go ahead and open the 8:00 public hearing discussion of current and future land use of town owned parcel U12-14-0 um seattown conservation website as you know for some of that information. What I'd like to do is just go over a few
things as we open this. Um Chase is going to present for everyone for the commission and for the public that are here in attendees as well. Um, with that said, after Chase does that, we'll have some comments by legal counsel and then open up to anyone that would like to
share their their thoughts on this and then we can discuss this with conservation. This will be I just want to discuss that this will be one of probably at least another uh meeting as well. So, nothing is planned on being voted tonight. This is just to take
everything in and see how we go from there. Um, also kind of as I had mentioned earlier, rules of the road. If you would like to speak, what we ask for you to do is to raise your hand. Either Tim or myself will have you come in. You'll everyone will be able to speak
once and you'll have approximately 3 minutes to either ask a question or um have some statements and Chase will talk about that a little bit more as well. So, I will turn this over to you Chase and the ability to share your screen as
well. Thank you. Thanks Sarah. I I think Sarah really set the preamble quite well here. The goal of tonight for the Conservation Commission is to understand the range of potential outcomes that we might have with this parcel. We'll talk
about the specifics in a moment as well as to understand the public's input on what they would like to see with that parcel because there's frankly there's a range and some of those are easier to implement legally and regulatory than
others. Um what I'm going to do here is share a presentation because I think it's important for everybody to be up to speed on the nature of the issues and then once we do that um Freed from town council's office
will weigh in on some of the let's say the salient questions that uh the the commission has had in the past related to these things and then we'll have to think about sort of potential ually based on comments what other legal questions
might come up. So the agenda tonight I'm going to talk about existing conditions. Um Io is going to talk about town council comments in response to some of the issues that we think might be relevant here. Then we'll have public comment. Then after that we'll have board meeting discussion. One important
element of the public comment here is I I I see a lot of folks. We don't typically get 31 participants in our our conservation commission meetings. We're going to try and make this as efficient as possible. Um, you will have a right to speak. I would encourage written
comments. You'll hear that from me a couple times, but part of the reason we're putting public comments ahead of board member discussion is we want to hear what the public thinks before we get to the board member discussion piece of this. And then as Sarah noted in and most importantly
I mean we're not inclined to entertain a vote to to decide the disposition of this land tonight. Um tonight is really to understand what are the options in front of us. Um so uh Sarah can you confirm can you hear this or can you see
this? Am I sharing this in a way that works? >> Yep. Okay. there. And one thing I do want to just let the um attendees know that we do have hearings after this as well. So it was not the agenda was set
quite some time ago, so it wasn't put on for um the last hearing. So okay, thank you, Chase. >> And to Sarah's point, I mean, sometimes our agendas are a bit fiction. We've set aside 15 minutes for this. We're willing to go much longer than that, but we'd
really like to keep it to half hour to 45 minutes if if at all possible. Um, so here's what I want to do. I want to lay the the groundwork for what we're dealing with right now. Um, I I'll show a map in a moment, but we're talking about parcel um U1214-0.
And U1214-0 um has a whole bunch of instances of what we would consider in under the context of the Wetlands Protection Act, unpermitted activities um on town controlled land. And the town controlled land that we're talking about tonight is
the town controlled land that is controlled by the conservation commission. I I'm going to show you a picture in a minute that says, "Yeah, there's some other, you know, conservation or um not conservation, some other select board controlled
parcels that may be relevant here. Our discussion will inform, I think, the select board and how they think about those, but they're for legal reasons. they're actually separate things. Um, and really why this is being discussed is because we've received a number of
complaints about unpermitted activities on this town owned land. And frankly, there's credence to those concerns that there's there's a parcel of town owned land. There's there's a multitude of unpermitted activities that are going on
here as well as per activities that are going on that are frankly I I think private property uses of town owned land. And really at the end of the day here the the goal is to figure out a plan for the equitable dis sort of you
utilization of this land. What what are our options? What are we going to do? What is what is reasonable to do? and frankly what's consistent with the conservation commission and the town's interests here. We understand that this particular parcel, this U12-14-0
historically has been used by a number of residents who live on the other side of Lakeshore Drive in a pseudo public or in a pseudo private capacity. What is vitally important to understand
here though is that this is has been town land for a very long time and those private activities have occurred on what is public land and we need to figure out the right dis disposition of of that
land. Um what I want to do here um Lauren has done an amazing job of cataloging a a bunch of these issues. I'm going to run through a couple of these issues that we've seen. So, um, on
the town website under this issue are a cataloging of, um, unpermitted activities on this parcel as well as other town controlled parcels along Long Lake and within Long Lake. Um, we are
formally tonight talking about this parcel right here that runs along Long Long Lake Drive, but um the the work that Lauren has done as the assistant conservation agent has cataloged all of these issues and that includes docks, boats and watercraft um and then other
what we call other unpermitted activities here. Um we're setting aside the parks and recreation property. That's that's very much a different piece of of consideration. And then you can see here the select board controls this parity parcel along Queen uh was it
Queen Road, Queen Lane, Queen Anyway over here. Most of what we're talking about, all of what we're talking to about tonight is really this parcel, sorry, this parcel right here along Lakeshore Drive. That said, what we're
talking about will very much inform what the select board may think about in terms of this work over here. But strictly speaking, and there's a very important caveat sort of, you know, buried in text that you can't read down in the right side about how that's
actually under the care custody and control select board. Um, so what we're really dealing with here are a multitude of issues related to watercrafts that are stored on town property, parking areas on town property, and docks on town property.
And there are a couple of examples here. So here, you know, this is sort of in that the little corner along Long Lake Drive. We have boats, we have um a parking area. We also have a piece of property that no longer has this private property sign, but strictly speaking,
this is not private property. I I appreciate that someone thought it was private property. They put this private property sign on there. It is not private property. This is on townowned land. It is not private property. And what we need to figure out how to manage is this dock that is part of private
part of rather public property. Um there are some additional examples here. 10, 11, and 12. And this all goes back to the work that Lauren put together. We have a parking area that's identified as 11. This is very much within the buffer zone. We have an extensive dock 10, 11,
and 12. Here, this dock, the vegetation management that goes along with that. The mowing, right, is as part of our normal conservation activities. We're often tightly managing um vegetation management. We are tightly managing um
wetland resources. who are managing waterfront resources. So all of these things right now are occurring without permitted uh approval to implement them. And then here's just one more example. This is sort of a little further along
Long Lake Drive. Again, stone walkways, docks, and watercrafts. So this is not a comprehensive um list of all the issues, but what we see here is throughout Long Lake Drive a number of these issues that show up over and over. And our goal
tonight is to try and figure out what are the range of options that we might have available to us and frankly what is the conservation commission willing to entertain in terms of resolving some of these issues. I will point you to this um the work that Lauren and Tim have put
together. All of this including the public comments on this are up on the town's website under the long uh the Lakeshore Drive conservation parcel U12 discussion. Um, so I've shown examples. I haven't shown everything, but I want
to point you to that at the end of the day, what we've got to figure out is what is the conservation commission um what are the options that we're willing to to contemplate with respect to the management of this particular property. So the range of those options
um let's say setting aside legal and regulatory options, right? Just strictly speaking in terms of what could we do with this land, there are pros and cons to all of these. We could do everything from nothing, right? We could we could just leave it as is. I I think
theoretically, alth although with huge problems in terms of legal and liability and regulatory, I I suppose theoretically do nothing is on the table to all the way in the other extreme remove everything require people who own
or um people who have installed those docks and install or place those boats there to require them to remove everything, take everything off the shoreline and return it to natural conditions. So those are sort of our two bucket bookends and then we probably
have a multitude of options in between. Maintain some of the docks, identify them as town property that what we're here tonight to do is explore where the community is and where the conservation commission is within this range of options. But every one of these has
challenges. If we do nothing, we have massive legal, liability, regulatory challenges. If we remove everything, we're certainly going to challenge some of the the neighbors that that we all live with who have treated this
essentially as private property for for a long time. And I I think we should recognize here that they've they've treated it with sort of the as semi-private property with the understanding that people are watching this and it's known
what they're doing. At the end of the day though, the criticisms that we've got and the concerns that we've got that this isn't really private property. These are all publicly owned lands requires us to think about what the right management of this is. So, um, the
way we're going to handle this tonight is, um, we've got Frerieded from Town Council's office at Harrington and Heap. We've put some questions in front of Ifria to answer and my understanding is she's going to spend a few minutes answering the questions in front of us. We understand that during the public
comment period and frankly during the conservation commission discussion period additional questions might come up. Um the plan here tonight is to take those in. We don't anticipate responding to those right away. We want to understand what the questions are. A lot
of the there are thorny regulatory and legal questions to come together. Ire is prepared to answer some of these questions and then as public and commission comments come up I think is going to take down sort of what she sees as issues that we might need to respond to and we'll be prepared to respond to
those in the future. So with that if if you're good with this I'm going to turn it over to you to start to talk through some of the legal issues that we have with the range of options associated with this property. >> Great. Thank you um Sarah and Chase. I think that was a good summary and yes,
you know, if questions do come up, we will note them and make sure that we are considering them and responding appropriately. So, um, as Chase said, there's, um, kind of a set of questions here. I will briefly address all of them. I am going to take them out of
order though because I think it's important to start with what restrictions are currently in place on this property so that people understand how we can use this property as um as a municipality. And it's important to recognize that this property was acquired through a tax taking for
conservation purposes. That was what the the taking document stated and was um in the document um sent to the conservation commission for management. So what that means legally is that this is what is called
article 97 land and we cannot change the use of article 97 land or dispose of article 97 land absent legislative authorization. So that would require from town meeting approval to send a home rule petition to
the legislature and the legislature to vote. Generally, you also have to mitigate when you are changing the use of article 97 land or disposing of article 97 land. There are some exemptions and it may be possible and we
can talk about that in a little bit that we would be exempt from that. But in general, the baseline rule when you're dealing with article 97 land is you need legislative approval and some form of mitigation. So what that means here is in terms of the status quo, we cannot
lease out this land that's a disposition of real property to private property owners for them to operate docks absent legislative approval. So is it possible to lease this land to private property
owners for them to operate docks? Yes. Is it complex? Also yes. It would require a surplus designation, town meeting approval, legislative authorization, and potentially some form of mitigation. So, I think that is like an important point to kind of start out
with is what what restrictions are in place? The next question that's there that I'll address is do residents have um who have maintained the docks historically have any rights? And the answer to that question is no. Um they never owned that land. there's no
recorded easements that they have over that property. Um, we can find no record that they have any recorded rights. General law chapter 260 section 31 deals with adverse possession and there's an exe there's an explicit carve out for
conservation land. So, you cannot adversely possess this property. So, we we do not believe that these residents have a valid claim here. Um, now we recognize that there may be some desire by the commission to maintain some of
these structures and and that is possible. Um, you would need to make sure that all of the the structures have been properly permitted. I think that's kind of number one concern right here. And in many cases, that's going to require an NOI and a chapter 91 license.
