We have a quorum. I'll call the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting of May 13, 2025 to order. Our agenda is pretty busy tonight. So, to the extent that uh to the extent that we can get through
things quickly, I would appreciate that. I also, just so you're all aware, I it's not my intention to cut people off, but I am going to try real hard to keep people on target in terms of time. So, um hopefully hopefully we can get
through it all and be done by a quick reminder beforehand, too. Yeah. And you know, I recognize I'm saying that right now to a empty list of attendees, but we we may need to to remind folks. I think a brief reminder is worth it to help keep them on track. Um, let's start with
the minutes of March 18th, 2025 and April 8th, 2025. Do we have any additions, corrections, or deletions to those minutes? Hearing none, can we get a motion to approve those two sets of minutes? I'll make a motion that we approve the
meeting minutes from our March 18th and April 8th meeting 2025 meetings. I'll second. And just to keep things moving, I'll I'll just run the roll call votes tonight. Um motion's been made and seconded. Michael Michael Livingston. I
Ed, Kyle Max, and myself, Chase Carban. I Okay, Tim, going to turn it over to you to take us through the administrative discussion items. Sure. Up first, we have a scout project proposal. We have
Sid here to talk to the uh construction of a boardwalk at Hartwell, which we uh previously permanent. It has an order of conditions that happened uh last year. So, Sid, if you want to uh unmute your mic and you can give a brief uh
description of the project. Yeah. So essentially I'm looking to build a boardwalk to avoid the trampling of borderland uh wetland vegetation at the conservation uh lands at Hartwell. And the boardwalk's going to stretch about 80 ft to avoid the destruction of
nearby vegetation and for uh avoiding any injuries when traversing the conservation land. Um, according to my Eagle project, I have completed a project proposal to outline the steps and I've contacted Jim O'Neal to coordinate the project construction and
process on the Boy Scout side of things. And it's mainly there to protect the wildlife while also using public to safely use the conservation and protect the wildlife there. So, a couple questions here for you,
Sid. Um, talk talk us through real quick. Um, project funding and project timeline. Yeah. So, to start the project, I initially need to have approval from the Boy Scouts Heart of
New England Council, which should happen following this meeting once I get approval from the conservation department. And regarding funding, uh funding for the actual lumber and materials to construct the boardwalk, have been raised already by the department. And regarding the materials
needed for additional hardware, which is around $300, I've raised through donations and a nearby uh grants from other organizations that could be used towards the finishing the funding for the project as well. and I'd need uh approval from the uh committee I mean
the conservation department to sign off on the fundraising approval form for that. And regarding the timeline again uh upon approval I plan to finish the project by the um mid August to uh early September following upon approval and
during this spring summer. So Tim, it sounds like according to Sid, we've the the resources are available to him that that we're contributing. Is that right? Yeah, the lumber was purchased a while ago. It's over at Jim's place. Um we just need the
additional hardware to fasten the boardwalk. And so that's the uh that's what Sid's going to be raising funds for. Okay. So, Sid, um, what are you looking for from us tonight? Uh, I'm looking for
the conservation department to, uh, sign off on the fundraising form for me to raise the funds for the hardware needed as well as on my Eagle Scout project proposal so I can start on the project itself after gaining approval from the council following this
meeting. Okay. And Tim, we've got the permitting in place, you said, for all this. So, we don't need to we don't have any Wetland Protection Act activities here. We we've got an order of conditions for the project. Yep. Okay. So, if you guys just want to vote, I can sign off on on
your behalf um when Sid comes into the office. Okay. Then I'll I'll move to authorize uh conservation agent to um sign off on Sid's Eagle Scout project proposal. Chase, did we get the proposal? Did I not see it in the email
anywhere? So, the proposal has proposal is the NOI yet. Yeah, we have to vote on it first. Ah, okay. All right. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded.
Um, Ed, you're up first. Ed. Michael. Michael Livingston. I Chase myself. Chase Cary Sid. Good luck with this. Um, please please let Tim know when you're kicking this off with as much notice as you can. um largely
because I think we'd be interested in in knowing and you may find some volunteers too. Yeah, definitely. Sounds good. Thank you. The reason I wanted to see the proposal is because uh where it where is it at? Is it the entrance over at the Hotwell
parking lot, the the long pond trail? Yeah, it's uh on the Heartwell Conservation Land. It's a ways into the the land, but it's been mapped out uh based on the previous proposal and it's
along other conservation land. If you if you go back through and we have the NOI that we went through, it laid out there. All right. I missed it. Uh and just um keep in mind or whenever possible make room for horses to be able to get through. Yeah. All right. Sorry to slow
you down, Chase. Oh, no worries. I'm sorry. I I should have given the rest of the commission a chance to wait. Maybe I won't move quite so quick. Um before we move on to the next one though, I don't see um um Piper Lane um
uh John on here anywhere. Weren't Wasn't he supposed to be he was supposed to be on the one previous or did we say we're going to hold off until the end of May so that he would be able to show at the end of May that he did his requirements of removing that storage unit? Are
talking about Mr. McGan? Um the only there was no request for him to return. He just uh after the last meeting, what we wanted from his him was confirmation that um the storage container was moved and he did provide uh he did provide a
photo of me and I I drove by the the house and he did move it outside the I saw the container was moved but I also saw last time I drove by which is maybe a week ago there was still a trailer there. Okay. So you're all set. We're we're good with you unless you want to hang out for the rest of
You're all set for Yeah, sounds good. Thank you guys. Good luck. Thank you. All right. Um All right. That that was my only question on that. So Tim, can you double check on that next time you're in the area? Put eyeballs on it. Yeah. I mean, Memorial Day is coming up
quick. You should have that thing theoretically out of there by then. Um and then the next thing we'd be waiting on is for them to contact me um once they've removed the uh the the dirty fill. Right. Okay.
