So, we'll go ahead and open uh open the meeting. It's uh 7:30 p.m. Uh good evening everybody. Welcome to the uh October 7th, 2025 meeting of the Littleton Conservation Commission. Uh got a quorum in attendance. Uh and tonight we have our new associate
member, Jim, in the uh the corner here. Welcome aboard, Jim. >> Welcome, Jim. >> Thank you, Andrew. Nice to see everyone. >> Welcome. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Perfect. And if you have any questions or need anything tonight, just say the
word. >> Thank you. I'll be mainly in listen mode, I expect. >> Perfect. So, we'll um we'll go ahead and get started. Um we have approval of meeting minutes. Uh September 23rd, 2025, our last meeting. Does anybody
have any additions or corrections? >> Not for me. >> No. >> All right. I just had a couple of very minor ones. Um, under the enforcement order ratification for 359 King Street. Uh, in the first actually second
sentence, it says Dwight Long, owner submitted a letter stating Mr. Cataldo will represent Mr. Long. So, I just changed that to say represent him in his absence because he's basically referring to himself as Mr. Long. Um, then about
halfway through the paragraph, it says between the drafting of the enforcement order, if we could just capitalize that E and that O. And then, um, the very final thing I had was under the emergency beaver permit. Um, it says the Littleton Water Department in
conjunction with the board of health. It should just have a comma after water department and then after board of health and we're good to go. >> Perfect. With those amendments, would anybody perhaps like to make a motion to approve uh the minutes as amended?
>> I uh so move. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. We'll do a roll call vote. Ed. Edi. Kyle. Kyle. >> Max. Goodbye. Michael
>> Michael Livingston I >> Carl >> Carl Melberg I >> and myself I it is unanimous perfect thank you everybody all right um so moving right into our administrative discussion for the evening uh we'll begin with our discussion of the
enforcement order for 359 King Street uh do we have anybody here tonight to speak to this >> thank you my name is uh Mark Arnold with GD consulting um where the wireless consultants have been hired by Dwight Long to address the enforcement order and also um we're also doing some other
work on his property. Um hopefully we can give the commission a quick update and just get some clarification on timelines um for the restoration um that the commission noted in their enforcement order. Um we have been um hired and have done a full site delineation of the wetland resource
areas and we are waiting for a pending um site survey um which will show um the wetland locations and also confirm where the the uh the river the buffer zone is and give us um a firm number on the trees that are in the buffer zone um to guide us through the mitigation. Also
give us um better specs on how to best um plant back um what was lost in terms of of some trees. Um we did hope that we could get a little bit of reprieve on submitting a restoration plan because we do plan on filing a notice of intent um
for um the property and so it felt appropriate to um have the tree cutting be just placed under an after the fact notice of intent along with other work. That way it would be under a file number um and in a formal record with the commission. Um and uh so we do have um a
general count of what trees were in the buffer zone. roughly about 36 um stumps give or take based on um field measurements pacing the buffer zone out off the delineation. Um but we do want to have a survey plan to show the commission where um all those trees are and then give you a table along with um
the planned um tree uh plantings that we'd be putting back. um along with some potential discussion about um where those should be best placed to kind of um balance out um your no disturb zone while also um potentially opening up more um upland meadow habitat to the um
fields um which the owner is looking to kind of enhance particularly with pollinator habitat. >> Did I hear Mark 36 trees were cut down? >> Uh that's our that's our current count. Um, again, it's based on a a step off the um the buffer zone off the wetland
line that we hung. So, um it may be less than depending on um the pacing of the buffer zone that was set up in the field just to give us approximation of where the buffer zone currently lands. Um and that is also approximately counting some of the areas that we there were some stumps that were ground. So, we did have
um those as well um counted as kind of a tree that was lost in that location. So that's currently the the the theory and again some of those are are in the outer buffer zone. Um so they may have been approvable to be removed. Um but um at the same time there was nothing without
a permit. So um we understand that there is enforcement. We do understand that u we do need to do a restoration plan and we uh plan to submit a notice of intent um for that after the fact work and that would include planting plan to restore um trees that were cut.
Thank you, Mark. So, you're essentially proposing um delaying a >> Yeah, we're asking we're we're because we have a survey plan. We're waiting on a survey plan that may take a few weeks to come through. Um we could definitely like like like slowly release get get
you information. Um and it would slowly pile up or we could kind of have a more enclosed package um for that. Um I I do suspect we'll have a notice of intent ready in the next 6 to 8 weeks um because there's some engineering also involved. Um so I think overall and and
we're also discussing um um kind of some outlining some basic maintenance long-term maintenance of the fields um to give the commission just kind of understanding of of how it's been maintained in the past and work through um how it's been maintained in the future particularly so we can avoid enforcement orders in the future. That's
one thing the homeowner wants to make sure is that he understands his boundaries, what he can maintain. Um particularly because it has been an agricultural field for um decades going back hundreds of years. Um and it's been definitely agriculture heavily agriculture in the past um um since the
'60s based on aerials. So um that was our our hope. So I I think I guess the question is is is the commission um really eager to see a restoration in trees planted this fall or is it okay if we waited till spring for planting? Um the applicant again does acknowledge the
enforcement order and and does intend to resolve that. >> How do the commissioners feel about uh that proposal? >> I think Mark said exactly what I was thinking at the end there that the best case scenario we see a restoration plan in the middle of
October. It's not going to get into put into place this fall with no weather changing, right? It's we're missing your planting season. The caveat to that is the enforcement order is going to stay in place, right? We can't lift the enforcement order until there's something in place, right?
So, as long as the owner is comfortable with having that enforcement order, you know, kind of linging there, lingering there, um I would I already assumed that not much would be happening until the spring on this property anyway. >> Yeah. All work has ceased. There's no other activities happening in the buffer zone um in the fields basically. There's
nothing really much else to do out there in terms of um typical field maintenance for the year. So everything's just going to be kind of let quiet. Um we did have one question that was the logs that were take the trees that were cut down. The logs are still in the field in a pile and um I'm concerned about that creating
a dead zone in the field because of the pile. And so we were wondering if we could remove the logs um from the field. Um we wouldn't we we the stumps are going to stay in place. We're not touching the stumps. Not going to do any more work. We're just basically removing the logs. Um so that way we don't create any dead zones of grass and vegetation
in the fields. Um that's one thing that as I was walking the site um I was thinking we should probably pull them out just cuz otherwise when we pull them out, if we wait 6 months, a year, uh 6 months, um 3 months, it's eventually going to kill the grass underneath it and then we're going to have bare areas and I'd rather just leave it as stable
ground because it is stable right now. that goes with the assumption that you don't create dead areas with your removal efforts, right? I mean, it has to be a a low mechanical removal of some sort where you're not >> Yeah, they they they they did go in
there and cut these trees up and process them without ringing or anything else. These fields are are pretty dry. We're in a drought right now, so it's the soils are very dry right now. Um there has been uh farm equipment going through these fields um even on aerials. You can see the old farming tracks that went through um from time to time. So, um I
I'm pretty comfortable right now because it's so dry that we can get out pretty quickly. Um and I definitely will make sure that we don't if there is anything that's loose that we'll make sure we see that. I know there's one spot that I did talk to the to Dwight Long today about getting some um a wild flower wildflower
buffer zone seed mix into an area that was a little bit kind of um raked up along one of the banks just cuz it looked like just it looks like it is um not as stabilized as it should be. And I I was we were talking about getting some some wildlife seed mix down to help some stabilize some other areas in the fields
just to make sure that we keep things stable while we um file the notice of intent. >> So are the logs currently are logs currently scattered across the property? >> Um they're currently in a pile. Uh let me see if I can I can I can actually
show you. >> How big are we talking about the logs? Uh there this there there's this pile right here on the screen now. So the the diameters are from probably six to 18
in. Um >> yeah size. >> They're Yeah, they're mostly red maples. They definitely show a lot of like evidence of decay. They definitely were a lot of leaners and weird angled trees out there that some of them were definitely not like nice mature crowning
red maples. Um, and some of the stumps definitely showed some decay as well. But that's the pile we'd like to we'd like to get that off because they're they're they're not just scattered individ if they're individual, we'd have I think we'd have be a little better off, but because they're all clustered, it's better I think it's better just to
come and grab them all out and get them out of there so that way that we don't have a dead zone of grass in that location. Um, and this is just out this is this this is outside. It's on it's it's along the buffer zone. This this orange marker here on the left side of the screen is approximately the buffer zone based on pacing.
>> So the logs are inside the buffer zone. >> Uh we yeah we're pretty confident they are in the buffer zone. Yes. And here's another shot looking the other direction. >> My my my feeling is just to leave them. I don't think they're going to even if
they they're not going to create a dead zone as soon as you lift them up. I think vegetation will start growing. Um because we don't have a restoration plan and this would be part of that. >> It would be. Yeah.