But again, it's a fact-specific analysis and we would need to look at each case individually. But at least at a minimum you are probably having to go through the NOI process and the chapter 91 lensure which is a department of
environmental protection license that is issued unlike the NOI which is issued by the commission. The question about who is legally responsible for removing the structure is a bit complex. In general we are the property owner so we have an obligation
to ensure compliance with these regulatory programs. In some cases, enforcement orders can be brought against individuals who have violated the Wetlands Protection Act but don't own the property. So, there may be an opportunity there. But ultimately, if we
decide as a municipality, if Littleton decides to remove these structures, there may be some potential for us to recover damages um for individuals that have trespassed on our property and damage the property by the erection of these structures. And that's again very
fact specific and we would need to look at that on a case-byase basis. >> And AIA in that context that would be at the town's general discretion whether that's us or the select board maybe to be determined but >> right so it likely would be the select
board at that at that juncture. um the conservation commission could make a recommendation but um the the select board have the authority to initiate litigation. Um in terms of liability, there's
numerous statutes that deals with municipal liability. The mass tors claims act is probably the most commonly known one. So our liability would be capped if we did decide to maintain the docks or other structures. similar to when we operate a beach, you know, on Long Pond as well, you know, the
liability that's associated with that. Um, in addition, there's other statutes that limit liability associated with recreational land. So, while there is some level of liability, it's not unusual and municipalities can deal with that generally. It's it's not a huge
issue. Um, can this town set up a mechanism to lease access to the docks? So, we talked about this a little bit and it's why I wanted to start with it. We cannot lease article 97 land without going through the town meeting and legislative process. It is considered a
disposition. We can license article 97 land which is different. A lease involves erection of a structure and a you know some type of non-terminable at will agreement. Whereas a license does not involve any structures being set up
um and can be a temporary access that can be terminated at will. So for example, if we the conservation commission elects to put in a dock and wants to give private access for you
know you know Monday at 2 to 7 this one person has access. You could do temporary license agreements like that. So again, we can talk about this down the road, but in general, we cannot lease, but we may be able to license um the area.
Um and then is there a way to partner with a community organization to manage them the docks? And the answer to that question is yes, we would need to go through procurement to make sure that we're, you know, going through the 30B process, but we could work with an organization to um set up some type of
management. So I think you know what's really important you know taking a step back and looking at at this kind of from from afar is the commission first needs to understand what they want to see this
property be used for. Do you want to have this space be a space where people can come and have access to the water through a dock? And if so then we can talk about ownership. Do we own those docks or do other people own those docks? are they private or are they
public? And so we can start kind of peeling back the layers a little bit. I think there is a lot of opportunity here, but the more privatized I'll say it is, the more complicated it becomes. We're talking about article 97 dispositions, we're talking about
leases, that becomes more and more difficult to do and manage um versus the town kind of owning the dock and doing it themselves. So Chase, unless you have any questions that you think I need to address right now, I think I'll I'll let you continue
with your presentation. >> Yeah, I I think that's been really helpful to sort of set the legal groundwork. I'm sure that things will come up that we'll ask you to address in the intervening time between this meeting and the next time we we take it on.
>> Absolutely. Um, so what I'm going to do here next then is with sort of the preamble from me and the preamble from AIA is that we're going to take public comments. I I I would really ideally keep these to about 15 minutes. We're
willing to to expand upon that if as long as we're not sort of uh undermining the rest of the function of this meeting. But I want to lay the the guidelines for this. Um, we're going to we're going to ask people to state your name and address. You're going to get one set of comments within your three
minutes. You're going to get three minutes as a speaker. Um, to the extent that you want to raise comments, you want to ask questions. If you ask questions, we may not respond right away. It may take a an we may need an opportunity to come up with an answer. As we look at the legal and regulatory
structure, as laid out, this is complex. Um, but I think that that shouldn't um that shouldn't detract from you asking questions. Just understand we may not answer right away. Um, please know we're very much committed to
having at least one other hearing on this topic. The goal tonight is to understand the range of options. I will also note and I know we have four or five comments from the public um on this comments written are much much sort of easier in some ways for us to parse and
think about. What I do not intend to do tonight is read all of the public comments that we do have into the record. And if you made public comments, please feel free to reference those, but I've seen they've come in in the last day or two. I wouldn't presume everyone in the commission has read all of those.
I would presume they will read all of those. We typically ask applicants to issue comments or um issue, you know, uh documents a couple days in advance of the meeting. So, just because we don't respond to a comment tonight doesn't mean we're not going to read it. Just means we we want everybody to sort of
come up to speed on this. So, with that, that those are sort of the ground rules. That's what we're looking for here tonight. Um, and we'll talk about next steps sort of after that. But I do want to set the stage here for sort of we're going to take public
comment. We're going to then discuss as a commission what we think the range of options might be and try and narrow that down. The ultimate goal of this discussion is to come back to another meeting with some specific proposed solutions. Right? Option one is we do
this and this and this. Option two is we do this and this. nothing is going to be fixed about those, but we at least want to have more concrete elements of that discussion. So, that's where we're going to try and build to tonight over the next 20 or or so, 25 minutes. So, with
that, um, what I would ask is that, um, people who want to make a comment uh, raise their hand and then we will take them and you'll get three minutes to comment if you have comments that you'd like to make. Looks like we've got I'm gonna take
Dustin Neil first. Dustin, give me a second to promote you here. Oh, I may not have access. Sarah Tim, can you promote Dustin? >> I got you. Yeah. >> So, it's allowing to talk, not not promoting. So, we're just allowing them to speak.
>> Thank you. Yeah. >> Dustin, please feel free to introduce yourself um with your name and where you reside. Welcome. >> Thanks. You can't recre. Yes, we can. >> Great. Dustin Neil, 17 Lakeshore Drive. Um, I'm uh responsible for the items
marked on the map number three and four for some context. Um, but the additional context of how those things and most everything on the map kind of came into being, I think, is really important because there are no bad actors in the neighborhood, right? Um my understanding
is that there was a long-standing informal agreement from from this commission albeit prior members and you all have come along since that time but I moved into the neighborhood in 2003 and there almost every one of the
existing docks was there and the the story that had been passed along is that the commission at that time from I don't know at least the late 90s maybe earlier was that there was an informal agreement
that uh land a butters across the street from the lake in exchange for caring for the strip of land were tolerated to have a dock. And so when I moved in there was a dock there. It was a little bit ramshackle. I've maintained it and kept it up over the years. I've never
prevented anyone else from using the dock. I've welcomed neighbors to do the same. Um and I've kept a boat and the dock there essentially that entire time. um not surreptitious, not in secret. Um I've talked to members of the commission
over the years about it. It was sort of an open known thing that folks in the neighborhood did that. Um but it also enabled a lot of really positive benefits and I want to make sure we're aware that losing those benefits is something that would happen if we took
the, you know, the far right option of moving everything away. So, for example, having simple access allows me to maintain the conservation programs that are on the lake, like the wood duck boxes. The wood duck boxes that are on
Long Lake that I maintain um produce about 75 to 100 wood ducklings every single year now 12 years in a row. And sure, I could do that if I hauled a kayak down to the beach, but every half an hour I spend walking back and forth with equipment and stuff like
that is another half an hour that's not spent doing the project. It also allows people to access the ice and to monitor the ice from different places because ice thickness is not the same all over the place and it's not always easily accessible from the shoreline,
especially in between Grove and uh Lake Drive. All the street runoff tends to make melt water along the shoreline itself, but in the places where there are docks, it allows us safe ice access and to be able to check out those things. I want to make sure we
don't we know what what could be lost um in those cases. Additionally, I think um it sounds like the commission is open to considering licensing options and I know other towns across the state have had
very successful licensing programs. In particular, Southwick, Massachusetts has had an LPP, a local permitting process where they've essentially gotten kind of a group license from DP to sort of get
blanket permission to do um dock permits within chapter 91, but are but that are strictly locally managed. So that they get one big blanket permit and then locally issue individual residential dock permits similar to what we're talking about. And there's towns
that have done >> I don't want to interrupt you too much. Can you wrap it up in about 15 seconds here? >> Sure thing. And there's also the more traditional path where the town applies for the permits and does a licensing agreement and the resident or the dock
maintainer is responsible for keeping it safe and you know assuming any any liability. But I think those are things that can work out and I'd be happy to be part of a working group with the few dock owners we're talking about in in this uh scenario. Okay, thank you Dustin.