Memorial Day was the requirement to have that have had the um storage unit completely out. So, Right. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Next up, Tim. Yep. Uh next up, we got the request for a minor modification 04
pond. We should have Steve Marsh. And I'm not seeing him, so we will move on to the next one. um which is request for three-year extension to the order conditions at 242 King. I'm assume Dave Ketchin is the one
here to talk to that. Dave, I'm going to promote you over. Hey Dave, how you doing? There he is, I think. Hey Dave, everyone. How you doing Dave? Good. How are you? Good day. You want to give us a quick rundown of what you're looking for?
Yeah. So, we're looking for an extension um for the 242 King Street uh um order of conditions. We're only asking for it through the end of 2025. I'm I'm not quite sure, Tim, why it says uh three year on there. Um but essentially, the
uh order of conditions runs out uh I believe in June or or July. We're coming coming up on it. So, we just need an extension. Construction's um on schedule still uh for that for that site. So, we're we're hoping things are wrapped up
by by end of summer, early early fall. So, Dave, you're looking for should we be safe and give you a one-year extension? I appreciate that you're not looking for all three years, but maybe we give ourselves a little room for Yeah. Yeah, that that that that would probably make more sense. Just do it one
one full year. Tim, while we're talking about this, say, have you been out there at all? I'm curious how it's handled all this rain. I with the basins and everything. I saw looked like stuff is flowing through. I'm just curious to see what the wetlands look like. Yeah. Last time I was out there was about I think a month
and a half ago. Dave, have you been out? Like can you Yeah. Yeah. I mean, um it it's the site seems uh to be working very well. Uh the basins are obviously full. So, um I I think it's doing what it's supposed to with with uh water storage and and
keeping things in place. How does the sort of back portion of the site, the portion closest to the wetlands where we I think had the most challenges, is that relatively stable, Dave, or any problems there? No. Um I
mean, obviously just on the rainy days, it's it's a little muddy, but no no major runoff or anything like that. um nothing that that we've had to work around. Um so I think once once grass is planted and and um the the drive is done, I think we'll be in really good
shape. That's why we're not dewatering anymore. Yeah. Yeah. Now I'm just Yeah. making sure that that system's functioning properly, flowing through those culverts. But I assume there's still a SWIP and whatnot for the site, right? So Tim, do you see those reports? Yeah,
they send over to me. When was the last time we had green out there, Tim, as a as a third party to take a look at it? And should we think about doing that at some point in the rainy season of this year? It's been a
while since they've been out there. Has to been at least a year. Um I last time I was out there, the site was looking pretty good. They just installed brand new um erosion controls around the whole site. Um there weren't really any uh erosion concerns. I don't
think it's super necessary to have green go out there. I've just been so busy putting together this for for this meeting that I haven't been able to get a chance to go out there. I've got a couple of sites that I have a list of that I've been meaning to get to and I'll probably be able to get to next week. I I guess that's partly why I
raise it, Tim, is this is an instructive example of where um Dave, we don't we don't want to unnecessarily spend Light and Waters money inspecting things, but at the same time, when we're short staffed, we're telling a lot of our applicants that we may need to lean on third party support. So Tim, I'm I'm
going to put that in your court. If you're not able to get out and look at it, let's say in the next month, um, I think it's well within the context of the contract we have with Green to provide third party review support here to have them go out and do it on on our
behalf. Okay. Yeah. And we also have Amy who's starting to to help out with certain things starting on on Thursday. So, she's she'll officially be rehired. Um and so you know we can always she's kind of requested more task related things rather than coming into the
office and doing administrative work which which works for for me. Um so another option there. Great. I like it. So um any other comments on this requested extension here? Then I'll
go for it. that then I'll move that we issue a one-year extension to the 242 King Street project mass EP file number 204959. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Uh roll
call vote. Ed Volultz. Ed Volzi. Michael Livingston. Michael Livingston. I Kyle Kyle Max. Myself, Chase Carbig. Um, Tim, do do you want to run through these COC's first or you want to jump to
the 745 hearing? I think we could probably jump to the 7:45. We do have um one public hearing that we'll be able to skip because they requested a withdrawal. So, in the event that we have time to uh to wait, we can jump
back into the administrative items and fill it with that. Okay. Very good. Then we'll um we'll open up the 7:45 public hearing, the notice of intent for 64 Beaverbrook Road, lot one. I imagine in this process we'll also discuss 64
Beaverbrook Road, lot three. Um who's here to speak to that? Looks like we have someone with their hand raised. Oh, Greg Roy Dillison Roy. Hey, Greg should be able to speak now. Hey
folks, can you hear me? Okay. Yes, sir. Super. Do you want to um take us through this one a little bit? We'll do. Thanks for your time. Greg Roy with Dillison Roy Civil Design Group. Um I am representing the applicants uh the GUIRS
at 64 Beaverbrook Road. And um as you mentioned, uh Mr. Chair, there are two hearings here. were proposing two lots. And um we decided to separate those filings just for um uh really on the
back end when when they um when things are all constructed and one lot maybe sitting there uh not built yet and the other one isn't and wants to be conveyed that you know from a title standpoint uh and conveyance issue uh closing one order conditions out is easier than
having one that's not done. So um so I apologize if that enters any uh confusion into the mix here but um so I wanted to give you a brief overview. Um I am keenly aware I'll say at the front end here I'm keenly aware de the department of uh D has not issued
a file number on this yet. Um we are proposing as I'll mention in a minute uh some a wetland crossing uh by necessity. So I would imagine that your commission uh will also likely like to go out and look at it on on site. So I I understand
that uh we have some process ahead of us here. So I wanted to use tonight as sort of an overview uh for you how the project came together and uh and give you an overview of what we're proposing. Um can I share my screen? Is that acceptable? Yes, it is. In fact, it'd be great if you could sort of walk us