>> We we wouldn't plan on using them unless we were going to put them along the edge of the field because this is an agricultural field that was um pastured and mowed. Um so leaving logs on the ground would not be our intention for restoration. Yeah, we don't have a plan yet. So,
I'm not really in favor of touching anything that's currently within the enforcement order, >> but others might have a different feeling. You can make the argument that this is
actually going to provide shelter for small animals over the winter. >> I was thinking that too, Ed, and then I started thinking what happens in the spring. >> Well, then they get >> we have a conversation where we're removing habitat like we take care of this now and we're not having a habitat
conversation in the spring because I that's where I assume this was going. >> Yeah. I I'm just bothered by the fact that this all happened. you know, some 36 trees were cut down and now we're being asked to wait for repairs until
their nice fancy plan is put together of what they want to build and all this other stuff. And it just I'm not saying that this was done on purpose, but it it just doesn't feel right. I don't know. Yeah, we we we we just thought it would
be nice to have the restoration plan under an order of conditions versus just under enforcement order. It it does create a better tracking mechanism for everybody in sense of having a DP number with a COC eventually that kind of tracks everything and that just felt
like a better envelope. Again, we can submit a restoration plan earlier if you want, but it's not going to have the level of detail that you'd see if we waited a few more weeks to have it on an NOI plan. So, that again, that's that's the kind of thing. Again, if if um if we
need to leave the logs there, um Dwight's okay with that. Um he just thought it'd be good to get them out. I'm just I mean, it's it's wood that's either going to it's going to be taken out now or later, and it's just going to rot while it's left there, and that doesn't really feel to be a good use of the wood, unfortunately. And I know that it's I'm it's it's too bad the trees are
gone, but now it's I I'm just thinking about getting the wood processed and having it have its next life um span used better than versus letting it rot over the winter time. So that's just again we we can talk the trees could be removed later on this year or two. So if
we wait a few months, it may not be a big deal either. So we can have that discussion later on, too. So at this point, we'll leave the logs in place. Um, and but we just were hoping that we could just kind of again fold the restoration plan into a notice of intent. You'd actually have an notice of
intent, permit number with tracking and order of conditions with conditions about the restoration that would all be recorded at the registry of deeds. So you got a better kind of just overall compassing. And I think for this property particularly, I think the commission would it would be nice to have this whole situation rolled into an order that's recorded at the registry
for the record of posterity versus an enforcement order that sometimes can be forgotten about unless someone looks in the file. >> You're talking the end of the year basically. >> Uh I'm thinking we we'd be filing for filing in late in in mid to late
November and for Thanksgiving at the end of the November. Yeah. I mean, it's somewhere around there. Again, we could submit a restoration plan and and and have a discussion about that early on. I just feel that it's kind of just stretching things out and um resulting in more meetings um than condensing
things and making it more of an informal discussion on everything. >> I can live with that as long as the enforcement order stays in place. >> I would agree too. Um, but circling back to the logs, um, Kyle, you did raise a
very good point about if, you know, essentially if we leave these logs in place, we're going to be disrupting habitat likely in the spring. Uh, do the board members have a strong feeling one way or the other about removing them at this point? So, are you saying, Andrew, that
potentially uh we get a bunch of rain, a heavy snow, winter, bunch of rain, it gets it might be a messier project to do, then do it now while it's dry. >> Yeah. And to Kyle's point, if there are
animals, you know, nesting in there or, you know, they make that their home, we're really going to be disrupting them uh >> come spring. So, yeah. And I >> or even later in the year. >> I guess I could agree >> except for the one thing though that
we're giving those animals somewhere to shelter for the winter. Even though they're going to lose their home in the spring, they may well move in the spring anyway. So it it could probably go either way. You can make a case either way. >> Yeah. I think if they're looking here for a shelter, they can find something
50 yards away in the woods that is just as efficient as this. I think I think I'd be more concerned. Now I'm starting to think about if it gets really wet. >> It could. >> That's true. It's going to make a a mess. >> They're not going to come in and do
anything with the logs with the ground's wet. That'd just be foolish. If the ground is frozen, on the other hand, now you've got a really solid place that you're not going to dig up. So, like I say, it can go either way for me.
Michael, uh, how do you feel about it? >> Uh, I don't really see a problem with moving them now. Um, I mean, whatever's underneath them, a dead zone or not, isn't going to change at this point. and uh you know if if they're
going to be moved whether it's now or in late November or next spring um it just seems like doing it when the uh field is dry is probably the best choice in in my mind.
>> And Jim, did did you have um any thoughts on this? >> Uh no, thank you for asking, Andrew. And I think the points made have been well made and I'm I don't have anything to add at this. So, thank you. >> Of course. All right. So, it sounds like
um the board is flexible in terms of uh moving the logs at this point. Uh um and uh I I suppose u does the board have any preference as to when they could do it? Just as soon as possible. Probably
probably as soon as possible since we're still dry. >> Yeah. >> Except it's gonna rain tomorrow, right? >> Yeah. Except for tomorrow. Yeah. >> Can they just make sure they let Tim know when it's going to happen? >> Yeah. Abs. Absolutely. What what I would
do is Yeah, we'll let Tim know when it's going to happen. Um we'll watch the weather for rain. Um he's very used to dealing. He's really used to watching the weather out there. And um we'll also send photographs once the paw's removed for Tim to see what the conditions of the area are after it's removed.
>> That sounds great. >> And I'll also I'll give I'll give Tim an update um ideally early next month in the first week of November about where we are with the notice of intent just to keep the commission up to speed on where we are with the notice of intent and I I'll push the engineers and surveyors along as fast as I can so we can get
this before you. Sounds like a plan. Is everybody okay? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Excellent. So, we'll keep the active enforcement order in place. Um, and we'll look forward to some updates uh through Tim at our next meeting.
>> Thank you so much. Have a good night. >> You, too. Thank you, Mark. >> All right. So, we will go ahead and jump into our 7:45 p.m. uh public hearing, notice of intent, 19 IPSWitch Drive, uh the demolition of an existing single family
dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling. Uh we don't yet have a D file number for it, but is there anybody uh here to speak to this project? I see Scott Hayes in the gallery here.
Scott, um, if you're here to speak to this, you are on mute. >> Good evening. Are you waiting for me? >> Good evening. Yes, please. >> I'm sorry. I I >> That's okay. Well, as you added me as a panelist, I uh I lost the last 30 seconds of audio. So, um good evening.
I'm I'm Scott Hayes. I'm here uh from Foresight Engineering for 19 Ipsswitch Drive. Uh it's a single family house on the lake uh off Goldmith Street. Um I can
start with some sharing here. So, that's just a locust. I'm sure you're all familiar with Westchester Drive, Ipsswitch Drive off of Goldsmith Street. This is an existing um single family house on about a half an acre uh
that uh the has just been purchased and they're proposing to raise the house and build a new house and generally the same footprint. Um, this is the site plan here. Shows everything.
So, we we've got is in red here. This is the existing single family house. Um, the existing driveway, this area here, and in the pink is the proposed house. And, um, the proposed driveway. Um,
we've got bordering vegetative wetlands. These were delineated by Carrot Envir Environmental Consulting in August. Um, immediately on the the east and west property lines here in blue and on the west
uh side over here. So, basically got wetlands on both sides of the developed site area. So, when we went out and did the survey, we picked up the edge of the lawn. All the large um overstory trees that were uh within
the the yard area were all have all been identified. We did our best to preserve as many of those as we could. Got a septic system up here kind of in the middle between the two buffer zone areas. And the lawn kind of falls around
here and then down through here the existing lawn. And then there's there's a um a lightly wooded uh non-law area that you know between the edge of the BBW
um and the edge of the lawn while these trees over here on this side as well. So the the site is about a half an acre. is largely developed almost to the full extent of it. Um the exception of those small
areas on the east and west sides. Um uh what we're proposing to do is remove the existing house, construct new house and a new driveway, utilize the existing septic system, uh relocate the existing
septic tank slightly. It's currently septic tank is right here. Just moving it slightly in the same general area just to meet code offset to the foundation wall in the back. Um and regrading the lot a little bit. We've
got a very high water table out here. So um really had to pick up the house quite a bit um just to keep it uh out of the water table and keep things dry. or at about 18 to 24 inches here
and through all the test holes through the site. Um we the water table is pretty consistently at about 24 in from existing grade. So we're kind of a hard hard deck there for for a basement floor level. Fortunately,
this is a ranch type house. It's only a single story. elevate the slab a bit um and uh not really create a a mountainous house. It's only a single story with a shallow u with a shallow gable.
Um so we're we're proposing to construct the dwelling here, add the driveway here. It's essentially the same location as it currently is. the house is slightly larger uh and the driveway is a little
bit wider to meet the garage doors. Um here um and uh we we've managed to uh or we proposed to put erosion controls around the limit of work which
uh is outside the 50ft buffer zone and follows the edge of lawn across the back of the lot and then kind of follows the 50ft buffer through the lawn area on the left and right sides. We're
proposing two or two sheds over here on the east side of the lot. Uh this larger shed is proposed to remain and the smaller shed is uh really in in disrepair. They just want to remove that. Um and the
um we've also um I should note uh within the buffer zone, there's three uh trees that are proposed to be removed. They're beyond in the 50 foot zone, but within the 100, they're all right in this area here. It's 12in maple, 14inch maple, and a uh
16 inch that 16 inch. Yeah, 16inch maple uh here. So, these three trees here are proposed to be removed. and we've proposed to plant u six sugar maples along the perimeter of the yard area uh as mitigation for that.
So we've got three proposed in this general area here along the edge of the lawn and three on the eastern side just the lawn area just to beef up those those buffers. Um
so that's what we're proposing to do and I'm happy to answer your questions. Uh, >> Scott, do you happen to have any photos of the existing dwelling or any overlays of it? >> I do. Oh, lovely.