If there are any other public comments on this and I I very much appreciate that written comments are very valuable to us and so if folks are holding their verbal comments in lie of their written comments, thank you. Um if there are not any other Oh, we have
one other uh Molly Flenry. Um Tim, if you can pro promote her, we'll we'll sort of keep working through comments. If folks have public hearing comments, please raise your hand so we know how many we have to try and manage here and then we'll kind of work from there.
Molly, you should >> Molly, you should you should be able to speak, Molly. >> Okay, >> we did this right. You should be Yeah, there you go. It's actually my husband here who raised his hand so I'll let he's on my computer. >> Yeah, I'm Tim Mayer and we both live here at Three Lake Drive and we're not
part of this parcel but we do have a boat and a dock on the lake and I just want to uh voice my support for Dustin and um many of the other people that have maintained docks on the other side of the lake. I think it's a great act
asset to the lake. These people are very committed to annual cleanup drives. Uh there's always some little fussing and housekeeping, you know, out there to make sure the the worm plastic boxes and the, you know, all the stuff from
fishing and a few stray beer bottles, you know, get cleared up and wood that gets blown around and just causes, uh, you know, very unsightly messes. and um and and and they're committed to doing stuff like that which I think the lake
really um benefits from. And I think another thing is with all the usage that they typically do of the lake with their watercraft and whatever, uh if they were not allowed access, I think their only outlet would be to go to the town um
boat landing. And so you could consider maybe a significantly increased amount of traffic over there and can it handle it? Uh is that is that an efficient use of access to the lake? In other words, because there's something in place right
now that's handling a lot of the interest in in enjoying a lake and then it'll go into maybe a a more controlled regul regulated pathway which would be I assume the the boat landing and um
that's something that that one would have to consider about whether that would become a a bottleneck. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. Um, next up would be Sarah Corey. Um, Sarah, you should be allowed to speak.
>> Okay, awesome. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes. If you could introduce yourself and state where you reside, that would be great. >> Sure. Um, so my name is Sarah Corey. I live with my husband, Ethan, at 35 Lakeshore Drive. Um, we were also represented in the pictures there. Um,
you know, I I I'm raising my 5-year-old here in this neighborhood. I know that this neighborhood was built to be a sanctuary for people to come out from the city, enjoy the water, to enjoy the beauty that this town has and to
also, you know, to have a a little bit of a unique situation in in raising a family, right? Not everybody gets to grow up on water. Not everybody gets to fish off of their front yard. Um, uh, we moved in, we had a dock in place. Um, it was quite long. um stuck out pretty far
and was mangled by the ice melt one year. So, we ended up rebuilding and making it a much shorter one. Um and we have thoroughly enjoyed it ourselves, but we've also invited so many kids um fishing um just to sit out on the dock.
people take in the views and it's I just you know I just find that wanting to reduce the access reduce um the visibility and every and everything that we're just trying to help maintain which was maintained here prior to us moving
such as the mowing the parking area and all of that. Um to to take that away kind of takes away the history of what this neighborhood was built specifically for. Um and it and it it's kind of disheartening. So, you know, we we would
love to keep it how it is. We'd love to continue to share the beauty of this town um with everybody who walks by. You know, it's probably one of the most popular walking spots. I think I've heard somebody say that before. Um you know, a couple things that we're
wondering is, you know, why what the complaints are. Um specifically, it sounds like there's quite a few complaints. um you know the would like to know what those are. We'd also kind of like to know you know what's the issue with the mowing um cuz
like Dustin said it's been the understanding that if we're abudding the lake that you kind of maintain what you have and so we've continued that tradition and have had nothing but positive comments from hundreds of people who have walked by. Um, but I
certainly would love to continue to have the front yard that we have and share it with so many people um, who also enjoy it greatly themselves. So, >> all right. Thank you very much, Sarah. Next up would be uh, Kieran O'Dire.
I apologize if I did not pronounce that correctly. You should be allowed to speak. >> Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Hi, my name is Kieran Odoire. Um, I live at 33 Lakeshore Drive, right next door to Sarah. Um, I'll be quick. I just wanted to kind of speak up and support
basically what everybody said. Um, my parents have owned 33 Lakeshore Drive and I've been living there on and off for my entire life. I mean, this is basically the road used to be a dirt road. I mean, people have maintained that side of the street for so I'm 38
years old now, right? So, I don't I am not quite sure where this um initiative to kind of change the way things are is coming from. I'd like to hear if you could maybe speak tonight a little bit. I know you can't answer every question, but if you could speak up a little bit about what the specific complaints are
and who is complaining and what and what we can do to address those complaints, right? Because we also don't want anything to change. Um I mean, like everybody has said, we've maintained that land. We mow it. Um people use it. I don't think I've never heard of anybody who's come in from the anywhere
else and used the land like walking their dogs. I see kids fishing out there all the time. People launching their canoes and kayaks from other parts of the neighborhood. I mean, if all these docks are for have to be removed, um that whole side of the lake will have nothing. The only access will be be the
the beach, right? People will have to walk all the way down there. It's an extra quarter of a mile from my house and it's an extra if you go all the way down to the Silverbergs at the other end of Lakes Shore Drive, that's a half a mile. everybody who comes down that hill has access to the water from where? From this side of the lake from Lake Shore
Drive. And if we stop taking care of it, um kind of that all goes away. I mean, people are out there every morning. I see people walking their dog. It's a it's a great view. And if that becomes overgrown there, I think there were kids a couple years ago out there taking their prom pictures. Um and I, like I
said, I've never heard of one person um coming out and saying, "Hey, you can't be here. Get off our land." Nobody's nobody's treating it like it's private property. And I know there was there was a no trespassing sign there, but I have no idea if put that up and it's if it's gone now. I've never heard of anybody um
being chased off. So, I would just I would just like to hear a little bit about what the complaints are and what we can do to address them. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I think next up, uh we have Jim. Jim, we'll take your comments, I presume, as a interested party, not as an associate
commissioner. Is that right? Can you clarify? I just want to make sure we're on the right side of the lines here. >> That's exactly right, Jason. And that's the first thing I was going to say, and I spoke with Andrew about this. So, yes, the first thing I would like to say is that I am also a homeowner on along Lakeshore Drive, 43 Lakeshore Drive to
be specific, and also have a dock in front of that property that was also in those photographs. And yes, you just as you said, I based on that, I'm recusing myself from participating in this discussion as a as an associate or an alternate member of the commission and speaking as a town resident taxpayer.
Um, and I first of all, I and I I submitted a written comment at at the suggestion of others I spoke with, which I hope the commissioners have a chance to read. I won't try to read that again tonight. I I hope people will take a chance to look at it, but just add a few comments based on what I heard tonight.
You know, I'd like to echo the comments of my friends and neighbors. I think it's always been a welcoming community. Uh people have talked about some of the uses of different docks. Our dock seems to lend itself, the dock in front of our home seems to lend itself particularly to fishing and there have been often
children, kids, boys, parents with kids fishing there and it's been a great thing to see and we've always welcomed them and you know congratulated them. Uh I I will mention and again I don't over dramatize this. I mentioned this at the select board meeting. My wife and I in our over 15 years of kind of maintaining
that property have helped rescue two capsized boats, one with two teenage girls and one with a father with two small children that capsized in the lake up up lake you could say away from the dock from our dock. We rescued those boats by bringing them back to our dock
and getting them writed and back on their way to the beach. I wouldn't say they wouldn't have survived without it, but I think it was, you know, was a contribution that was, you know, a very valuable aspect to what these docs can provide. The last thing I'd say is I was pleased to hear from town council the
reference to the ability to cap and manage liability. To me, as Chase went through the pros and cons, uh, you know, permitting the docks, the the primary issue that I've heard associated with that is that there is some liability. I think fees associated with permitting can help pay for liability insurance and
I hope we can find a way to use the permitting fees to provide insurance for the very limited you know risk of liability that could be entailed and is hopefully capped in a manageable way. So I'll stop there and again last thing I'd say is I appreciate the commission having this very open discussion and
soliciting input in this way and I hope that will lead us to a constructive solution. So thank you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Looks like we've gone through the public comments. Um, let let Oh, I'm sorry. We've got Rob Rouse. Rob uh should be able to promote you here.