through some plans here. Let me uh let me do that right now. Hold on. And Greg, while you're doing that, it looked like when I looked at the package, the notices have gone out to a Butters. Yes. Is that all? We did send that We did send that over to Tim, uh,
copies of that of those notifications, uh, to Tim, I think today. So, we did send those out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. So, um, the property, as I mentioned, is 64 Beaverbrook Road. Um, the there is an existing house. I'm going to do some highlighting here. U,
let me try to get this bigger. Um the existing house is sits right here on the screen here. You can see Beaverbrook Road is is right here on the right hand side of the screen. The existing driveway comes into the house and access is right in in this location
here. Um the property uh extends quite a ways back. Um there's a lot of usable uh upland area uh in the back of the property. Um, there are a couple of bordering vegetated wetland areas on site and I'm going to highlight them.
The most significant one is right in here like this and then it kind of necks down right here, narrows up and then it it widens up in this point. So all this area through the middle of the site is is uh classified as bordering vegetated
wetland. Um, so there's no way to access the upland buildable portions of the site without proposing the uh the wetland crossing that we're proposing. Um, there is enough land area in the back for two lots uh which which is what
we're proposing. Um, we've uh done the um the septic uh testing uh back there to demonstrate that we have um we have adequate soils for septic areas. Uh but we did not dare propose two uh separate
wetland crossings, two separate driveways uh because we wanted to of course look to minimize uh impacts to the wetland resource areas uh knowing that we'd have to cross. Um so we're proposing a shared driveway configuration uh from Beaverbrook Road
which is which is right in this location here. Uh we chose this portion of the site uh because it is um in a location where the where the wetlands is narrowest and we can do uh a minimal amount of of filling uh to achieve the
project purpose. Um and then we would branch off to the two uh to the two lots. So um this first house that you come to is what we're talking about is the subject of this uh application which is lot one. Um it also includes the the
actual wetland crossing and fill um portion which is why I'm addressing it now. Um but we would branch off and I'll talk about that this portion uh in the second hearing uh to lot two which is over on this part of the site. Um so
um in order to meet the performance standards of the Weatherlands Protection Act um we did provide you uh some narratives uh in our packet relative to um our request uh for uh the allowance uh uh for the wetland for the proposed
wetland fill both pursuant to the wetlands protection act but also pursuant to your uh local wetland bylaw. Um, as I stated, there's no way to access the upland portion of the site without without without doing that that wetland fill. Uh, but we are proposing
uh mitigation uh wetland replication um immediately adjacent. It's this portion right here. This details specifications and planting details on the second sheet which I won't show you um you know at at the moment just for uh clarity. But we did provide uh
specifications for that replication area in accordance with the Massachusetts wetland replication guidance uh that DP has. Um and I think the the only other thing I wanted to mention uh by way again trying to keep this a little bit high level knowing that we'll probably
get a little bit more in the weeds to address questions either tonight or or future meetings uh and D comments that we may get. um is that the site um constitutes greater than 40,000 square feet of um of alteration uh site
disturbance both in and outside of the buffer zones, but that requires compliance with the town's storm water management bylaw. So, we have filed jointly with the planning board for that process. Um but that those regulations required us to do some storm water
management. Um so although uh the project doesn't constitute four or more lots and wouldn't otherwise need to comply um by letter of the law with the Massachusetts Stonewater Management Policy pursuant to the wetlands
protection act. Uh your town bylaw requires it. So uh we're getting a little bit extra level of protection than we otherwise would um on a project of this size. Um and we have indeed proposed some storm water management areas. So, one of them is right in this location and another one I'll talk about
on the on the next filing is is in the back there. So, uh we did file a full um storm water management uh calculation report um that you would see um customarily see uh that to document
compliance with the Massachusetts stormwater management standards. We followed that with a planning board and they are uh they will be peer reviewing that as part of that process. So to, you know, and that's we haven't even gotten there yet. You know that in the sense that they've they've told you that or
you're just anticipating? No, they they have gotten a quote for the peer review. Uh we're going to open that that meeting on um Thursday night. Uh the peer review hasn't been done, but we know that it is forthcoming. So I'm I'm going to save you a little
bit of suspense here and maybe make sure we don't lose this piece. Tim, can you coordinate with Marin? uh like let let's assume that we're going to glom on to that peer review and we may have some wetland protection act specific concerns but it doesn't make
any sense to do this with two different peer reviewers. Yeah, I I already uh spoke to Marina about that. Um and and what we landed on was if there was anything specific that you guys wanted to see included in there that wasn't going to be typically covered by them,
that's typically covered in in uh the storm water peer reviews that I can mention to her. Okay. Sorry, Greg. Didn't mean to cut you off there. Just No, that's fair. Fair fair enough. And again, that's about all I had. Uh Mr. Chair, I happy to take any questions. Like I said, uh we we did go out and
stake the center line of the driveway. Um I think we staked we staked a bunch of things. I think we st the house locations, the center line of the driveway through the buffer zones. I think we stake the limits of the buffer zones. The wetland areas are of course flagged. So um if and when your
commission would like to get together to go out and take a look at the site, uh we should be able to orientate ourselves uh very effectively and show you where things are out there. Okay. Um, let me open it up. I I got about 10
questions for you, Greg, but let me open it up to the rest of the commission first before I start firing away. I'm curious about what the uh shape of the wetland is south of the uh area
where you intend to do the reclamation. I know that the border of the property is there, but does it open up wide at that point? And uh what what kind of impact is it going to have on creatures that would normally be crossing there?