Uh, what would you like to see? Um, I can just scroll through the photos or, um, this is the standing at the other side of Switch Drive facing the existing house. Um >> yeah, if you could run through them, I think that would be very >> Yeah. Um so this is just a little bit
closer the front of the house on the left hand side where the existing what's left of the deck is. Um you can see the lawn the lawn area and there's there's some nice uh large like oaks and maples kind of uh that they they've kept
through the years as you can see as we go through the photos. You know, there's this big triple here that's fairly close to the edge of wet, right along the edge of the lawn. And then you got these three large trees. Those are all proposed to remain.
Um, this is the same the end view of the house. So, we're just looking at the deck from the street. Now, we're looking at from the side. Kind of dips down here and then goes m the great goes up behind
the house. That's where the existing septic system is up here. This is the rear of the house. The rear of the house again, basically standing. There's a manhole cover there for the um I think that's for the debox.
The septic tank is like over here. This these are just um they put boards over the debox for uh uh they had a title five done property sale. They haven't mowed the lawn in a while.
Um so this is standing um you know looking back across this. So you're just to um the east of the house looking back to the driveway area. That car there is the pickup truck. Um,
>> is that the tree that's proposed to be removed? >> That that is one of the trees proposed to be removed. Yes. >> Can Can you explain, I guess, why? What? All right. That would be the one in the corner of the house there. So, there's two in front of the shed, I guess, or we
we can't quite see that. Is that true? >> Yeah, those are those are just off to the left of the photo. So, you see that paneling there? That's um that that that those two other trees are basically supporting corners of this makeshift
shed here. Maybe I've got a good picture of that. Let's keep going. >> No, no, that's all right. Haven't looked at these since I I took them in July. That's the good shed that is proposed to remain.
There we go. So, >> so >> if you want to if you if you want to call that a shed, I mean, we called it a shed. It is, you know, kind of three walls and a and a roof, but it's very very makeshift. It's kind of attached to
these trees. Why are you taking the trees out? >> Yeah, that's where I was going. I guess the >> take the shed, sure, the garage, whatever you want to call it. But why do you feel a need to take the trees down? Those two and the other one you showed us by the driver. >> Well, the other one's in the building
footprint. I understood the first one. These >> actually these two >> Yeah, the first one is uh is in the building. >> Okay. What? You don't want to have a tree going up through your living room? >> Well, so so so >> but the trees they don't seem to be
doing anyone any harm. uh you know the the the um our client asked that we could remove he was going to remove the shed and and he asked that that those be removed too. You know the way that the site grading worked out it lands right
on the periphery of the work. So I mean other than you know kind of being in close proximity to the shed in the building I mean they look fairly healthy. get back to the photos. >> I would try and I would agree with the
discussion. I'd try and keep those trees if possible. >> Yeah. >> Move the shed, leave the trees. >> I mean, they are they they they appear to be in good health. I'm not an arborist, but you know, they they have decent canopy and um they seem to look
>> and they're not blocking access to the quote unquote good. >> Well, no. Um basically, excuse me, excuse me. Um, so we've got the erosion control line kind of coming up like right to the face of the
existing shed there. So, you know, we could bring that erosion control line up around trees. I mean, they aren't it's not necessary to remove them for construction and I I don't I I wouldn't say that they were
a hazard. Um, >> say just leave them. >> Yeah. Did you say that new house was going to be on a slab? >> It is it's it's a slab, but it's it it will be um
um there there is a there is a basement. Um it's just we're basically setting the slab at at about one foot above the water table and we're building up an 8ft wall from there and then a single story. So, um
there's there's a a small basement. A lot a lot of the um footprint is slab on grade. The garage uh portion of the rear uh of the rear elevation of the house is uh it it is slab on grade. And there's
about I think there's maybe 600 square feet in the See on the site plan shows those lines. So, so the proposed is in pink here. Um,
this dotted line is is slab on grade and the proposed garage on the right hand side. That dotted line, that's slab on grade. So, there there's a full foundation at the lowest point of existing grade on the lot, which is kind of on the left hand side here. So,
they've got a small basement. I think it's about maybe 500 square feet. Um, just kind of get some uh basic uh um services, water heaters, kind of, you know, um storage kind of stuff in the
basement. But it's not it's >> current house has a basement also. >> Um it has a crawl space. It it it's not much of a house. I mean, it's it's basically, you know, one of those
surviving camps that uh has has evolved over time. It's it's in very bad shape structurally. I mean, it's not not um something that can be rehabilitated, unfortunately. But you did bring up a point just now, though. It's a surviving camp building,
if you will. And you're proposing to put a real house here with all of the real activity that goes with a real house. >> Well, it's been used as a real house for years. >> Okay.
>> Interesting. >> Scott. Yeah. Yeah. And Scott, did you have any other uh photos that you wanted to share with us before? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um let's see what else we've got. You sound like someone excited to show something.
>> Well, you know, I took them month, you know, in July. Yeah. Back when it was still raining once in a while. Um um so this is this is the back of looking back toward Ipsswitch Drive. And this is the the the structurally sound shed that they want to keep. And there's those two
trees we were just discussing. And see the house off in the distance here. This is the left hand side. So all cleared and lawn mowed lawn up to a tree line over here. And then like that's the last one.
That's the last one. >> Thank you. That's actually very helpful to uh kind of get a a glimpse of what we're looking at here. Um, does the uh the board have any questions or comments for Scott? >> Are there any drainage issues we need to
think about on this that would drain into the 50 foot? >> We're not really changing the the drainage characteristics of the site. I mean, we're elevating it a little bit uh in the area of the dwelling, but the
site currently kind of drains to the east and to the west to the lower uh sides on either side of the dwelling. Currently, we're picking it up, you know, two maybe three feet uh of grade at the
um at the front at the front of the building. And get back to the front of the building. Um, so we're going to do is we'll elevate
the grade here and then in the in the back of the house, we're going to match the it's already been elevated the rear of the building for the septic system that was replaced 10 or 12 years ago. Um, so we're kind of matching that rear yard
grade and bring bringing that kind of forward and then it'll slope slightly down toward the street, but everything generally drains and swailes left and right and not to the to the street or east and west up toward the wetlands, but we don't have a tremendous amount of
grade here. >> So things move slowly. Um, there's not really high erosion potential or high runoff potential. Is the impervious space of the new house, the roof and what have you about
the same size as this one? >> It's it's bigger. Um, we've added a a twocar garage, so uh I think you know I anticipated this question too, sir.
>> You came prepared. So the uh the existing house is about,00 square ft and the proposed house is about 15 about 1,600 square ft. So we're increasing the impervious cover by about
600 square feet. I'm thinking about one that we had earlier previously where they were putting a porch over or cover over their raised deck and we had a lot of conversations about water and where it goes and how it gets there and all
that. So, I'm wondering if any of that would come into play here. >> Yeah, I mean it all kind of dry drains over land nicely, you know, uh it won't discharge to the street. It's just and the lot itself, you know, isn't, you
know, terribly small for the lake. It's over >> half an acre, which is pretty good. >> Um, >> but we've got I mean, the challenge of the site is the is the water table. I mean, it doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to mitigate drainage.
>> I mean, what could could we reasonably do? Not very much. I mean, we could put >> like a crush stone infiltration trench along the driveway, something, you know, along the the roof eaves, but we're not going to have I mean, we're going to end up having infiltration that's probably
in or at the seasonal high water level, you know. Um, is it going to be a paved driveway? >> Yeah. >> Does a street have does drive does it have sewers on it? It it has uh does
have catch basins. Um yeah, there's a there's a drain. >> Um there you are. So So to to the right of this photo, I'd say maybe 150 ft, there's a pair of catch basins uh in Ipsswitch Drive, and that's upgraded
from the lot. So it's going uphill towards Goldmith Street. Um, so but there's um there's also a a culvert. There's a it I don't know if you call it an intermittent stream, but there's a channel, a drainage ditch, you know, that uh few hundred feet up the road
there where those catch basins discharge to. So it picks it up there. And then additionally on the other side there are another set of basins and another drainage hitch that run across the road maybe 100 feet down to the the left of the
photo here. So there is drainage in the street but I mean the way this site drains not going to drain to the street. It's going to drain to the low areas to the east and west of the house >> on on the lot.
It's pretty clear that they don't do anything with the lawn or the previous people I should say. >> Well, it's been a while. >> Presumably, the new people will. So, I'm just thinking fertilizer and all that getting into the
somehow restricting that. No, it's going to be >> difficult because if you >> It's going to be difficult. >> It won't be difficult. Say you can't use it. It'll be difficult to enforce it though, >> right? Yeah. that's in there in the
faucet and it's still within the it's mean it's not it's not still another 50 ft before it gets to the BBW >> except I think they're putting a lawn all the way out to it.
>> Well, there's a lawn already. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh you know I mean there are you got to look on the bright side here. I mean there's a lot of nice large trees that are being retained and preserved and noted. So, we really tried to, you know, crunch the footprint to stay out
of your out of the 50 foot and also to preserve a lot of those nice large trees. >> Yeah. >> And you just and you scored two two more tonight. So, we're >> appreciate that. Yeah. >> Yeah. And the neighbors will be happy to
have uh the eyesore gone. >> Yeah. I mean, I I I don't have a problem with it. It's all outside the 50. >> And Scott, did >> I'm sorry, Ed. Go ahead. >> No, no, no. Go ahead.