>> You're good. Go ahead, Rob. If you can introduce yourself, that would be great. >> Rob RS, 25 Juniper Road. Um, submit a letter. Hope you'll consider it. Uh, among the things that I want to emphasize based on what I'm hearing tonight is one, I hope that the next
public hearing will be in public and not via Zoom. I have no idea who the other 31 people are. I think that the community uh can benefit from understanding who all is concerned about this matter. Um I heard earlier with
regard to the land was taken. That's different than how I've heard it presented before select board in which I wrote in the letter that my understanding is the land was donated. I'm not saying I'm correct. I would ask that you uh address that at some point in time. Um, I appreciate all the
efforts made by so many people to do the docks. I appreciate Dustin and the work that he does to provide for wildlife, to provide for the safety of us who use it during the winter. Uh, I appreciate I'll just pick on Sarah and Ethan for the
views that they provide. Uh, I want to point out because I've got very much concerns that the property that isn't being maintained by uh local residents is overgrown and it denies views and trees are dying because they're
strangled by by invasives. Um, I I'd request uh because of what was stated by legal tonight, give us a perspective of that licensing option so that we can understand it. And lastly, I would ask that as you're stating your present plans in the future, I'd ask that you
give us more than I'm not saying you weren't going to give us more than two days, but I would ask for a little bit bigger period of time so that we can understand what your proposed alternatives might be pend you know following your discussion uh and that we may consider uh creating discussing
among amongst ourselves uh a common unified response etc. So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Chase, I think Tess. Okay, Tess. Go ahead, >> Tess. And I I I should probably beg your apology by including the Long Lake
Neighborhood Association before you start your comments. It it was on my to-do list to check in with you, and I didn't get to that before today. So, please please forgive me for that. >> Oh, thank you so much. Thank you for um taking my comments and uh I did also
submit a written uh comment to you and I hope you get to read that and the public gets to read that. Um I also appreciate what the dock owners have done that are around the lake. I of course am a beneficiary of Dustin's uh ice uh
reports and I do appreciate the views around the lake. Um, I do want to give voice to some of the folks that maybe are uh concerned about not uh about alienating uh neighbors. This is
definitely a very strong and uh welcoming neighborhood. I have heard very very different comments from people. Um actually I'm sorry. I live on one Birch Road. My name is Tess Egan.
>> Yes. Here we go. Um my concern in particular with uh that parcel of land is that while yes the docks are are helpful and there is a need for access from this part of the neighborhood um it
is public land and I feel strongly that there there should be a a unifying use for that for that land and the and the maintenance plan for that land because I do not believe of that. Um, having a a lawn right in front of the of the lake
is necessarily helpful for uh birds, fish, and wildlife and the lake itself because the runoff has easier access to go into the lake. And there's other concerns including, you know, the invasive species that have not necessarily been addressed. Some have,
some have not. Um, in general, when we go off of Lakeshore Drive and you speak to the neighbors that are higher up, they feel this is possibly unfair, right? They do not use the access. They
don't necessarily have uh the boats in the water. They do go around and anybody new uh cannot get a permit to new and living on Lakeshore Drive cannot get a permit. and they have to be denied. Um,
and then lastly, my next door neighbor on Lakeshore Drive, the owner of the house, it's actually a rented uh property, but the owner of the building uh called me quite enraged uh recently uh wanting to rent the apartment, but
having a dock in front of her that it doesn't belong to her or or a very adjacent neighbor. So there's some difficulty here in trying to make this fair for everyone, govern the land well, right? Have a plan to see what, you
know, where do we need long vistas and where can we uh make sure that the lake is the priority here. And I feel that the conservation commission is the best uh commission in the town to take this on and take full responsibility. And if
you do choose to permit or license or some other word uh some docks, I'm sure the neighborhood will use them and appreciate them. It might be a nice way to make um to give some kind of uh you know something back to the
neighborhood that we can use. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, >> Chase. I'd like to do which what we started to do in the beginning is that I'd like to open it up for any comments or questions that the commission has especially where we do have other
members here as well. So >> if it's okay I I would like to address one comment that came up >> before we get into that because I think it's important. I appreciate that that the the dock owners that are here tonight have talked about how well-maintained and accessible their the
docs that I keep saying their docs and excuse me for that that language but um how accessible their docs are. The fact of the matter is we've gotten complaints and I think our own eyes show us >> they're not all well-maintained. A
number of them are are literally falling apart. Um, and on top of that, we've gotten, I think, verifiable complaints that kids have been shown off docs. Um, I mean, just just to sort of truth check things, checked in with my own kids, and
they're like, "Oh, yeah, we know we're not allowed to use those kids. Kids kids get shued away from them." So there there's there's at least in some instances some issues with accessibility and that's that's really the the genesis of us trying to sort out the equitable
management of of sort of this this public land. So with that Sarah I'll I'll defer to you and sort of managing the rest of the uh commission discussion on it. But I I I want I think it's important to know that we're not dealing with a rosy and idealic scenario here in
all circumstances. >> Right. Thank thank you for sharing that. Commissioners, anyone else care to share their thoughts? I know it's a lot to take in. I know that I have not had a chance to read all the comments on that have been submitted uh especially if they were done today. Um but I feel as
though that the town website is a great place to um share this information as well. And as Chase had mentioned also in one of the previous slides that it's easy to submit to Tim who's here with us as our agent um and he can get those
posted as well. So I would defer to our commissioners um it is 8:50 so we have been um with this for 50 minutes and we do recognize we do have a few more after this as well. So, commissioners, any
kind of questions or comments? >> You are all muted as well. Just >> let me preface this. What we want to do is we want to figure out for the next meeting what are the range of options that we want to specifically debate. And I think my challenge to you all is
what's on your mind with within that continuum of options. What what's a non-starter? What makes sense to you all? >> If you're asking the US, a non-starter for me would be complete
and free reign. That that's there's no question. I don't know yet how I feel about how far toward the other end we should go. um you know we have to balance
the public use and conservation purposes and what have you. So I I'm still uh absorbing still processing. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? >> I would um echo
>> Oh, sorry. You want to go? >> Oh, thank you. >> No, go ahead. I'll I'll go after you. >> Oh, thank you. I uh I just want to thank everybody that, you know, came tonight and offered comments and questions. I I think um I I would agree with Ed. You know, there's a lot to take in tonight
and to really consider. I think the overarching thing for me is there's a need for access. How do we deliver that? Do we do nothing or do we have an elaborate permitting or do we come up with some kind of town? You know, I I wouldn't be
opposed to the town in this situation, a hypothetical maybe putting in three docks with CPA monies that are, you know, built by the town. We know how solid they are and, you know, they'll provide access. Um, non-sarters for me,
I think about the parking areas that it's a little dicey. I think Tess summed it up well too that um I mean recently even our office, the town clerk's office has received a number of complaints about um uh you know new homeowners coming in and essentially saying hey why
is my neighbor allowed to do this but I can't do it and it's it's hard to explain that to somebody that wants to to do it. Um so it kind of puts the town in an awkward position but I think there's there's got to be a way to get that access to everybody. I think we all
want that that access, you know, that Dustin Dustin can do what he does, the town's people, and you know, so many other things. But how do we deliver? That's really where we're got to focus. >> Okay. Thank you, Michael.
>> Yeah. And um just to uh leverage what Andrew was saying, will this end up being a much bigger thing than you know the uh Long Lake uh conservation area? You know, if if we
open up licensing, for example, here, do we have to be able to consider it for other town- owned lands and uh make equitable access there for uh I mean really whatever the purposes are. Um it
it seems like a much bigger issue than than just this parcel. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? >> Hey, Sarah. Carl. >> Yep. Go ahead, Carl. >> Yeah, and I I I agree um with an I conservation lands are set up for the
public and uh we try to make our public lands as accessible as possible, whether it's putting on a boardwalk to cross wetlands or an observation tower or something like that. Um,
this is a much different situation and I was saying about Andrew's comments about placing in several docks, but then it gets in the situation are are the docks going to have to come out every
winter like the one at the town beach? Um, the reason a lot of these other docks get mangled is because they're left in year round. Um, so it's just something else for us to think about as we kind of debate this question.
Um, I think that's as far as I'd like to go tonight, Sarah. >> Okay, great. Well, we appreciate your thoughts. Um, I would like to take a pause and let um, speak as well. >> Thank you. I just I found the comments
very helpful. The context was um, incredibly interesting for me to hear. So, I really appreciate um being present tonight. Just wanted to add a couple things. I'm happy based on kind of the questions around what does a permitting program look like? I'm happy to kind of
walk the commission through what that option would look like um for your consideration at your next meeting. I can put that in writing. I can also kind of spell out a little bit about what the risks are associated with these long-term dock owners um and kind of put all of that in paper for you if that's
something the commission would want. We we may take you up on that if holding you sort of to the same standard that we're asking. Written comments are a lot easier for us to try and parse. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Okay. With that said, because we do have
two other hearings that were supposed to start at 8:15, I would like to close this discussion and welcome further discussion. Um we will >> Before you close it, Sarah, we should set a date certain for >> That's what I was just going to say. So
we have November 4th and then followed by the November 18th. So historically we meet on Tuesdays. We've got town meeting coming up. So um in order to allow people to um access comments and share their comments, would we like to put
this to the 4th or put this to the 18th? >> Can I advocate for the 18th? Sarah, in in the context of Rob Brown Rouse's comments, I I I think it's a fair criticism like having something more than a few days in advance could be helpful. >> Yep. Okay.