Uh good question. It's been a little while since I've been out there. I think that actually uh flows from an outfall of a detention basin from the adjacent uh development. Um I think it's a a condo development that's there. Um yeah, but I can't I can't recall what the what
the next flag off site would be, uh if you will. Uh but we can certainly look at that. Your plan is to fill in the wetlands, but why didn't you look instead at crossing it? How wide is it? Uh it's
it's about 10 ft from the looks of it, maybe a little less. So why wouldn't you build a 10-ft bridge effectively? We did that on another property. Um and and that left the water let the water flow
and basically have much less impact on the wetlands. Um you know toward what Michael was saying if you do that creatures can get through without any real issue. Well noted we we think that what we
designed was was you know in in the in compliance with what's required by the uh by the act but your board certainly has some uh some say in that. So we can take a look at So I didn't want to cut you up before we get too far. Can you can you just kind of describe what it is? Cuz when you said I think it's not
clear what you're putting in there. You said you're to fill it in, but this looks like you have some sort of conduit running underneath. Can you describe what you mean when you say filling it in and if you went through some sort of selection process, you know, an open culvert versus these pipes or conduits?
Yeah. No, thank you. So, we uh we are proposing a culvert uh in there, actually two uh 12-in diameter culverts. We did again do a storm water uh analysis here, and we think that that's adequate to convey the flows um that that will be uh expected that that come
through that uh that area. Um we're proposing two uh retaining walls on either side of the driveway to really contain the the limits of that driveway so we don't have the the slope uh filling. Uh, and then we would propose a covert uh through that through that
stretch with a with a um, you know, just a conventional uh, roadway fill over the culvert. That's what's proposed. Um, we can certainly look at other alternatives. Yeah, I'm I'm going to tell you, Greg, I from my perspective,
um I'd really like to see this conform with the mass um stream crossing standards in terms of openness ratios and and so on. I my intuition says a 16T span with a 12-in
culvert is is going to be a fairly far off of compliance with those. Um and and my ask and I I think we're hearing it from others is one of our interests, one of our concerns is going to be the mobility of wildlife here. And mobility
of wildlife isn't driven just by is there a conduit. It's also driven by is there a an acceptable from the salamanders perspective pathway. Okay. And I think to look at stream crossing
standards. Yeah. Yeah. To the extent that you explore those We'd really like to understand and see the calculations that support your, you know, openness ratios and other elements of the stream crossing standards. Yep. Okay. Understood. where you have a driveway going right
down through wetlands and so close to it. How will you control um ice uh melt and um that type of thing? Snow removal fertilizer and so on and so
forth. Um contaminants that will get into the wetlands. Yeah. I mean, so a lot of a lot of we're finding a lot of commissions uh conditioning uh against salt removal and things. I'm not sure where your commission stands with that.
Um obviously snow snow removal would be uh we proposed to do that in the same way you would you know any other driveway with with plowing. We'd develop snow banks um on the edges. Um it does get tight as you go across uh go across that. So, we may need to come up with
some some um but you know maybe in the on and m uh manual that that can be linked and keyed into the project uh identify some snow storage areas particularly uh in the area in the sensitive areas near the wetlands. But that's a good good question and we can
certainly uh um address that. Along those lines, Greg, we are as a board fairly skeptical of O andM plans that are implemented by individual property owners. And so I can't blame you. My ask of you is people comply with
them better when there's infrastructure to support them. So, for example, here I see looks like you've got a bump out or a turnaround within the buffer area just on the I don't know plan west side of this.
Um, things that we're going to ask you to think about are let's not create a moral hazard of of putting that within the buffer zone, right? Can can that be moved outside of the buffer zone and provide the same safety and snow storage components? Or I'm not I guess I'm
assuming that's what that's for. But um it we're going to ask you to think about those those pieces because we are very skeptical of individual property owners implementing O andM plans. Can't say that I blame you.