>> Oh, I was just going to ask um so the existing system is that being removed and then the new system put essentially in that same vicinity. I know it's really tight back there. >> No, that's staying existing leech fields to remain. And uh the only thing we need
to do is is is slight is relocate the septic tank at the rear of the building slightly to fit the footprint there. >> Gotcha. So, yeah, the leech field is is has an approved capacity and they're limited to that and we're not we're not touching
the septic system. >> So, you're going to dig out the existing tank and >> well, I'm hoping we could we could um we can hoist it, you know, uh we could pump it and and move it because we're just moving it 10 feet and turning it 90 degrees. So,
I was really no one wants to be responsible for moving those, you know, then if they leak, but uh seems like a good opportunity to reuse something if they can. >> Um >> Scott, with the um the new installation
of the new septic tank and the high water table, is there going to be any proposed dewatering? >> No, I don't think so. I you know, we're we're basically digging down to about the water table. I mean, maybe about a
foot above or at the water table. Um the the seasonal high. U right now it the water table's probably down quite quite low. Um but um we shouldn't need to go any deeper than than at or just above
the water table. So I don't anticipate we need to dewater out here. >> I guess deep enough for a septic tank. That's >> well see the grade climbs back there. So that that that septic tank and pump chamber are in fill associated with the
leech field that was built before. So those are already elevated, you know. We're at 280 >> 283 284, you know. So yeah, we got water at 2. >> Yeah. What was water at the test?
>> If you could read my tiny little script there, water's at 280. I guess I guess one of my worries of this depending on when this is constructed, it wouldn't be that difficult to tap into that water and all of a sudden have
a flooded site that you're working in. >> Well, the deepest thing going in the ground is a septic tank, you know. So, um, and that >> really your basement. >> Yeah. Well, the basement's at 281, so
Yeah. So, so put above estimated seasonal high water. I mean, that's basically how I started the design site. You know, I looked at the water table. I'm like, we don't want to fight that. So, can we can we build this up and and have it not be um >> you know, from an engineering design
point and and have it not look bad and work for the site? And I think we we achieved that. >> Excellent. Uh does the board have any other question or or comment for uh Scott? >> Yeah. >> I do have one other quick question
because I I just forget what this is, but um when it comes to impervious area increasing, what do we what's the what's the number the percentage before storm water calculations become required? So, I know Chase is usually the one that knows that number. >> Yeah.
>> Um and I'm hoping that that's not the case here. I don't think it is, but that might be something that we should check. >> Off the top of my head, I can't think of it, but I can I can look into that tomorrow, and if it does trigger that, I'll let Scott know um so he can make
the appropriate revisions to to meet that. >> Yeah, I just have him take a peek at it now instead of the next meeting when when Chase catches it. I don't think they are adding a lot between the garage and the and the driveway because what you showed in the
pictures, the current driveway is not paved, >> right? >> So, from that perspective, percentage- wise of what's there now versus what's going in there, it's it's a somewhat large increase.
I don't know relative to the whole lot, though. I I didn't think we met thresholds. I did review the the the bylaw regulations, but I again >> that could very well be the case, Scott. I'm not saying that it does. I just would rather I'm just bringing it up to
just have somebody check on our end so that in two weeks or whenever you come back it it's not spurring on you. >> So it's uh 1,000 square feet or 5% increase in impervious. Yeah. >> You 5% increase of the impervious.
>> Yep. So all activities that result in a net increase of impervious within the buffer zone >> uh and areas subject to protection of more than a th000 square feet or 5% whichever is less. >> Well, you're adding the garage, you're adding the driveway, and the house looks
wider than the previous one. >> Uh five 5% though of what? 5% of existing impervious or 5% of the lot area. >> 5% of existing impervious. >> 5% of existing impervious would be a tremendously small number. I mean >> yeah that sounds like a small number.
>> Sounds like little >> that. Well, no. I mean that's why I thought maybe it had to do with the as a fraction lot area as opposed to impervious cover. But uh we should look into that. But I noticed your temporary soil
stockpile area. Is that what you dig out to do the foundation and septic movement or is that soil you're going to need to do things like the driveway and stuff? What is that? Well, so you know, they're
going to they'll they'll be um they'll be crushing up this house and probably from an excavator to to to a a container that's on a truck already. So, I there won't be construction material, but we
will need to bring Phil into the site to fill in the front yard a little bit, bring the grade up there. So, this is we're talking about, you know, granular soil or temporary stockpiling of um top soil. >> Expect there's a ton of top soil out
here, maybe a foot. Um >> where where are you fixing to stockpile other materials, the building materials? >> And so, >> we've got the we're going to stage in the in the driveway, the existing proposed driveway area. That's >> okay.
>> It makes it makes sense. The grade is very level there. There's already a driveway there. I mean, it's very accessible. >> And the shoulders Yeah, the shoulders on Nips, which are are pretty nice, too. I mean, they're they're not, you know, >> topsy topsy turvy. They the um the grade
comes right up to the back of the curb. So, >> the plan didn't show where you were going to stockpile. That's why I was asking. >> Um >> other than the soil. You've got the soil stockpile, but it didn't talk about where you were going to put your construction materials and the like,
which you just said what you were going to put in the driveway. So, >> yeah, or existing ground drive, I guess. I was going to bring the uh stockpile up too as far as protecting it when uh if
it's raining or or what have you just to present it prevent it from uh washing around there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Even that area think we would want kind of a second row of erosion controls
around the base of that stockpile. Scott and we don't typically we usually require you to move stockpile material outside of the 100 foot on any other projects and I get that that's not really feasible here. Um so but because of that I think it requires some added
control mechanisms. Um so it's kind of just you know a backwards C around the >> keeping everything up gradient. Um we're going to want to see additional controls. There is actually a small section there outside the 100 where it
could be moved. All right. All the access to the site is that's where they're going to be going >> pretty much. >> Well, yeah. I mean, there's that. There's the uh electric telecom service running through there and a substantial amount of is probably the most filled
area. So, how you how you going to stockpile land where you need to land? That's no surprise. It's the only spot available. >> Yeah. Um, you know, I considered a secondary uh erosion control. The grade
is very it's so flat there and we it was right kind of near the where the erosion, you know, the perimeter erosion control line was. So, I didn't think we needed to do it. We can add in a secondary, you know, downgradient. >> It's fine, but if it rains, like your your soil pile is going to spread.
>> Yeah, I've seen it. I know. I've been around the block. >> Yeah. more than me, I'm sure. >> Yeah. >> Well, see, sites like this, you don't worry as much because you don't have steep slopes to, you know, it's it's pretty flat out here, so water doesn't
get away from you too bad. So, it's the steep grades that get you. When those get stripped of soil, those can turn into problems real quick. >> Just just want to know, we do have a hand raised in the audience, so when you guys are ready, >> just gonna say >> Oh, yes. Thank you. Yeah, Alicia D,
sorry to keep you waiting. Um, does anybody else have a comment or question before we uh go to Alicia? Perfect. If we could bring uh Alicia in, that would be fantastic. And Alicia, you should be able to unmute yourself and uh ask uh your question or uh make your
comments. >> Yes. So, I' I've just done that. This is actually Bill Morris at 28 Westchester Drive. Um >> Oh, thank you, Bill. I'm Elisha's partner. Uh so yeah, we we live next door to the uh to the thing you have
marked as wetlands. So when uh we've we've been looking at building a barn on the other side of the wetlands. So uh we put some time into trying to understand what the keep house would be. And uh we we did find
uh a record of a meeting where they were not listed as wetlands. They were actually listed as something else. I'm I'm I've been trying to look for the uh document that we found. It's it's in
the Littleton town records. Uh I've not been able to find it. Do you sure that that they really should be described as wetlands? >> So a delineation typically has to be redone every three years. The wetlands
and resource areas do you know move around uh that's probably not the best terminology um over time and evolve. Um and in terms of you know wetlands on your side um you would you know need to get that delineated to get a true sense
of where you know if any you know where any boundaries would be. Um so you know a document uh you know from 10 years ago might accurately describe you know conditions on the ground and then again it might not you know wetlands shrink
and uh you know expand uh due to sight conditions but um but yeah >> I hope I just want to make sure that the restraints that you're putting on or all the conditions you're putting on this building are correct for the uh land.
So, so if you if you've done a recent survey and you do consider it wetlands, that's that's great. I just wanted to make sure that that that was accurate. >> Absolutely. And as a part of this notice of intent, uh um Scott and his firm did have to have a wetland scientist go out
and uh you know, actually delineate the wetlands. So, um we should have a pretty solid bearing in terms of where uh those are out there. >> Yeah. Scott, can you speak to that a little bit? where connected and where things flow. So we can
>> well I mean we we that's not our our wheelhouse at at at Foresight Engineering but we work with uh Karen Environmental Consulting a lot Chuck Karen um and so we contact Chuck to come out inspect the site um for the presence of wetlands because it looked suspect to
us when we did a walk through and he came out and identified by soils and vegetation to wetland resource areas you know, east and west of the site as shown in blue here. In his report, you
know, Chuck is very thorough, does visual inspection of uh the plant vegetation to determine the boundary, does uh soil borings, the D um BVW field data forms. He's very thorough. So, that's we like Chuck. He does a good
job. Um but uh as far as identifying what's what is a wetland under Massachusetts law and documenting that I defer to his report but this is uh you know pretty clear to answer the question
um the fellow who asked the question um these were delineated by wetland scientists so you would have like um Andrew said you'd have to have your own delineation done on your property to make the determination of where you can
build. >> Yeah. I mean, he just wants to make sure that he has the same he's told the same thing that >> Mr. Hayes is being told, right? Well, I mean, if if it were me, you know, I would I would start if I were concerned about the presence of
wetlands, I'd call consultant and have them go out and flag it and identify things that are jurisdictional under the uh the bylaw, the act, you know, and then you could see what where what you what you've got, >> right? Two.