>> We'll aspire to give the public a week to sort of wrestle with things, but we probably can't get it all done in a week. So, >> is there another commissioner that supports that >> to the going on with the town meeting and and
and all the the big things coming up in the next couple of weeks, I'm inclined to go later. >> Okay. >> Yes. So, selfishly, I won't be out there before. So, I would go along with Chase. >> Great. So, the time the time will be posted. Um, if we're going to go to the
18th, you won't have the assigned time until we get closer to that meeting, but it will be that night of the 18th. And I welcome everyone joining us this evening and look forward to seeing you at uh future meetings as well. Okay. So, what I'd like to do now for
it's um 8:57. I'd like to go ahead and open the 8:15 public hearing. Request for determination of applicability. 34 Fletcher Lane installation of a septic system. Who would like to speak to that? Tim, are you familiar with who may be in
attendance? >> Yep. I'm promoting Matt over right now. >> Matt, thank you for your patience. Welcome. >> If you could introduce yourself to get started, that would be great. >> Hi, Matt Marorrow representing Harrison Family Trust. Um, I'm here with a determination of applicability this
evening for a septic replacement. If I able to share my screen, let's see. We got Can you guys all see that? >> Yep, we can. Go ahead, Matt. >> Okay. So, what we have here, it's actually quite simple. The current um
configuration is we have a septic system that's here along with an old tank that is here. Everything here is going to be left and abandoned in place. Um that's going to be disconnected. We're going to put in a new tank here with a main going out to a leech field here. It is out of
the buffer zone. And here is your 50ft zone. Um we have erosion protection here um that is proposed um that would uh not allow work to traverse within 50 ft of the wetland. Um
that's basically it. So the area that is actually within the buffer zone is the force main going out the um the tank and the main going to well half of the main going to the septic system. Fairly simple.
>> Commissioners questions. >> Matt, what's the decommissioning of the existing system going to look like? >> They're just going to they're going to cut and plug it. It's just going to be left in place. >> Okay. We're not talking about any excavation to to support the decommissioning. >> Nope. >> And apologies if you wrote that down
somewhere and I just didn't >> No, it's okay. Um I'll make sure I point it out more prominently in a future NOI or RDA. >> On your new system, how are you getting that installed? >> You're going to have to have some heavy
equipment back there, I'm assuming. >> Well, the heavy equipment will will be Yeah. I mean, there is going to have to be a mini excavator that comes out here. You're going to have like a trench with a 5ft overdig around here coming in. This area right here is out of the buffer zone. Um, I do stand corrected on
one thing. There's some minor. There's two contours that are grading within the buffer zone between the 100 and the 50 foot. So, the work won't come any closer than 75 ft here. Uh, there's no trees to be removed. All work is being done with an existing one.
How are you accessing the equipment? >> So, the equipment would be done. Here's Fletcher Lane. Here's the driveway. It would be coming around this way. Coming around this way. And the part of this that is in the um
in the in the buffer, excuse me, is already grass or not? That's correct. >> This area right here, you see these triangles? >> So, what um Evan Carloney always does is
um any trees that are greater than 6 in in diameter, he will locate and put on the plants. Um if there's any other smaller trees that are going to be in the area of work, he would show it u more as a cloud cover here than anything
else. Like this area right here. This is actually going under a canopy. Um, that's not going to be disturbed. So, it will go through the lawn underneath. It's just showing you that there is a canopy over it. >> If there's a canopy, that means there's
trees there. How are they not going to be destroyed if you're digging a trench in the hole? >> Well, if he didn't locate them, that means they're small saplings, so he's just going through them. Um, there's not nothing being removed here. If it was being removed, he would have
noted it. >> Okay. >> When were the flags done? >> Uh 34 Fletcher Lane. I did them in the spring. >> Okay. Have they been verified? >> I don't know if anyone's gone out and looked at them.
>> I'm not conceptually opposed to a negative determination here, but I I would like to have eyes on this. like the question of what trees might actually need to be removed regardless of diameter, confirmation of the wetlands protection, wetlands lines,
etc. I I'm not comfortable making a determination yet, but if Tim and Lauren go look at it and say, "We agree with this," I I might have a different opinion. But I I couldn't reach a negative determination right now.
>> I agree. I went out there today and couldn't see. Obviously, I wasn't going on the property, but I couldn't see what was being done. The area shows a lot of land in that area, but there's definitely a good size tree, so I can see it being an issue.
>> Any other commissioners have questions for Matt? Matt, did you say that the current system is in failure? >> That's correct. >> So, they're pumping it now. >> I cannot answer that question.
I ask because if they're pumping it, it means they have a big truck somewhere. They're running a long hose somewhere. So, they're already disturbing the space. theoretical. >> Nobody's made me privy to that information if they
>> Okay. >> My my request here would be a site inspection by the agent >> to confirm conditions and then we discuss it in two weeks. >> Yeah. And I don't have a problem with that. I just the only thing I ask is
that if anybody wants to go for an inspection that I accompany them so I can answer questions on the spot. If they have a problem with the delineation, I can dig a hole. Um save a little time. >> Yeah. So Tim, if you and Lauren want to communicate with Matt and then also let
us know when you're going to go out to see if there's any commissioners that can um go out with you as well, that would be great. So with your permission, Matt, we'd like to go ahead and continue this to November 4th. Yep. I'm just I'm writing that down now. >> Okay.
All right. Please, please. Um I am requesting a I am officially requesting a continuence of this determination until the November 4th meeting. >> Thank you. >> Bless your heart for saying that out loud. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> You always want to make sure that it's official and that nobody ever has a room for doubt. So yeah, I always make sure to make it official. >> I appreciate it. Okay, great. Thank you. You have a nice evening. Okay, now >> it's now 9:05. We'd like to open up the
8:30 continued public hearing notice of intent 97 and 99 Mill Road, Mass D 204-1022, construction of an electrical equipment area. Uh, hold on one second. Okay. So, David, I see you've got some
some people joining you, so Y. >> Yep. Feel free to go ahead. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, uh just to reintroduce myself. So, Dave Ketchin, the assistant general manager at the Littleton uh electric land water departments. I've got Steve Burn with me
from Citizens and uh Dan Sver is with him as well to present um our our updated proposal. So, Steve, I'll kick it over to you. >> Thanks, Dave. Um can you guys all hear me?
>> All right. Um hopefully you guys have seen our uh updated proposal. Um we I believe that Dan uh provided a or I sent over to Tim a uh a stamp drawing of our
proposal. Um if Dan is on, he can share his screen and um we can walk through that specifically. But at a really high level what we have done um last time we spoke to spoke to you guys, we had shown you that we had a originally we were
proposing a tight tank kind of scenario. Um and then we received from the uh deputy fire chief um his request which included um a vacuum truck and he wanted everything to be um kind of more centralized if they decided to use water
uh to uh spray in the event of a of an emergency. Um so we had switched gears and we had uh presented a preliminary proposal. This is more of a final proposal that is more uh definitive
whereas we are um going to have a liner around the entire project. Um all of that will be um kind of directed towards some piping at the I'm going to call it the left side of the project and that
piping will then go down to larger piping which is at the bottom. um will go to a valve where um that's where the vacuum truck would be um able to open and close a valve there. They close the valve and then the vacuum truck would
essentially take all of the water uh that uh could be sprayed there. Uh during normal conditions, everything would be open and everything would flow naturally um from the site down through um through the piping and then the valve
would be left open for normal conditions. Um Dan Dave, am I missing anything there? It's really kind of a >> confirm my screen right now. >> Yep, we can see it, Dan. >> Okay. Yeah, Steve nailed it pretty well.
So the whole idea around what we're proposing now is to basically envelope the entire U battery area so that any rainfall or pre precipitation from either uh fire management event or um
just just normal rain would be collected through a imperous liner which is basically going to create a a bath big bathtub if you will. So, if you're looking at the cross-section that we put together that shows what it'll look like if you're looking at it from uh
basically a slice of this area, every um concrete pad is going to be enveloped so that um you're not doing a liner underneath the concrete pads themselves to go around them. So if if you're you're looking at
this um from perspective of the of the side, water if sprayed or um just naturally occurring will will follow just for instance like the highest point of the system will come through and down and eventually make it to the low point
which is guided guided with a PF pipe along the the lowest edge of the system that will collect water during normal events and in the potential emergency situation. Um, and during the normal situations, water will just flow to a
rip wrap outfall. Um, and in the event of an um, emergency response, there's going to be a closed off valve located far away so that it can be closed off. Um the emergency vehicles can set up far
away to be safe and um they can at that point choose to um if they want to directly um have water sprayed in the vicinity to prevent spread. um along with having um the emergency unit on
site to vacuum vacuum uh truck remove basically from a distance at the port um upstream of the close off. So the whole idea is so that if they wanted to they could spray water in the vicinity however they are not planning to but
it's good to have that option. Um I think that's about it and I think we um open up for questions and comments. >> Yeah. One other one other thing to mention um we have spoken to uh local
vendors for vacuum truck. So um the deputy fire chief wanted us to have a um he referred to it as a contractor have someone on call. Um and we have uh started those discussions. We haven't selected a vendor, but there are vendors. There's actually one that's
within like 10 minutes that uh Littleton Electric uh light and water department uses as well. Um so we have started those discussions as well. So um yeah, I think we've um addressed most of
the the questions that has come out. I'm interested to hear what the commissioner's uh questions or comments are. Okay. >> Thank you for that. Commissioners questions, comments, >> can can you go back to the the cross-section? So, I haven't seen that
the drawing that came through earlier today. I guess the most recent revised we didn't get to see the sheet. So, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what this >> Yeah. So, Kyle, I can try to explain this cuz I am not an engineer and this
took me a a little while. So, the the >> I'm still struggling with it. The darkest lines are are intended to be um the liner. So the liner would go that's like the fence side would then go to the first section of the um the concrete
pads. So the concrete pads are not going to be you know obviously going down 10 ft or anything. So um we've talked about two ways to do this and this is the way we're we're looking at right now. Um, so essentially you'd have, we're referring to it as like, you know, a couple of
bathtubs that are there. So there's really going to be um, you know, little to no chance of water getting uh, below the concrete and within the liner. So those, like I said, the dark dotted lines that are highlighted here are the
liner. So we would essentially dig out the entire site. Um then I'm sorry, the concrete pads would go in. Then we dig out the site around it. We put the liners in and then we would refill with um rock and other um
sand and soil and um then have it be uh what we're representing there. Does that make better sense? >> Yeah. So I I understand that part. Can you I'm trying to in my mind see how how the PVC piping is running and
collecting, right? Cuz you're showing collection pipe all the way around the perimeter. Now the collection pipe is just going to be at the bottom on that one side. So everything is going to be uh tilted or the elevation is going to go down.