You may change your tune when we're done with it. Is the elevation on this fairly flat over where the house is? It's definitely not, but this looks relatively flat. Yeah. Uh the road you're actually the
elevation is higher at Beaverbrook Road and then it obviously comes down as you get to the wetlands. The proposed grade at the Culvert is elevation 266 roughly and the and the grade at um Beaverbrook Road is roughly elevation 270. So you're
talking about four feet in almost 200 feet. So it's pretty mild slope coming down there, but you're lending a conduit to whatever is put on Beaver Brook getting down into the wetlands and a a more easily accessible conduit than just
it going through the ground and dirt and all that. It it does indeed slope down from the bbrook. Yes. So, a lot of wet, but we're pitching it, you know, we're we're of course cross- sloping the uh you know, the the the
road. So, we'd be encouraging flow to, you know, sheet flow off the side of the of the driveway, not longitudinally, if you will, as that flows north. I mean, I know that
the areas uh north of there are well, they're underwater right now. And uh I I was wondering, you know, what the uh what the plan for the rain uh or the water control is uh in light of the fact
that those areas are are always underwater. Yeah. Well, and our storm water calcs, you know, um, look at everything up to and including the the 100-year design frequency storm. So, that's a fairly good that's a fairly, you know,
infrequent storm, albeit more frequent now than it was 20 years ago. Uh, but still, uh, you're talking about a seven or 8 inch rainfall in 24 hours that we're that we're looking at. So, um you know, we we've um our our storm water
calculations have anticipated those sort of wet uh infrequent storm events. That that said, Greg, one of the things I'm going to ask you to do here is also run this based on the I don't think we can regulate on it
entirely, but based on the proposed but not yet implemented 100red-year storm intensity that is that well, Mass EP says they're going to get it out Q2 this year. I I would really like to understand what the
90th percentile flow looks like cuz what I don't want to do is create something that we have to come back to and modify the wetland significantly because the the storm intensity is way outside of what we designed. Yeah.
Okay. I'm I'm going to pause for a second, Greg, just to make it clear. We're going to open up um the discussion here simultaneously of 64 Beaverbrook Road um lot 3 which is posted for EPM. I don't think we need to derail our
discussion because it's really touching on both of those. But to formally open that I can give you a brief 30 second narrative of what we're proposing for that if you'd like. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and do that Greg? we when you get past outside of the buffer zone, a
lot of this flow um will now come down and be and be conveyed. And I I real I'm keenly aware here I have a lot of lines on this page. Let me see if I can clean this up a little bit. Sorry about that. Um we have proposed a swale right along
this portion of the driveway here that comes down and will discharge into this storm water management area down in the back of lot three. Um and that portion of of the storm water basin just by necessity because of its elevation um is
what is proposed primarily within the buffer zone area. We do have a small amount of of breakout grading for the septic system in this location. Um the 100 foot buffer zone is this is this heavier dash line. Um so I think our closest point in this location is about
75 ft. Um but the real um we're we're um we're proposing work uh essentially between 50 a little bit inside the 50 but essentially between 50 and 100 ft for that storm water management basin. So that really just rounds out the rest of the work that
we're proposing in the buffer zone uh on both of the projects. Let me touch on that 50- foot buffer zone impact. Uh, Greg, I think you're going to find that we're we're going to hold really firm on
50 foot no disturb. And what I would ask you to do is think about the waiver request or local bylaw in two separate pieces because I don't want them to necessarily get tied together. One is
going to be the crossing, but the other is I I think you need to make a separate argument for a waiver in the context of this storm water basin cuz I I I'm going to tell you right now, I understand the property owner may
want it out there, but I'm I'm going to have a hard time finding the necessity of that until you explain it to me. Okay, fair enough. We may be able to tweak that. I mean, you know, we we laid these things out, but we're not into the 50 ft very
far. So, we can certainly take a look at that, too. But I I understand what you're saying with the waiver request and separating those. The bottom house looks pretty close to wetlands and especially where it was already noted that the southern end was
really wet. Where's the lines between that house and the wetlands to the south of it? So, you're talking about um you're talking about the lot one house here? Yes. So, I don't believe there are any
wetlands in this area offsite. I think the wetlands are confined over here. And like I said, I think there's a detention basin that that's over in this area. Um this is essentially the back of the uh condo units in this location. So, I think that the closest point to the
wetland is is is is that distance there. And I think that that's about 200 feet on that house. That dashed line that you just had your mouse on. This one right here. That one.
What is that? That's the 100 foot buffer zone. Okay. Yeah. So, how far are Okay. Yeah. It's about, if you can see, you know, from that was all that. Yeah. Out of the 100. And it's about another 100 ft to that house. All right.