>> Yeah. >> Perfect. Bill, does that answer your question? I'm I'm afraid we did uh lose connection for about 10 seconds drawing Carl uh Car Cole's comment, but I think I do have the gist of it. Yeah. So, the key point
that I understood is that that has been recently uh assessed as wetlands and the borders established and it does uh and you've your your site around those new borders. So, thank you very much. >> Of course. And if you have any
procedural questions, feel free to reach out, you know, to our department and happy to answer uh answer those for you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Perfect. Uh is there anybody else in the audience that would like to ask a
question or or give a comment? Okay. I don't see any hands raised. Um any other questions or comments uh from the board? Okay. Uh, do we feel like a sidewalk is necessary for this uh, particular project or we pretty comfortable
>> what we I I feel pretty comfortable with it. >> Yeah, I feel like we went on the sidewalk with Scott's uh, photos. I think he did a pretty good job having that >> beautifully done. >> I was going to say the same thing. >> Yeah. And it's a fairly small lot
overall. large as it relates to the lake though. >> Yeah, about half an acre. We're probably disturbing about half of it. So about 10,000 square feet maybe or quarter acre. >> So if you Scott, if you could just
revise the plan showing those two trees remain, that'd be great. >> And the secondary erosion control around the stock pile. >> It is everything else we've talked about as well. Yeah. and explicitly uh call out the stockpile for building materials
because I'm sure Sarah will want to see that as well. >> Uh just designate the um um construction staging material storage area like in the proposed driveway area. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay.
>> Perfect. And uh with that uh we'll have you back on October 21st for our next uh meeting. and and we'll go from there. And hopefully by then you'll have a DP file number. >> Oh, the uh they didn't issue the file
number yet. I forgot to check today. >> And they >> uh No, they they haven't issued one yet. >> Yeah, I think there's enough of some changes to plans that we would hold off until our next meeting. >> Okay. Uh when's your next meeting? >> Check in on the storm water. Uh
>> October 10:21. Okay, >> perfect. Thank you so much. Uh >> yeah. >> Yeah, and we'll see you on October 21st. >> All right, thank you for your time. >> Have a great night.
>> Good night. >> Perfect. All right, we're running a little behind schedule. Uh but we'll go ahead and open up our 8:00 PM continue public hearing. Uh, notice of intent 87 to Hadawan Road, D file number 204-1027,
construction of a two family residence. Is there anybody here to speak to this project? >> Brian Maretti here with Marti Engineering. >> Good evening. >> Um, I couldn't see, but if there may be
a Carolyn Reed as well. Uh, yes, we do have a Carolyn Reed in the audience. >> If you could allow her in, I'd appreciate that. >> Hello. >> Good evening. >> So, uh, if I may begin, um,
>> absolutely. My name is Brian Marcetti um with Mccardi Engineering. Uh here tonight as well is Carolyn Reid. Um she's the executive director of Habitat for Humanity North Central Massachusetts. Um a little history on
this uh I guess all of this is I was on the board of directors for Habitat for Humanity myself for uh 10 years. My term just expired. So now as a civil engineer, we're helping Habitat out now with their uh engineering for properties
uh moving forward. So uh this particular property um was listed by the Littleton affording affordable housing trust. um they submitted an RFP that we responded to um
specifically to put a duplex, an affordable duplex on this property. Uh this land was acquired by the trust for affordable housing. It went to town meeting uh and was approved. Um so this past year we
responded to the RFP and we ended up uh winning and the deed was transferred over to Habitat. Um, Caroline, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but back in Julyish, plus or minus. So, so we've basically responded to the RFP.
We're proposing a duplex on the property as uh outlined in the afford Littleton affordable housing trust proposal. Um, and we are here today to show you how basically the whole site's going to fit
together. Um, as part of the RFP, uh, places engineering, they did some due diligence up front. Uh, they did septic testing on the property. So, they've located basically in the on the northern edge of the property where the only place suitable on the property for
septic. Um, so our plan, which if I could share my screen with you guys, go So the plan before you here reflects exactly that. So these symbols here were all the test pits and perk tests that
were done on the property. So we've located uh the septic system as far north as possible on the property. Um and we've designed the septic with a presby in order to minimize the footprint uh to the greatest extent
practicable. Um you see this between this the grading here of the septic system and the driveway. We've got a sizable area. However, this area this is the uh approved septic plan. So this is where the reserve area that's required
by title 5 is going to fit. So keeping the reserve in consideration here, we move the house as far forward to meet the required setback to the septic for the house as well as the driveway as far north as possible.
Uh so we wouldn't be in the way or take over the area that's required for a septic reserve in the future if the septic system ever did fail. So that's what's reflected here on the plan that we filed with conservation. We are as far north as possible, as close to the
street as possible, uh, in order to to fit the development, uh, which again, as we described earlier, is a duplex development. Um, we've got a a three bedroomedroom here on the south side and a two-bedroom on this side with a
carport. Uh they both have accessible ramps uh long enough to get to the finished floor, first floor elevation from the driveways. Again, these are Habitat for Humanity homes. So, they need to be designed uh to the latest stretch code and they need to be
designed uh to be accessible and meet all the ADA accessible standards uh that's required by the state. Um, as part of the project you can see here, uh, these wetlands were delineated back in June by Three Oaks Environmental. Uh,
the 50 foot buffer zone here, uh, we've we've maintained all development outside of the 50. Um, to fit the house, we have 5:1 grading on the south side here, which uh, zooming in the plan,
uh, this is the extent of our grading. I did show five feet off of our limited disturbance on erosion control barrier which is a hay bale and silt fence line or not hay bale I mean straw waddle silt fence line uh we do show over here the
detail for the waddle silk fence um so we're maintaining all the development outside of the 50 although I do show a piece of the silt fence here within the 50 but no development will be taking place within that 50 foot buffer zone um for storm water there's a total increase
on the entire property um of about 5900 square ft which equates to 8.6% on the overall property which is a little over an acre and a half in size. Uh however within the buffer zone it's 1900 square ft which equates to
only 2.7%. Uh but we are still proposing um a peace diaphragm here along the uh south edge of the driveway. So that's along the entire edge of the driveway here as well as a drywall in the
backyard. Uh which is basically a 9 by10 crush stone envelope which we show um over here in the details which were sized to handle the half inch water quality volume um which meets or
exceeds what's required by uh D in the state as well. As you know, D doesn't require storm water for single family or multif family less than uh five or fewer um units, but we're still providing that
in order to provide a half inch water quality volume for storm water here on site. Um again, we're being served by an on-site centric system. Uh water is available within Tahadawan Road, so we'll be connecting with the municipal water
service. Um the exact location into Hadawan wasn't uh identified. However, it was verified with DPW. It's in the street. So um again, wherever that water service connects, whether it's here within the 100 foot buffer zone or
outside, um it's all within our limit of impact and the limit of disturbance here. So uh there won't be any additional impact beyond what you see here on the plan. Um, so I think Caroline, unless you have anything to add, that's basically the
presentation of what we're proposing here. And if the board has any questions, we'd be happy to answer. >> Thank you, Brian. >> All right. Um, one quick question for you, Brian. the area across the street. Were there any
resource areas identified or any buffer zones that were um identified and kind of scoping out the site? I do know like right in the back of the lake. >> No, there were not. We we um our wetland scientist did walk the roadway and and
she did not identify anything within uh 100 ft of of basically all of the disturbance. >> Thank you. I'll go next. I think it's the obvious one. If anybody looked at it, Ariel, this is looks like
a completely wooded site to me. >> And if you heard anything that we just talked about with our last uh our last hearing that, you know, we are really trying to avoid clear cutting all these properties that we have in town. um to to at least whatever to what we can control, right? And I totally
appreciate um the purpose of the project and and where you're coming from with that side. Uh we still have an interest to look out for in our town as well. >> Um so can you describe what the existing vegetation area comprises of? >> Um
I mean it's it's a wooded site. I I don't have a breakdown of exactly what's out there for vegetation. Do you have a plan for the trees you're going to cut down and how you'll remediate them? >> Um, we do not. We basically the the
what's required here for the septic system. Uh, you know, pretty much if I guess I can draw a line on the plan, you know, what's what's to be left on the site is is is basically
just what's south of this line. Um and and you know potentially what's here up in the front yard, we could have some area left for trees and along the back here,
you know. So everything here within the the septic system between the septic system and the house to facilitate grading uh the force man and the house up to our erosion control line here would be would have to be cleared.