Everything's going to be uh funneling towards that pipe that >> Oh, go ahead. So if you have three bathtubs, how is in this view, how is the top bath tub connected to the middle bathtub connected to the bottom bathtub?
>> They're not separated. So you're looking at the cross-section through here. So what you don't see is the open areas. If if we were to give another cross-section, say here, basically these whole areas, you wouldn't see them. This is more or less to show you how those
areas are going to be enveloped. So, if you were to if we showed you the cross-section, like I was saying, you wouldn't see this. It would just continue like that green line there. So, it' basically just be showing you um yeah, those areas without the concrete
pads, if that makes any sense there. >> So, it's one bathtub, not three bathtubs. >> Exactly. >> That other picture, the front of it, does that equate to the green line here? The green line here is the pipe over here.
>> It's the opposite way, Ed. This is going from top to bottom. The other one's going side to side. >> This is a top to bottom >> look. >> Okay. Is that making sense to you, Chase? >> Think so. >> Is it just late for me?
>> Yeah, >> it's late for me, too. Right. >> Well, here's here's a challenge that we do like to have all documents submitted Thursday before the meeting so that way we can kind of digest these.
>> This was submitted on time. >> Yeah, this was submitted like two weeks ago. >> But wasn't there an update that was just submitted today? >> Uh, one drawing showing a hydrant change. The hydrant location change. That was the only thing that changed in the drawing today. >> Oh, okay. I apologize. Yeah, Kyle, I
wasn't confused about it until you raised the questions. And I I see what you're asking. I Let me Let me step back and say this conceptually. Let's set aside the details of the drawing. I, as you know, I haven't loved any of
this. I think this is okay. Like, we should get the technical details right like it water's got to flow downhill, right? Like stuff like that. But but beyond that, I I appreciate the effort to account for
these issues. What I don't know, and I'm I'm fully relying on the fire department to to sort of bless is that there's an adequate storage volume here. The other concern I have is in an emergency situation, is somebody really going to remember to shut off the
valve? >> That's what I was wondering, too. I >> I there's this part of me that do >> it. There's this part of me that's very would be much more troubled by this if it was not a public utility doing it. >> If there's anybody that cares more about
water quality in this town than we do, it would be Dave, right? And the water department. So like I I don't love it. If it was a purely private project, I would be much more skeptical. I also can appreciate that they've done
a lot of the things we've asked and I'm reluctantly willing to agree to go forward with this as long as Dave says, "Yep, the water department is willing to implement these plans to be protective of the resource that we're both trying
to protect." I'm I'm nervous. I love it. I think it's way better than it was. Yeah, Chase, just I I appreciate that. Um, we we did not come up with this ourselves. This is all based on what the the fire department asked us for, and
I'm just trying to read really quickly, and I'm probably not going to be able to find it. In his um in his memo, I think he was the one who said that they would uh because they needed the vacuum truck, they would be waiting for that before anything happened and they would shut the valve. But I I'll have to find it.
>> Yeah. it and and it's less to do with in my mind who's responsible and much more to do with if you're dealing with an emergency and crap's on fire, >> is anybody really going to remember to shut off the valve and like >> that that just makes me fundamentally
nervous. Yeah. The other thing that I was thinking about with that is, >> you know, so the the idea is to capture the uh the water that they're spraying in there so that the uh compound that's
inside the boxes doesn't leak out. >> Can't that happen before the fire department arrives to shut the valve off? I mean, maybe it sounds silly, but what if it's pouring rain >> and you know, there's rain water
draining out of these bathtubs along with the uh suppressant or whatever it is we're trying to keep out of Eva Brook. >> So, I can I can kind of address some of that, Michael. So, if something happens and there's something in the container,
the container itself has um I may not get the numbers correct, but there's like 50 L of uh suppression in the container and the container itself has something underneath in on the bottom section that can carry like 60 L. So, I
don't think anything is going to uh get out while before anything is sprayed or anything like that. I'm not sure that the rain uh would be able to do anything because um you would have to have some sort of opening for that rain to get into the steel and they have def flag
panels. They have a whole bunch of other things that are safety measures here. So I don't think that um I think from from my standpoint um the issue with that suppression, which is very limited and in a small scenario in my eyes, but I'm
very aware of what we're trying to do here. Um, so I think that the only way for it to get out of a container is if they're spraying and that spraying and that volume pushes it out of the container um, beyond what you know that that containment within the container
that I referenced earlier. So that's what we're addressing um, and you know any other any other potential runoff that we would be getting if if they decide to spray. And I just want to reiterate that NFPA855, the new version that just came out, the firefighters are
now being taught not to spray this. So they are they are treating this as more of an electrical fire, which they would not be spraying. So that is everything that's going across the industry at the moment. So I just want to make sure you guys are aware of that. And I'm I'm not
sure that they would ever spray or if they sprayed it would be to cool the remaining area and not to spray like you see uh Teslas in the middle of the highway or an electric vehicle in the middle of the highway. So I I just want to say that I'm not saying that from my own perspective to sell this to you. I'm
just trying to let you know how the indust industry is evolving in these response efforts for these um battery energy storage systems. >> Right. Thank you. now and that that's very clear.
>> It is troubling that what we see for a project now is night and day different than what it started out at. And how was that not all considered early on? >> Not sure how to
>> No, you're not sure how to answer that. That was my that was just more statement than anything else. I guess >> uh nothing nothing's changed on the actual project and the structure other than um accommodating uh with the liner and
>> and the drainage and the shut emergency shut off and >> and the back truck. >> Yeah. I mean, >> yeah, those are Yeah, those are all things that we would have Yeah. I I don't know of another project like this that would that has any of this um you
know upfront or anything like that. We we rely on the the fire department or first responders to um request or require something. So I think I mentioned in a previous meeting Welssley Fire Department um wanted to have the dry piping. Um that was a thing that
they were doing you know just two years ago. um the dry piping is not not being recommended now. So that dry piping is not there. So um we would never just put that dry piping on there until you know someone requested it because the way the
systems come they're fully designed engineered and uh are ulisted and you know are are are meeting all the safety requirements that that they're supposed to. So once we get into these discussions with the individual uh municipalities and the commissions,
that's where some of these things get adjusted and you know we revise the design of of the project. So um what we've done here is fairly typical Ed and how we've been uh doing these in other municipalities in Massachusetts. So and
across the country actually. I apologize if we've already discussed this, but can we um revisit monitoring reports going forward if and when this is approved? What's the communication and how does conservation
um get acknowledged that this is up and running and successful? >> Um I'm not sure how however you however you want us to let you know. I mean, uh, typically we are during our our building permit, once we get, um, the approvals
from the various commissions, during the building permit process, we're going to, uh, be required to meet a bunch of the fire department requirements in order to get a our permit approved. That is going to be all of that emergency response plan, hazard mitigation that I've
mentioned before. Um, and you know, we can we can notify you once um, you know, once we're once we're completed or when uh, Dave and the electric light company uh, provide us a
[Music] a permission to operate if that works. >> I'd like to go one step further here. I' I'd like to if we issue an order of conditions, I'd like there to be a condition in perpetuity that commits the
water department or the the light department rather to annually certifying that they've done training with their staff and with the fire department staff in terms of how to respond to a fire here. I I just want to make I'm I'm
really worried about implementing this, but if there's any couple of organizations in town who I think can, it's the water department and the fire department, but I I want to make sure everybody's read into this on a regular basis. >> And and Chase, I I think that's a great idea to to touch upon your your point
from earlier. Um yeah, that that definitely crossed my mind as well as as far as training goes for Light and Water Department employees and and fire department personnel and and you know if this was approved um you know without
that or condition I I think in the next 5 years we would have no issues but yeah as personnel changes um figuring out a way to to ensure that you know annually we we meet the conditions of the the conservation
commission. Um, I think that's a great way to do it if >> and Dave, I would I would put the obligation on you as the water department to make sure that the fire department is capable of responding. >> And I that might be a little unfair. They need to be responsible for what they're responsible for, but at the end
of the day, this is your infrastructure. >> Yeah. Almost. Yeah. Almost certifying uh uh annual training and reporting that back to the cons if that works. That would be a very unique condition for us, but I think it would be a vital