This one, the the lot three house is a little bit closer. Here's the limit of the 100 foot buffer. So, we're about we're out of the buffer zone of the house, but we're, you know, closer on the on lot three. How are you handling planning to handle things like lawn fertilizer
um that type of thing? I guess uh and all that. Probably I I think the way I'd answer that is expecting that you'd uh you you'd have some thoughts on that with some conditions. Um, you know, we're again, just like I said with the salt salting, um, we know that there's
this there's most commissions are uh prohibiting uh fertilizers and things certainly inside the buffer zone. Um, so, you know, we're willing to to follow the commission's lead on that. Okay.
head out there and take a look at this entire area, but can you kind of describe what existing conditions are maybe near that wetland crossing and I don't think it'll matter too much up in the basin, but are we uh looking at veget like fully trees aged trees? It
bushes uh it is a wooded area and a matter of fact um that's one thing that that um I have to check on. Tim um Tim Tim was nice enough to have a pre-meating conference with us and give us gave us a laundry list of things uh
to to look at. Uh one of his suggestions was to locate trees, specific trees inside the buffer zone that we'd be taking. We have done that. Um we did it when we when we staked it. Um we just have not produced a plan for you. So we
do have um and will be providing you with a species um a a a surveyed inventory of the proposed trees um that are particularly the ones that are in the buffer zone. The entire pretty much the entire site is wooded.
So it's it's it's existing wood, you know, developed woods u or mature woods I'll call it. um pretty sensitive to what how many trees, what trees, how you going to care for the wildlife, the
birds and squirrels and everybody else that that lives in those trees. So, yeah. And and so I think that was why it was in it was in that spirit that Tim uh strongly suggested that we locate the specific trees. And I think if we you
know when we do that um we can have a you know a more microscopic analysis on this. If there's a way we can tweak things to save a 24-in oak tree then yeah let's do it uh kind of thing. Uh so I that will be forthcoming. I apologize you don't have that tonight. Um but we
have done the field work required to to give you that information which we'll be um pulling together. That's good to hear. Thank you. Thank you Tim for for knowing us and that's awesome. And I guess Greg, one
thing to keep in mind there is that we've consistently expected replantings of trees that are taken. So my hope is that it's not just an inventory of what's to be removed, but also a proposed ripp planting. Yeah. I And I I I think that was that was probably the
second thing out of Tim's out of Tim's mouth when he was when we had the the call was that you should inventory the trees and you should you should download proposed mitigation. So we Yeah, we hear that loud and clear. Well, Tim, um there are a couple other things that I just want to flag here, Greg, as as
stuff that we're going to want to think about. one is um I think it would it would greatly help us if you could tabulate the areas of impact within the 50 within BVW within the 50 and within
the within the 0 to 50 and within the 50 to 100 essentially you know I imagine a table that says right uh can't remember what these are lot one and lot three and then break it out in terms of BVW 0 to 50 50 to 100 in terms of proposed
disturbed areas. Absolutely. Yes, we can do that. Um the other piece that will be helpful for us here is we're we're absolutely going to want to understand the ratio of uh compensatory wetland or reconstructed
wetland relative to the area that is impacted. So, another calculation that we're going to want to going to want to see. We have we have that on the plan. If it's on there and I missed it, I apologize. I know we have that somewhere. We are filling We're proposing to fill
622 square ft and we're proposing a replication area of effectively 2:1. So the 1,250 ft. I I'm going to tell you right now, we've historically been pushing people to look at 3:1. Um and so to the extent that you want to as a floor by the way that that's
just me speaking from experience not necessarily what the commission will require but historically 3:1 has been where we've started discussions. So, okay. Um, we're coming up on our time here. Commissioners, any other really I think big broad things it I'm sure we'll
get into more details, but broad direction for Greg and his client. I would ask I seriously seriously think not filling those wetlands. 10 ft is definitely able to be handled in better ways.
Okay, I appreciate that. Um, any other comments or should we get to scheduling a sidewalk? That's where I was going. Yeah, agreed. Let's see. Greg, uh, let me start with this question. It sounds like things are
marked out there, but based on this discussion, do you anticipate you need to mark anything else out there before we do a sidewalk, or you think you're ready to rock and roll? I think we're ready to go. Okay, I think we're ready to go. We uh we we did
that we did that work. Um and I think we we tried to be uh air on the side of more stakes. So hopefully it's not confusing. And to be clear, the things we're at a minimum we're want going to want to see
are just confirm that you've got these the alignment of the road, the uh limits of work, probably the corners of the houses, the BVW delineations. Those all Yep. I think we st we st we that's exactly what we did.
We did the center line of the driveway in the buffer zone. We did the limits of the buffer zones. We did the limit zones. Good. We did the limit of work through the buffer zones in all areas and and we st the houses. So, I think that's what we got. I think
we should be in good shape. Who wants to um propose a time to do this sidewalk? Surely is a good time. I can walk to this sitewalk, so uh pretty much anytime. Yeah, for me it's just got to be outside
work hours is all. Yeah, we've got some daylight to work with right now. Um we'll make sure someone's there, guys. So, we'll you know, I'm sure it's going to be harder for you guys to schedule, so we'll work around you. Kyle, any particularly good or bad
times, Tim? I can make I can make afternoons work. Um, generally speaking, I'm pretty flat out until next Wednesday. Is there any possibility that we could do it on Thursday the 22nd at like 4:30 p.m.? Would that work for you?