So, we're we're going to have be before we can move on this, we're going to have to see um you have to identify all the trees on the property um that are going to be removed
by by by species and size. >> What what's what's required in town, I guess, over what caliber? What size tree has to be identified? Tim, >> do you know? Go ahead. Go ahead. >> No, I was gonna ask if anybody
remembered what that number was. >> Yeah, I think you're right. >> I think it's above. >> Yeah, six was what was in my head. >> Just another note that we really need to um is where you're going to put your
stockpile, your construction materials and and um any the dirt you're going to dig out and what have you. That that's not here anywhere. So our plan generally is if we can put a basement we do and if not we do slab on
grade and we don't stockpile a whole lot of construction materials. We bring them in as needed and I would expect it would be in the driveway portion. >> Yeah, we can certainly add a note to that effect. Uh there's no reason we can't stockpile anything on this side
here where the reserve area is in the future. So and that'll at least be outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. and I would imagine we probably want to do a sitewalk um out here as well. Um
but we can kind of circle back to that um after our Q&A here. >> Brian, um one question has this been in front of the zoning board of appeals. >> Uh, not yet. >> Okay. >> We're on we're on the agenda, I believe,
either next week or in two weeks. >> Next Thursday, >> but it has board of health approval. >> Yes. >> For the president. >> Okay. >> It does. And like I said, that septic's been minimized to the maximum extent we can based on title five.
>> Yeah. And and just just for everybody's understanding, um the project went out by the town as a duplex. That's what was required in the RFP. That's what we're proposing. Um however, in the in the our district, multif
family is not allowed without um zoning board approval. So, we're proposing or we're we're we filed with them for variance for to allow the duplex. Um we if if by chance it's denied,
there's the state law now allows accessory dwelling units. The ADU um the smallest unit we have here is 1,000 square ft. The ADU requires 900 ft. So we can legally by law by state law do the same thing by separating the
building and instead of 1,000 square ft on one side it could be 900 ft. So looking at the plan scope-wise regardless of the outcome of ZBA you're basically looking at the same plan with minor modifications but there'll be no
additional increase to uh the impact within the buffer zone. >> Yeah. But overall much more disturbance to the site. >> Overall, there won't be any more disturbance regardless of the outcome of ZBA. >> Okay.
>> It's a it's a small it's a small footprint. I mean, but these these are not it's a very small house. It's one side I believe is is 1,000 ft. The other one's,200 ft. So, you're looking at a 2200 foot. The >> the the other the other thing we're
going to need on the plan is got to be colorcoded. according to the town bylaw. >> Okay, that's buffer zone own lines wetland. >> Yeah, >> if you end up going with an alternate
dwelling unit, does that affect this is more curiosity than anything else. Does that affect the ownership ability? Does it with a duplex theoretically two people can own, you know, one of each half. With an ADU, does that still
apply? >> What EOHLC has said is that the law doesn't specify whether it's ownership, >> which it doesn't. >> That they have been um vague on purpose. >> Okay. Because I'm assuming you're selling both halves.
>> We do. We do home ownership. We don't do rental. >> Right. Can these houses that uh humanity build can they be uh sold by the owner or they have to go back through? >> Not at market rate. So they are deed
restricted in perpetuity and we the town and us will be listed as agents for resale >> and the one time we've had to do it it has gone to someone else. We he came back to us. We did family selection again and went to another family earning lesson. >> That that would be my assumption.
>> Yeah. Yeah. In the early days, EOHLC had shorter deed restrictions, but right now it's in perpetuity. >> And the maintenance of the septic and things like that, you pick people that can manage that, I assume.
>> Yeah. So, we qualify them based on three criteria. Um, and one of them is willingness to partner. And that means the ability to to maintain a house. >> Okay. >> And we do when we set up their mortgage, we do set up a joint account that they
both have to pay into for the eventual need to replace a roof, do something with the septic, get the septic pumped periodically. Okay. All right. Do we have any other questions from the board members? I'm sorry. Did I just
interrupt somebody? >> No, that's fine. Um, I was just going to add that D did not have any comments. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> And we did have to continue for a month and a half because no file number, but we finally do have one.
>> Oh, perfect. Is there anybody in the audience uh that has any questions? I do see a couple of people, but I don't see any hands. And I would like to add um the process to get to this point. Uh Caroline's been
in front of the town multiple times. Um she did have an opportunity to meet with neighbors. Uh neighbors made comments, asked questions, asked us to move the house, shift it close to the street. So, we we've done all those things to this point. So, we have worked with the neighborhood to um get to the point
where we're at right now. >> Excellent. So, did we um did we want to go ahead and set a site visit up uh for the property? Uh Brian, is there a particular time of day
that you'd be available to go out and walk with uh the board members and Tim? But whenever the board members can make it, they've got the harder schedules to meet. I do this for a living, so you stay in my world and we can meet you out there and I'll make sure when we do meet the wetland consultants with us.
>> Perfect. What's uh what's the pleasure of the board for a sitewalk? Did we want to get something done this week or the next uh prior to the 21st? Could start a little earlier now. Uh >> yes, it does. Would
something after work work for people around like maybe five o'clock? >> I can do five o'clock. >> Yeah, five works for me, too. >> Perfect. Kyle, would that uh work for you? >> You know, it'll depend on the day, so
don't uh don't go around me at five o'clock. Works for other folks. Go with it. >> Uh would Let's see. Uh, Brian, how soon would you be able to have the uh the corners of the house, the driveway, the septic
um stockpile areas staked out for us? Would that take a couple of days? >> You want it staked out in the field? >> That would be great. >> Um, I would say to be safe, uh, if you could give us a week. >> Okay. Absolutely.
Uh, >> if it's sooner, if you guys can only meet sooner, then I'll beg and plead with the surveyor, but you know, >> yeah, >> everybody's super busy these days. >> Absolutely. Um, would the 15th or the
16th, next Wednesday or Thursday at 5:00 work uh work for you guys? >> Is that enough time for Brian? You said you needed at least a week. >> Yeah, that's fine. Yep. So, this the 16th. Yeah, the 16th is our ZBA meeting.
So, if we could do it the 15th, that would uh that would be preferable. >> Excellent. How does that >> works for me? >> I'm just checking right now. >> Um, >> I should be I should be fine with that,
Andrew. >> Yeah, >> perfect. >> I can do the 15th. >> Kyle, does that work for you? I will do my best. Um unlikely, but I will I'll see if I can move something around. >> Perfect. >> With enough enough bodies there, I
obviously trust you guys with the folks that are there. >> Excellent. Well, it sounds like uh five o'clock on Wednesday the 15th it is. And uh we'll go from there. >> Andrew, can I just one one more kind of procedural for you, Brian? Right. It
sounded like you you made a comment that you kind of wait you waited to come in front of us until you had your DP number. Is that correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> So I don't I think you if you were watching earlier I would say don't do that in the future if you can't if you can obviously right um if you just come
in front of us and lay out an idea what you're you know you're going through the process for D with D. I mean we could have scheduled this sitewalk maybe a couple weeks ago um and not held you up right. So just if in future if you're working in town, we have no problem hearing your project beforehand as a as just a general discussion or public
public hearing and then >> that way if we have comments in the meantime, you can be working on those while we're waiting for the DP number and now we're not holding you up another two weeks, you know, at least. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Excellent. So we will uh go ahead and put you on for um our next meeting
October 21st. Uh Tim can can confirm the uh time uh soon. Um but yeah, it sounds like we'll have the sitewalk next week and we'll go from there. >> Okay, >> perfect. Well, thank you so much and
>> we'll see you in a couple weeks. Well, actually, we'll see you in one week and then again in >> Thank you. >> Have a great night. >> Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Perfect. All right. So, we will go ahead and uh we are running a little behind
tonight. Uh we'll go ahead and jump into our 8:15 p.m. continued public hearing. Notice of intent 64 Beaverbrook Road, lot one, D file number 204-1018, construction of a shared driveway. And uh before we actually begin, uh Tim
recently pointed out to me that I've missed uh two meetings uh two hearings for this particular project. So, I will have to step aside for this uh this hearing and uh the um one following uh for lot three. So, would somebody else
be willing to jump in and run the hearing while I hide in the shadows? Well, if no one else, while I guess I can do it. >> Thank you, Ed. >> So, all right. Um then in that case um
opening the hearing for notice of intent 64 Beaver Beaverbrook Road lot one D1 number 204-1018 and is there someone to speak to this
>> and I believe you can open uh the next one also since the time has passed and we they can be talking about simultaneously. >> Sounds good to me. And we're also opening the notice of in 1064 Beaverbrook Road lot 3 D number 204-1019.
>> Uh good evening commission members. This is Seth Dono with Dson Roy. >> Hello. >> Hello. So I am here tonight to uh discuss the project. U I have been on this site multiple times and I'm aware of your past discussions related to
this. Um so as you mentioned this is for two projects. I I assume it's okay with the commission that I discussed them both simultaneously at this point. >> Yeah. >> Great. So, I will share our screen if that's okay and give you a brief overview of what's being proposed and
some of the documents that have been submitted since your last discussion related to that. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Great. So hopefully what's before you is a color-coded overview of the property.