one to me getting comfortable with this and it would be one that I would want to see in perpetuity. Yeah. >> And Chase in most of the emergency response plans or the two that we've done recently that annual um >> yeah we haven't done anything that's how
you mentioned like making sure that everyone is trained but we've done annual updates and communications and um at this point Welsley is coming up on one year so we'll be updating and making sure of everything that everyone is still um you know aware of the system
aware of what it can do and aware of how uh the emergency response plan is laid out. So, um you know, we're trying to do that already. We I I cannot sit here with a straight face and say we're already doing that because like I said, this is all relatively new. Um, but with
our emergency response plans, we do have, you know, something in there that says, you know, review annually, um, and keep communications, lines of communications open, because I I wholeheartedly agree that this could this could sit there and do nothing for 5 years and all of a sudden there's an
emergency. You have, you know, new firefighters, new first responders that aren't going to know what was described or what was defined at the beginning of the project. So, um I I think it's a a very good idea actually to >> to be clear that the the verb I've chosen is not review but certify. Like I'm
>> No, I got you. Yep. >> Okay. >> No, I got you. Understood. >> Commissioners, any other questions? >> Yeah, I'm comfortable with everything you guys have been discussing with that. I still don't know about the technical aspect of how this is. >> Yeah, there's this part of me Kyle like
if you've got a question like I we should make sure this is technically right. The idea is sound like I understand putting a liner in but the so the way I understand this is going to be constructed there what is there six there's six concrete pads but those are
going to be placed at ground surface that the existing ground surface correct >> there's no excavation you're just going to put in Yep six concrete pads right on the ground >> and then you're telling me you're going >> to excavate around them
to in to put in a a aligner and then some sort of permeable fill. Am I right? Is that >> Well, >> so everywhere there's >> Yeah, I guess I read it differently, Kyle. I assumed they were going to
excavate, put the liner in, put the fill in, and then put the pads on top. >> The plan doesn't >> I totally be okay with that, but that's >> Yeah. No, that's interesting. >> Yeah. So, I think Kyle, you're you're saying it you're saying it correctly. I think we would excav excavate, we would
put a liner in, we would then fill it in, we would then put concrete pads in. I think that is how this would work. Um Dan and I did have a a conversation with one EPC contractor who I think was saying something different, which I
think is why um why we're we were tentatively saying that the concrete pads were going in first. But uh I think everything would be excavated. The liner would go in. Um, then you would refill, then you would concrete, and then you
would um, yeah, everything would then be uh, one solid bathtub. Cuz if we put the concrete in, you can't have that bathtub unless the liner's underneath it. I >> I think this has got to be reflected really clearly in our findings. It's like this is the sequence that we're
>> My comfort level when I hear I think >> Yeah. when someone says, "I think this is what we're going to do." This is obviously well out of my expertise, but my comfort level just went down. So, >> you want to see like a construction sequencer? >> Yeah. Up until now, all the discussion
was put the concrete pad, then we're going to excavate and we're going to put the liner. It's like, okay, put the liner against what, you know? So, I I I've just gone way backwards on this. I would be that that would an okay option with me as well if you created
three trough tubs, which what is what I see in this cross-section. I'd be okay with that, too. You just have to show me how fluid's getting from one to two to three. That >> it's much easier. >> It seems a lot easier to excavate this whole area that 3 ft deep, install a liner,
>> and put in some per some some sort of fill that is permeable. Having said that, you now we're talking a fill that a will move liquid at a fairly decent rate, but also be structurally sound to hold concrete pads with this equipment on it. So, you're you're fighting a couple different battles here.
>> Yeah, cuz once you excavate, it'll take a lot to get it packed back down to where it can um safely hold that concrete pad. >> Can you go down three feet? Where's groundwater? >> Well, this is up on the top of the hill. So
>> that's what their calculations show. >> Yeah, it's 3.2 ft. I think Dan, >> I I would say this. We at the risk of pushing it out further, we require a written construction sequence so we can confirm the process, but I would much
rather see excavation liner bill pads. >> Yes, of course. And what the first thing that's going to go on the ground is the electric that's going to have to go run underneath the underneath the liner itself to the pads that'll be installed
once the liner it's some things are going to be happening at the same time. And this isn't exactly a construction document. This is more so conceptual that it needs to be fine-tuned with the contractor. >> Um, >> but I I see exactly what you're pointing to, Kyle. Like I I get now your
confusion cuz I maybe interpreted things the way I would have done them, not the three different bathtubs, >> right? >> The electrical wires you're putting under, are you putting them in cond in conduit or something so that you can replace the wires should something happen without digging everything up?
>> Yep. >> Yeah, they're all in conduits. They're that's how everything goes from the inverter transformers to each of the batteries. um along with the auxiliary panel. >> Mhm.
>> I need the picture in the document to show what was lastly described of essentially one big bathtub with the concrete on top of it and all that. This I read this
apparently the same as others did of concrete pad then somehow putting a liner beside the pad. >> Yeah, we can get a construction sequence. >> What's >> that's what you guys are asking for, right? A written construction process.
>> I have the >> I think so we going to do >> Yeah, maybe that's maybe that's what I'm missing that that I'm not seeing the steps. So, I can't see it based on the picture that's in front of me. And again, like Chase said, I
maybe I was just I would have done this a different way if I were doing it. Maybe this is what my concern is. Again, I'm totally comfortable with what you've laid out and same as Chase. I completely appreciate the back and forth you've had with us and the effort you've gone through to to kind of satisfy some of our requests. Um, so very comfortable
where we're at now. I just want to see a something that makes me comfortable that it's going to be built to function the way that you described it. And I don't I don't see that yet. Um, which I think is a simple fix. And if it's like Chase said, a simple condition that we receive
a set of construction sequence, a construction sequence document, then I'm okay with that. Okay. Any other commissioners have questions, comments, concerns? What's the pleasure of the applicant?
>> Uh, am I the applicant or is Dave the applicant? >> What are you thinking, Steve? Uh, try try again next meeting. We meet on November 4th. >> The November 4th meeting. >> Um I I had thought you guys were talking
about doing an order of conditions and one of the order of conditions was a written construction process. >> I think what you're hearing here is the comfort level of the commissioners are requesting it to be presented informally on the plan.
>> I think we're kind of split with that is what they're saying. It's >> okay. I mean, we can we can come back again on the what did you say? The fourth. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. We'll request to continue to to the fourth.
>> Okay. Great. So, in hopes that we can close, um, commissioners, are there any do you foresee anything else that you would like to have answered? Okay. So, we have a question of an applicant that we will now move on to.
Rob Brown Rounce, if you can introduce yourself. >> Yeah, Rob Brown, 25 Juniper Road. Appreciate the opportunity. I'll be brief. I just don't know how to handle this matter. Uh earlier tonight on the Lakeshore parcel Chase introduced
seemingly when switching test Degan over, he made reference to her with regard to LLNA, she did not correct him. However, in her written remarks that I've read uh that were submitted to you folks, she identified herself as an individual and
given all the commissioners listening to her and how Chase set it up, I'm concerned how you clarify how she was speaking. I believe as an individual per written remarks I'm not aware that they had any med of LLA to discuss this
>> Rob if we can do this if you're willing to hang on for a few minutes because it does not pertain to 97 and 99 mil road can we finish this discussion and then we'll bounce right into you okay >> sorry yes
>> no no worries um okay so coming back so do we have a formal request to advance this to November 4th. >> Yes, you do. >> Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it and we will see you soon.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, what I'd like to do is to quickly address Rob's um concern. I think what you've done is you have stated that and
we can make sure that that's noted in the minutes that are um transcribed for the next meeting, Rob. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> And I I heard Chase say that, but I knowing that she had submitted comments as an abutter. I took everything she was
saying as a private citizen, not as part of the Long Lake. So, she personally rubbed that was me personally. So, just to maybe ease your mind a little bit. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Then Tim, if you have any questions, just circle back with Rob. Okay, great. So, what we're going
to do now, it is 9:37. We're going to go ahead and open the 8:45 continued public hearing notice of intent 19 IPS Switch Drive, demolition of an existing single family dwelling, and construction of a new single family dwelling. Um, let's
see. So, I know we have um Scott. Yeah. Scott, if you want to introduce yourself. Where did you go? >> Sorry, it took me a second to find the the mute button there.