Was that outside of work hours enough to make it work? I think I might be able to do that. What day? The 21st you said? Uh 22nd is what I proposed. Um yeah, I can do that. Michael, Kyle, Tim. Any objections there? I think that works for
I'll be I I'll see what I can do to get there. We'll see. We have to try to get something moved. Okay. Don't Don't schedule around just me. If you if you have four or five people getting can do it right now, do it. Uh, Greg, what I'd like to do is let's tentatively plan it
for next Thursday, the 22nd, at 4:30 p.m. Um, the reason I say tenative is we're only four of seven members tonight. So, to the extent that we find out that none of those other three members are available, we may come back to you and your client, but I imagine we
can do that via email. Fair enough. Um, go ahead. Go ahead, Craig. I was going to change topics real quick. Oh, I I wanted to suggest if you were going to if you're going to be entertaining continuences that I think we probably would uh should not waste your time for two weeks. Um I think that we should
probably go for um for the uh for a month out. Okay, we'll certainly entertain that and accept that request for your continuence for a month. Um I do want to pause here. We have a number of attendees in the
waiting room and I want to make sure that we give folks an opportunity to raise their hand if they do have questions given that this is a public hearing. Okay, looks like nobody's raising their hand. Okay. Um I think that concludes it for tonight. We'll get the sitewalk. Tim, um you'll coordinate
on having the peer review done on our behalf as well. I think to the extent that you can convey some of these concerns to the peer reviewer or some of our thoughts that would be very helpful in in this context and then um and then we will see you Greg in a month. Well, I guess we'll see you in a week and a half
but then yes no thank you and I appreciate it. I know it was high level but I do appreciate the discussion that gives us a good uh some real good guidance here and we'll uh we'll be back uh with some revisions in response to those comments. So thank you. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thanks.
Okay, we're going to move on. It's uh 8:19. We're only four minutes behind so far. We're going to move on to the public hearing notice of intent for Blood Road. This We still have this one, right, Tim? Yes, we do. Um I'm promoting Brian right now.
And and uh guys, I'm still on here. So, this involves the the light department. So, I I can give a quick intro while Brian's jumping on. I saw you were still here, Dave. I thought you were just entertained by our board meeting. No, it is a good meeting. But I've got uh I've got the 97 mil road as well, so Okay.
The end of it, but um just real quickly on on this project before Brian gets into it fully. So, uh Blood Road here, National Grid um obviously has their transmission lines headed through the right of way directly over Blood Road.
We've got some distribution overhead utility equipment on Blood Road that sort of cuts uh cuts off a corner of Blood Road and goes directly under National Grid's uh transmission line.
And there's there's a a little little mound that National Grid can drive up on and access their transmission lines closer and our poles go up and over that mound. So they had h had asked us to remove those poles because they they don't meet their clearances and and
they're doing some work in that area. So uh that's sort of how this project spawned. And then also in in fixing that issue, there's one other um really hard couple of pools that that go through the the swamp actually and and Brian will
get into that further there that we're trying to to pull out. Um they they're they're always causing us power outages. They're really hard to access and it's it's a big safety concern for us. So, with that being said, I'll pass over over to Brian if he's
on. Oh, yep. There he is. Hey, Brett. Great. All right. So, Brian Maretti here with McCarti Engineering um on behalf of uh Littleton Electric Lighting Department. Um so, you just laid it out pretty
pretty straightforward for us here. Um there's about 900 linear feet of overhead um power that passes through uh a wooded area through a wetland area and as he
says is almost impossible to access uh and it's been an area that's been problematic. So um so we're looking to relocate that. Uh I do have my plans here on my screen if I can share them. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, Brian, because there's a lot going on on these
planets. Struggling to read into a grasp on what was going on. So, all right. So, anyway, so initially we looked at this uh the ideal location is what's shown here on the plan. Utility pole
five here uh is basically right off the edge of Blood Road and that's where the transmission line runs through the woods. So it this this orange line here goes from utility pole 5 to 6 7 8 and 9. This is the area where there's a a
perennial stream that runs through here. That's the dashed blue line you see here. Um, so it crosses a perennial stream uh through that resource area and through the the wetland buffer zone. Um,
so ideally we'd like to remove utility pole 6, 7, 8, and 9. And then here, utility pole number 10 and 11. This is where the electric light department transmission line runs underneath the national grid overhead high tension
wires. So these two poles in the in the utility is what national grid would like us to remove as well. So basically we need to relocate here between utility pole 5 and then down here at utility pole number 13. So there's about 900 ft of overhead that
we're looking to relocate underground here which is the big uh green dashed line here. Um so initially we we started this project. I contacted Tim um in an attempt to file
this as a limited project. Uh limited project does allow public utilities to do work within the shoulders of the roadway u for a project just like this. However, a couple aspects of this project um were kind of gray where it we
had to go off the shoulder of the road. So, right here in the corner, uh, in order to make this turn on the roadway, um, New England or Littleton Light needs to have, um, basically their their not
manhole structures. Uh, they're fiberglass, smaller structures like 30 foot square, um, structures that'll be in the ground that we'll be able to access uh, for maintenance and for pull boxes. Uh we'll need both uh electric and
telecommunications in the corners here. So although we're not in the wetlands, we're off the shoulder of the roadway. Um and some of this work is also requiring uh tree clearing. They're off the shoulder of this roadway. There are 14 locations where there are trees that
will need to be removed uh in order to because we'll be trenching right through basically the root mass. Um, so right here at the corner, we're going to have a couple structures for electric and telecommunications in the ground. And then right at about this location,
because it's 1400 linear foot run, we'll need a couple locations in order to pull uh the conduit through uh that run of of trench. So, um, in addition to that impact that's off the shoulder of the roadway right
here, uh, there's an existing 36-in culvert that crosses underneath Blood Road. Um, it's a 36-in reinforced concrete pipe. Um, in order to cross that, we're just going to trench up to it and then extend the conduit
underneath it. Uh, this is not a, you know, exposed surface stream. This is all enclosed within the conduit, uh, the 36-in pipe. So, we'll be able to dig up to that 36-in conduit, um, or 36-in RCP pipe on both sides and pass the conduit
beneath it and then back fill. So, it's a minor impact. We won't be touching any open stream. We're passing the conduit underneath and then back filling. So, um, so that is the scope of work here.