>> We have yellow lines which represent solid yellow line being the 100t buffer zone, dashed yellow being the 50ft buffer zone. Blue being the edge of the wetland resource area. Um green in this case is the existing limit of clearing and then these are proposed limit of
clearings in the rear and orange is snow storage area. And this project's unique in that it is a driveway crossing uh to access upland lots which are ANR lots and that requires a small wetland crossing that's in the narrowest point
of the wetland right here. And the red is a replication area. Um that's exceeding your local requirement of a 3:1 ratio of replication. And I'll get into details on that as well. Uh so since your last meeting, our office has submitted several documents to you. They
included a cover letter indicating some of the revisions to the plans that are before you as well as uh some additional details related to the waiver request. Uh that waiver request is part of our wetland crossing as we have no way to access the upland area of this owner
without doing a wetland crossing. Again, that wetland bisects the entirety of this property. It goes from a south to north area here. Uh, we've also submitted a tabulation of trees that will be removed by the proposed driveway as well as a
mitigation plan associated with that. I can get um extremely granular on any of those individual items. I trust the commission members have had a a chance to review those and I can pop them on my screen and go one by one or if you feel there's something that I should dive
into first, I'd be happy to do that as well. Why don't we go one by one of the changes? >> One by one. Great. So, we've presented a summary letter. So, that's dated September 29th. Um, specifically, we have enlarged and
shown snow storage areas entirely outside the 100 foot buffer zone. Um, they're substantial sizes and they're in appropriate locations to allow the stockpiling of the snow. I'm going to switch screens on you quick. Those are the orange highlighted areas. And I'll give you an idea of the ratio
on that. There there's over 4,000 square feet of footprint of snow storage area. That's not cubic feet. So there'd be um a substantial area to pile of snow here. The driveway that's associated with this plowing uh is just under 10,000 square ft before you get to the individual
driveways. So this is about a 50% ratio of the surface area, which is uh sufficient for storing snow for most of our storm events. I'm going to switch back to the letter briefly. Um, we've supplemented some tree removal
details and tree removal exhibits. I think it'll be more appropriate to dive into that uh with those individual sheets which I'll put on my screen shortly. Mhm. >> My understanding is that the commission has um concerns regarding the utilization of fertilizer um
particularly in lawn areas and um if it was a standard condition of the commission via an order of conditions to restrict or prohibit that use. I don't think there would be any objections to that. Certainly your prerogative and I understand that that's consistent with
other lawns uh located throughout town at this point. uh waiver request. We have submitted that and I can get into that in more detail as we get to that specific page of the documents. We've provided a full waiver request
letter that goes through document documenting the compliance um of the waiver of reasons. Again, this is upland access to upland of the same owner. Um, and this is the only place to access it on the property. And we're do going through the skinniest portion of the
resource area in this case. I can get into a lot of detail on that or perhaps it'll be more appropriate as we go through the plans. Um, I think you guys may have some questions or we may have some back and forth on a couple items. So, if it's all right with the commission, I'll I'll move my next tab
and get into some of the tree removal items. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Great. So, we've we've prepared a tabulation of the trees that will be impacted by this driveway removal or the driveways construction. Um, there's a full tabulation of the species and the
caliper for these. And the tree removals are the actual red highlighted ones in this case. And that's also supplemented with a tree mitigation plan that's showing all of our buffer zone plantings. In this case, um we have
6,821 square ft of buffer zone um being enhanced through this plan that consists of planting of 30 trees and 60 tr shrubs. Um that does not count the wetland replication area. Again, that's
a 3:1 wetland replication area that's detailed on this plan as well as the notice of intent plans that were submitted to you. So our actual wetland impact to provide this crossing is limited to 306 square ft. We're exceeding the 3:1 ratio uh going over
1,000 square ft of wetland replication and that's within this low spot here. Um that's a mix of facultative fact wet and obligate plantings as well as supplemental seed mix. Supplemental seed mix is also proposed throughout the planting area along the uh the fringe of
the property. I will note, as I mentioned, I've I've been on the site several times, some of the wooded areas are fairly sparse. Um, there are some larger pine trees, but there's also some scrub shrub vegetation um that's frankly not doing that well. So, overall, this
will provide a a significant improvement to the vegetative buffer at the site. We have the formal notice of intent plans. They've been revised to incorporate all of these details. typical construction details as well as erosion and sedimentation control notes.
Uh this project uh coinciding with this application is also going through a storm water review process. We've met the technical requirements of that. The project is in full compliance with D storm water standards. So that'll be mitigating for all storm events up and
up to and including the 100red-year storm. And it also includes the required sediment removal within all the structures um and the general performance standards that go along with those. Those are the documents that have been
resubmitted to the board. Um I'd be happy to address any questions at this time and I can flip back to any particular screen that the commission finds would be helpful for this conversation. >> Uh commissioners, anyone have any comments, questions? Yes. No.
>> It seems like that covers the things that we spoke about last. >> Yeah. Okay. Um the >> so can can you walk me through a little bit more of the reasoning the
justification of the the waiver? So I guess what I'm taking out of it what it say it says a net environment improvement. Can you >> ask wetland replication? Is that the net? >> Well there's there's two sides to that.
So um in in your waiver requirements um one of them is very specific in that it says that um to avoid a take and that would mean a regulatory taking where in this case um these are ANR lots and the
site would not have another means to access this. So by that that stance the regulations would essentially preclude the value of those lots. That's something that uh D recognized in the wetlands protection act and normally
raises to a limited project and that would be triggered when we do more than 5,000 ft of wetland alteration. Uh that's not the case here. We're well below that at 300 ft in change here. Um so we don't rise to the limited project
threshold in this case. Um certainly it could qualify as a limited project on the local level if it was if it was to say that they could not access their upland. That aside um I feel that we've done a very good job of documenting what's
there and providing improvements and this will be a direct answer to your question. I'm going to switch to the tree mitigation plan that was prepared. Uh it's an extensive area paralleling the entirety of the development area.
And these are all native species um that are specified throughout here. White oak, swamp, white oak, red maple, high bush, blueberry, red a dogwood, sweet pepper bush um as well as New England wetland plant seed mix throughout the area. As somebody that's been on the
site a couple times, um it is it is a very I call it bland woods. Um, there's some larger white pines that are probably coming to the end of their life at this point. Um, there's some understory birch that frankly look like they may have transported themselves
when the abuing property was developed many years ago. So, this will provide an enhanced buffer zone. Essentially, we're going to have thicker native vegetation in the area as well as uh an understory that's essentially lacking at the site at this point. And that's
exceeding 6,000 square feet in planting area just for the buffer zone restoration plantings which follow the entirety of the limit of the project area. Uh a substantial portion of this project actually 15% of the trees that
are going to be removed in this case um they're required to be removed for the storm water management areas. So, as the commission knows, the storm water management thresholds would normally not be triggered by this project. D says it has to be four dwellings or more,
actually five dwellings, four dwellings or less are exempt. The town has applied that standard to lesser developments. We take no objections to that. We've designed it in full compliance with that, but I want to point out that some of these alterations are a byproduct of
reaching that level of compliance as well. Um so that that is also incorporated in our mitigation as well. One of the things uh to note with the wetland itself um it's essentially a scoured channel within a area that's
tributary from an adjacent storm water outfall and that area is subject to eroding. So by putting in in this case we're proposing a three-sided culvert with pre-cast wing walls. It'll provide for some permanent stabilization. The
channel itself is subject to erosion right now. That'll be remedied by putting this in place as well. So between the actual construction activities um that re result in that stabilization and the extensive planting proposed, I feel that we've we've
reached a level of compliance that um on a personal level I think it would be worth granting the waiver on this. >> Thanks. I have a quick follow-up question just because you you mentioned that the tributary the channel. So
I'm all for stabilizing things and I understand how the wing walls work and that that's part of that. Now does this raise any concern of other scour? Um are we increasing flows through there? Are flows high enough that you know scour is a concern with the new construction of
this? >> So it's a great question. Um, it's been dry almost every time that I've been at the site actually. Um, it's it's sandy grally material that's been transported. In addressing DP's comments, um, it does
have channelized flow and therefore we have to meet stream crossing standards and that's where this rose. Originally it was proposed as a a a simple piped culvert. Now it's an open bottom culvert. Um, we're not increasing that flow by any means. Um, we're certainly
not intercepting it as well. We're just stabilizing the banks and allowing it to go where it's naturally going at this point. To call it a natural channel, that that's an argument for um probably years before any of us were born at this point. I'm not sure when that that
project was developed. They did things differently there, but it exists now. Um, we're respecting it and we've identified it as part of the resource area. Thank you. >> All right. Any other comments? >> Uh I'm
I'm still a little bit concerned with um making the crossing to access additional lots. I'm just trying to make sure that make sure that we're consistent uh with how we make our evaluations.
Um because um there have been other projects that have come up that have wanted to cross stream uh stream crossings to access to access um
other building lots and we haven't supported them. Are you asking for justification from me or are you fielding a general question? >> General question. >> So Carl, you said that this particular
project because of the stream crossing um and because it requires a waiver that it shouldn't move forward. I just I'm just want to make sure that we had the complete discussion that we're being consistent in our in our determinations.
>> So, Carl, I actually spoke with Amy last week um about just stream crossings in general and the history of those um since the bylaw was enacted and and to her knowledge, none had been permitted since the bylaw
was enacted. >> That's what I was thinking. Yeah, and I I definitely agree with that. I think the the other side of that is how many have we seen one other one that I can think of on the top of my head? And that had
its own issues other than just the stream crossing. Um I can't think of another one that we turned away. And I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not pro or con yet at this point, but >> yeah, >> because I do agree with you, Carlin. And
we always use that word precedent and I I don't like using that word because I think I look at every project very differently. You know, it's its own project and I understand we have our bylaws and the WPA. >> We just Yeah. But we can't we can't make a decision one way and then tell someone else they can't. That's all.