>> Good good evening. Hi. Uh, I'm Scott Hayes, Foresight Engineering, representing Crowdcastle Properties. uh for the 19 IPS switch drive notice of intent. Um should I just fire away? >> Yep. Go right ahead. >> Okay. So, we were here a couple of weeks
ago. Um this is an existing single family house lot uh with a with a with a dwelling and a driveway and some sheds and lawn area. Um it's about a half an acre. We've got wetlands on both the uh
east and west sides of the lot here in blue and here in blue. These ton of little parcels um existing edge of lawn and dotted green here and dotted green here and kind of wrapping around the back of the
property. On the survey we did there were number of large uh uh map mostly maple trees uh throughout the site which we picked up on the survey. Um and uh the proposition is to raise the house
in red here and construct this new house is shown kind of in pink and uh utilize the existing septic system, existing driveway area in general. Um same general vicinity um and conduct all that
work within the existing developed yard lawn area. We do we have proposed to remove uh one 12-inch maple which lands in the corner of the dwelling with the exception of that. We had two others had previously proposed to remove adjacent
to the sheds over here. Uh the commission asked at the last hearing that we preserve those. Uh so we are going to take this small shed down and retain those two 10 and 12 in maples
there. So, we've got only one tree coming down for for for construction out here, and we've proposed uh uh erosion control around the limit of work. We've got nothing proposed in the 50 foot buffer
zone area. It's this brown here that go wraps it around like that. It's the limit of work area. We've designated a soil stockpile area. uh commission last year had requested we additionally encapsulate the
downgradient edge of that um in addition to the already proposed erosion control barrier which we added that to the plan. Um what else did we do? A couple of things. So the two maple
trees uh to remain were was originally proposed to remove to remain. Uh added the erosion control barrier on the stockpile area. Uh designated the driveway area here as uh this is the existing kind of curb
cut driveway area right here. And we just specifically designated with this dark dotted line um for the driveway area and utility pool and existing driveway areas the construction staging and material storage area. Um the
commission had asked us to to do that. And then also just to confirm the uh applicability of the storm water uh bylaw regulations with respect to storm water management threshold which uh we submitted in a letter uh
noting these revisions on October 14th. But long story short, we're um not increasing the impervious cover by um over a thousand square feet. So we're fall under that threshold to not require
um yeah full storm water D stormwater standards. Can you just take a second and just go over some of the highlights of that outline just for others in in future knowledge listening to this um hearing? >> The outline of what specifically?
>> Yeah. What what you have submitted. So your storm water standards and then your existing imperous cover versus proposed cover. >> Yeah. So >> walk us through the calc. >> Sure. U my my my letter. Um so
I had to read through the the regulations myself to kind of fully understand that. But the uh so we start with the the area within the buffer zone within the 100 foot buffer zone. It's on the lot itself. So the lot's 22,000 square feet.
We've got a small area here in the middle that's outside. So the the total area in the bumper zone is 20,360 feet. So we calculated 5% of that and it came out at 1,8 square feet which
exceeds the uh 1,00 square ft um allowance. So it's 5% or 1,000 square feet whichever is less. So we're capped at 1,000 square ft of in additional impervious cover. And then we just ran
the numbers on the existing house um and shed that are being removed and the um that was 1120 ft of existing imperous cover. And then the proposed broke out
the dwelling patio walkway the driveway and the one shed here that's proposed to remain. um and total that up that was 243 ft.
Simple subtraction from there 243 - 1120 you 973 square ft of additional impervious cover. So we fell beneath the the threshold there. >> I appreciate um you taking the time to
do that with us not really knowing at the time but it it makes it look like you knew what you were doing that you knew the code and you you knew to stay right up against the line. Well, you know, I I I I I didn't originally and I it it happened to work work out. Um >> Yeah, absolutely. I think that's great
for us. >> So, the um the only other thing we we hadn't had a D file number and I emailed D this afternoon not thinking that I would, you know, get any meaningful response. And they did issue us a file number today. Um and I think uh the
commission Tim, were you copied on that email? I was and they did not have any uh comments >> right there be my followup. >> So can you can you share that number? So that's on this recording. >> Um
>> it's it's 2041028. >> There you go. One8 >> one2 two8 one28 >> 28 Yeah. Okay. >> So, I think that was it. Um the I think I've covered what the commission had asked us for previously and and we did
slide the D file number in under the wire this afternoon. So, that said, I'm I can answer any more questions, I'm happy to. Okay. Commissioners, anyone have questions,
comments? Thank you. Address mine. Anyone else? Nope. >> What is What is What is the pleasure? Yeah, I'll make a motion that we close B clearing uh inits is order conditions for 19 switch drive DP number 204-1028.
>> Second. >> All right, roll call vote. Uh Kyle >> Mfield I. >> Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Ed >> Ed. Uh let's see. Carl
>> Carl Malberg I >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay great. Thank you Scott. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Good night Scott. >> Um we now just have to jump back to our
administrative discussions. Um next meeting November 4th. Um Tim you want to talk about Mass Trails the grant application? >> Yep. So on November 3rd, the next uh grant period opens for MASH Trail Grant applications for uh trail improvements,
trail construction, uh trail maintenance things. Um if you remember, uh the the trust put one in last year um which we we helped them with the application for a mower trailer. Unfortunately, they didn't get selected, but it's come up
again this year. And um my idea for putting in an application is to put in an application to request funds for the creation of a uh it's called a braille trail. Um, so basically what it is is um you have to take a pretty flat trail and
you install posts every so many feet and there's a uh a hole that's drilled through each one of those posts and a chain uh or something similar that runs along those posts to give the individually impaired uh something to hold on to while they walk the trail. Uh
and along that that trail is um braille signs and and sometimes uh the trails will incorporate um like things that that can be touched and and felt like certain barks that are very unique um or
take it through areas where there's known like high densities of of birds so they can hear the the birds um chirping and singing. Um so I want to know you guys feedback on that. I haven't determined a location or a property yet.
This is just in the infancy stages of of brainstorming. Um, and I can certainly come back when we have an idea of of a property that would be suitable and best fit for this. But just wanted to throw it out there and see what you guys thought about putting an application in uh for for that purpose. And then if
anyone has um trail areas in mind to kind of shoot that over to Tim and Lauren as well going forward. I support the the grant application. >> Sure about other commissioners. >> Oh yeah, >> that's a great idea.
>> Fantastic. Okay. Um let's see. Tim, do you want to go over Foster Street reconstruction concern? >> Sure. So, uh, Kyle sent us over a picture this morning, which I could share with you all, um, of a stockpile over on Foster Street taking place where
they're they're doing the, uh, the reconstruction. Uh, give me a second here and I can pull it up. And I went back and I checked the plans and it's not an approved location for the first stop. There's no approved stockpile location where this is
occurring. It's right on the corner of of Grimes and Foster. Um, so this is what we're looking at right here. And you can see it's pretty close to the wetlands. This is about it's within 25 ft of of the wetlands and there's no erosion controls around it.
Um, so wanted to discuss with you guys where you wanted to go with this. uh whether you want to ask them to to relocate it if you're fine with it being there, but you know, we just want to ask them to put it in uh put erosion controls around it like waddles. Um whatever you guys thought.
>> So, we're saying we didn't approve the storage in the plan. >> We didn't approve a stockpile location right here where the stockpile is. >> It It looks like it's got some major erosion going on already, Tim. think he had
>> I'd be concerned how long they're going to leave it there as well. >> Yeah. >> So that's that was what I had said to Tim. It's been there for a week. I would say I drive down there at least once or twice a week. >> Yeah. >> So what would you like to direct Tim to do? I
>> They need to move it. >> Yeah. I'd rather they get it out and clean it up and get it stable before the next gushing rain comes. >> Right. >> I don't know if anybody has anybody gone down there lately. That whole area is like all the whole length of Foster Street in
front of the train station heading back towards town from the train station is that's their stockpile area. The shoulder of the road, >> right, >> is where they have their they have their common fill. They have their top soil and none of that is contained. I don't know if it's it's probably within 100 feet of that DVDW, right, Tim?
>> It might be outside Kyle. Uh I took a drive there today with Lauren. Um and in those they're pretty large stock piles that they have. Um, >> absolutely. >> It was a while that we were driving until we saw silk fence on the other side of the road, so it might be outside
of the 100, but I could certainly look into that. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, this one certainly is. And we had a lot of issues in this corner to begin with, Sarah, if you remember, like cuz there was a wall there that was holding stuff out of the BVW and they does not sound like a smart idea. >> It is a ve very fragile area for sure.
So, the directive, if what I'm hearing you, is for Tim to take um make a hopefully an immediate connection tomorrow with communication and tell them they need to get it out. I would also um make sure they have something in
writing as well. >> Not not only out, Sarah, but the around it pulled back where it is started to spread towards the wetland. >> Yep. For sure. >> Yeah. Cleaned up for anything. And if it doesn't look like they can get it done
within 24 48 hours, I would ask them to encompass with probably more waddles something. They'll probably have to do a sweeping afterwards as well. >> Okay. be a short-term it wouldn't them doing that would not negate them needing to
>> right meaning that if they can't get it done in the next you know 48 hours that they would only go a little bit longer but need to I haven't looked at the weather to see if we're going to get more rain or not >> rain tomorrow >> actually >> yeah tomorrow >> not not as heavy as the other day though
they said about half as much >> okay and then the other was I know we had distributed the draft order of conditions for uh 64 Beaverbrook. I just had um one thing that I didn't see that I think we had talked about and I can send this over to Tim is just adding a
language to fund the retention of an environmental monitor to oversee construction in the resource area and the the wetlands reconstruction that they're doing as well. I didn't know if anybody else had any other comments on the order of conditions.
>> Kyle had some that he sent. >> Okay. >> Great. They're pretty generic edits. I don't think there was anything major that we needed. I I honestly don't remember. It was earlier this morning. So, >> okay. >> There's anything too crazy. >> But yeah, if you could kind of meld those together and get that out, that
would be great, Tim. >> Certainly. >> All righty. Anything else? It is now 9:54. If we'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting.
>> I move that we adjourn. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All right. Final roll call of the night. Kyle. >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> Sarah >> Seawward. I Carl
>> Tomberg. I >> Michael >> Livingston I >> Ed >> Ed Fai. and myself. I It's unanimous. >> Okay, great.