>> Nope. And I then if I do feel that way, I would have a I feel I feel like I would have a valid justification on why we allowed it one place and didn't allow it in a separate place. Right. It wouldn't >> I I agree. I wouldn't say I feel like I can't say we didn't allow it there so we
can't allow it here. That's not how I that's not how I look at this at all. >> I I understand. Looking at this project though, they originally were putting a pipe and and we argued against that and I was
well I said strongly against the a pipe but now it seems like the with the the the concrete bridge I for lack of another term I guess is it really affecting the stream crossing now?
I mean, I think the the paved driveway is affecting things way more than just crossing the stream. I mean, you know, if you look at that, it's it's essentially a dead zone. A lot of dead zone because it goes a long way. Um, you know, where animals could get through
and now can't or might not. >> If I could add some commentary to that, um, this is a three-sided box, Culver, that's essentially being dropped in place on this. Um, in simple terms, it is a br it is a bridge. >> It's a bridge. Basically, it's a bridge.
>> So, we did we we did >> the board probably remembers this um to access the land that I used to call the island. Everybody knows that piece of land. You're talking of the moat house.
>> No, this this may have been before your time. It was a piece of land that you had to the only way it could be accessed was across this
waterway. And we did allow a um similar to what um the engineer just explained, a big box >> Yeah. >> covert to go in there and and have uh you know, cars could travel over that.
Carl, is is that the one where the stream is located pretty close to the road or the front of the >> pre bylaw, isn't it? >> I believe that was pre bylaw. >> It was pre- bylaw. That's the big difference. >> Pre bylaw. Okay. >> That was just before my I joined Carl and that was I joined pre bylaw. Okay.
All right. >> You're talking the one over by the road two ramp. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. I I know that house. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're thinking, you know. Yep. That's fine. >> So, what does that mean? That was pre-
bylaw. Are we saying that post bylaw we would not slash should not? >> Probably not. No, we we probably No, we probably wouldn't because we really struggled with that. >> We we struggled with >> Yeah, we struggled a long time before we allowed that to happen.
>> That being the case, how is this project any different then? Because it seems like they're putting the same thing in, aren't they? >> That site is very different than this site. Well, I know. No, it's right down the across the street from my house. I I know the site, >> right? So, it has nothing to do like it
is not even close to apples, oranges. It's apples to a vegetable. I mean, that is in the middle of a wetland area. >> I was just trying to think out loud of areas that we've, you know, allowed stream crossings. That's all that's the only reason I even borrow that. >> No. And the reason I was asking if it
was the same as I know the the lots are different, but the crossing of the water essentially is similar, you know, but yeah, I I know that property very well. >> Yeah, I I'm familiar with that property too from many years ago. Um I believe they have repairarian zone on that that
was a perennial stream in that particular case. Um if it's not, there's a huge difference in the culverts that being is being proposed here too. I I can physically jump across this crossing in it in its current condition. I cannot
jump far beyond that at this point. >> That that's my point, right? The the you know, the resource area we're talking about here is very different than that resource area over there. >> Yeah, >> we're we're taking in a prefabricated structure that is 6 ft wide to fully
span this area. Um that that's our our impact right there. This is not a it it could be done with a pipe easily. Dug up the bottom, put a pipe in place. Um as a result of this process, it's being put it basically spanned um something
dropped in place that's suitable for vehicles to travel over. The other huge difference here, this project is is reaching compliance with D storm water standards. Uh the runoff from the driveway is being collected and treated.
uh that's something that that would not have happened years ago. That's that's something that's come into play in bringing things into compliance with your d with your bylaw. So there's a substantial level of compliance that does not exist on this site, nor did it
exist on similar projects years ago as well. Um and and to that end, um it's expensive for the applicant to to bring that in. Um, and it's it's a much higher standard than most single family homes
are developed to. So, they're already achieving that level. Um, and it's it's a pretty small crossing in this case. >> So, how does the commission feel about the this conversation and the project as
a whole? And Tim, I'm not sure what the next step is. Yeah. I mean, next up is I imagine that Johnny would like us to close, you know, vote. It's one way or another. And I I was I was really just waiting from the
last hearing was waiting on just a clarification on the uh the replica or not the replication, but the the mitigation planning um the tree species types. I think that was what was the big lacking uh point for me. And I
>> again I tend you come again I always look to you guys I'm not any sort of specialist when it comes to to tree species but those seem like natives that we would advocate for in the area. Um >> so how does the commission feel? Are we prepared to
approve this project? And if so, is someone going to make a motion? >> If you guys are ready to vote, I will gladly make a motion. I think the folks at Dosen Roy have met my concerns. Um, so I'll make a motion we close the
public hearing and issue an order conditions for 60 64 Beaverbrook Road lot 1 and lot 3 DP file numbers 204-1018 and 204-1019 with the waiver as submitted.
>> Second. Is there a second? >> I'll second as well. >> All right. Uh, roll call vote. Um, Andrew, are you able to do the roll call vote? >> So, technically I should just remain in the shadows. >> Not a problem.
>> You'll have to record it, though. So, all right. Uh, Kyle Maxfield. >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> Michael Livingston. >> Michael Livingston. I >> K Melberg.
>> Melberg. I >> Ed Folultz. I uh it looks like uh it's unanimous. So >> with one >> just want to make sure real quick Tim everybody else had met had been to all these meetings. I know other folks had
missed a meeting here or there. Right. The four of us. We only have four that can vote and we are all able to vote. >> Yes. All four of you are able to vote. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Andrew, you had a a comment. >> Oh, sorry Ed. Yeah, I was just going to say with one recusal.
>> Oh, sorry. Yes, with one recusal. Uh well, Mr. Dano, um best of luck with your project. >> Thank you. We we appreciate your time and um I'm sure we'll be back before you
for something else in the future. >> And with that, uh Andrew, I turn them back over to you. >> Thank you, Ed. Beautiful job. Um >> my first >> did good. Did good. Um, so actually I think that's our last item of the night.
Um, Tim, was there anything else? >> Two things real quick. >> Sure. One was I don't know if anybody if everybody heard it cuz I talked about it before the meeting had opened. Um, but just we we did some work to remove the graffiti that was up at Lookout Rock at
Oakill Oak Hill this morning. Um and that area that that we removed it at um we use chemicals. So the area is flagged off and there is a sign um that we made and posted on the tree notifying everybody that you know chemicals were used to remove graffiti. Stay stay out
of this area. Um I don't anticipate on on having that there for too long. Um depending on how much rain we get tomorrow, it might be good after tomorrow. Um but just want to inform everybody. Um the other thing was and I know it was mentioned at the last
meeting where we um just mentioned how we were going to be submitting uh NOIs for boardwalks at Webster Woods. Um we talked about a sitewalk to go over the uh the proposed trail system out there that um that Jim was kind enough to um
map out. Um so I didn't know if you guys wanted to schedule that now or if you wanted to schedule that um at some point offline. That would be great actually to get the ball uh moving. And just a quick side note on that too, Tim, if you want to pursue CPA funding at any point for, you
know, any of the trail work um or the boardwalks, uh we can certainly work to get something together too for the uh Springtown meeting. Um I don't know if we want to wait that long. You know, depending on the project timeline, but >> I don't think they're doing boardwalks over the winter. So, spring would be
spring would be about the time when they're going to be kicking off. Seems reasonable. >> It's a great idea, I think. >> Yeah. Then did the bees that you treated, are they gone? >> Um I know for a fact the ones at Oakill
are gone. Uh or at least last time I went out there, they were gone. I don't believe they've come back. Um the desk that I treated on the trail going u from Wellington to Great Road behind is it Cooper Farm? Um,
that one was not successful the last time I checked. Um, and I figured it would probably just be best. I don't think an initial treatment would really do anything. That one's different from the other one. The oakill one was a ground nest. Um, I sprayed that one twice and it did the job. This one is a
uh, for lack of better terms, above ground nest, right? It's It's about the size like a soccer ball sitting in some brush and it's very difficult to get close to spray. Like I was very nervous spraying it the first time, sprayed it
and ran. Um and I just if it didn't work that time, I felt like I got it pretty good. I didn't think it was going to work if I got it a second time either. Um, so I figured just let it that one take its course um through the fall and and um after that, you know, hopefully it'll be
I don't know if bacon's the right word, but uh dormant after >> Yeah. >> through the winter, right? >> Cool. >> Excellent. Well, thank you for taking care of all these things. Oakill is just a target for vandalism and vicious creatures.
>> Yeah, it it definitely gets its fair share of uh activity. We'll we'll say that. And fires, too. >> And fires. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. Excellent. >> And to your question, though, Tim, about the sitewalk, it doesn't sound like
anybody's looking to set one up tonight. >> Yeah, perhaps we could do that offline, Tim. >> That's fine. >> Excellent. All right. Is there anything else uh before we close out? >> All right. With that, would somebody like to make a motion to adjurnn?
>> So moved. >> All right, it's been moved. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Final roll call of the night. Ed. >> Edi. >> Carl. >> Tomberg. I >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle
>> Matthew. >> Myself. I. It's unanimous. >> Great meeting everyone. Have a great night.