Um we're showing here the trench. It's 3 ft deep, about 3 ft wide. Um 43 in total depth below the trench. So we'll have two electrical conduit. Then we'll have um I think I believe it's Verizon and
Comcast telecommunications conduits also installed within the same trench. Um and we are proposing here a straw wall and silt fence that'll be run along the northern boundary of the trench along the full 1400t linear foot run. Um so
all the excavation will be taking place on the roadway side of that uh silk fence. Um I had a second plan here that I want to show um just locationwise of where the trees
are. So we have total of 10 photos here. Um in each photo I showed a location of the tree and which trees will need to be removed. Um and then as as a mitigation for that we're proposing to replant the
same 14 trees um in the same locations or approximate locations. We don't want to put them directly back in in place next to the trench that we're installing now. So that is a an issue in the future with roots growing through the conduit. Um so we're basically proposing either
having the trees in the same location 5 10 ft away or in the vicinity of like over here in the corner. There's a lot more room between where the actual um the trenches and the pole boxes will be um to locate those trees um outside of
the footprint of the rightway within the wooded wooded area. but outside the the wetland. So, so that's the full scope here. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. And this plan, we did have just
for your your comfort, we did have Three Oaks Environmental go out and flag the entire extent of of this work. So, the wetland flags are out there. um they weren't survey located um because of the scope and proximity of
the work to the shoulder of the road. Uh however, they are all a minimum uh 10 ft plus off the shoulder of the roadway from our our limit of work. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer. A couple resource
area delineation questions before we get into this. Tim, are we looking at both BVW and riverfront area here? Yes. Yeah. And so we are sound like 10 feet outside
of BVW with this trench. Is that Yeah. At the minimum like the the minimum minimum distance we have is about 10 ft and that would be up up in this corner here. No, that makes sense. Oh, okay. I see. The BVW line is the red line. Got it.
Yeah. Yeah. So, we have the 100 foot buffer line is the red line and then our our riverfront area is the is the the yellow. Okay. Commissioners, what comments and questions do you all have? Are you
leaving the old poles in place? Are you going to dig them out? What's the situation there? So, the current plan for the old poles is, you know, we'd like to remove the poles. Um, we're not going to pull them out of the ground. They can be cut with a chainsaw at grade
and they can drag them out of the woods with a cable. So, there'll be no heavy machinery driving into um into the woods or the or the resource areas to to get them. Dragging them is going to do some damage to the surrounding land.
It it it could, but it's dragging them over over land. It's it's very very minimal and there won't be any any tracking of machines. Okay. Very what I might suggest there, Brian, is that you include a note in your plan that says any disturbed areas will be receded
with, you know, an appropriate wetland or upland mix as as necessary. And I'm sure we're willing to accept any any conditions like that that you're you'd like to put on this. We should probably go back to to the tree tree list.
Um I appreciate that you have located and identified the trees that aren't going to survive. Um, but from our our point of view, well, it looks like you're proposing to replace in same number but not in kind. Is that right?
So, Oh, yeah. Same number, but we won't be able to plant, you know, 8 inch diameter trees out there, right? So, I guess our our view of that usually is we don't can't really justify cutting down a 24-in tree and replacing it with a 2inch tree and calling it even or, you
know, calling it square. Um, so we usually are looking for some sort of ratio similar to what we would do with weld replication, 2:1, 3:1 or other species, other types of plantings. Um, something that is a little bit more
justifiable than cutting down a 24 in mature tree and replacing with a 2-in tree that might survive, might not survive. Do you have I guess having the regulations or a protocol or something that we can follow so you know we're not
just you know shooting from the hip. Yep. Tim, we have guidelines for that, right? Or did you provide Roy something or was that just vocal? I thought we had No, it was vocal. I just noted that they didn't have um trees located in their
plan that they were proposing to remove. So I I mentioned that you guys would probably want a a list of you know don't we have some do we have guidance somewhere don't we chase I could have sworn Amy has referenced that in the past policy in place yet? Yeah not I
think detailed technical guidance on quantitative metrics but I could be wrong on that. I know we were working on a tree replacement thinking, but uh yeah, as as Cal said,
you're taking down a you know, four potentially 12in trees and you're going to put four little babies. Um and I'm assuming the plan will have a two-year follow through or follow up or whatever the words are to make sure they stay alive.
Yeah, it's typically in your in your rotary conditions. Yeah. where this isn't wetland mitigation or replication. It it may be different but and also I just want to for us to consider this the property where this is taking place is not owned by Littleton Electric uh light
and water department. Um so I guess quantities and location of this this is all farmland. Um so whatever we do put back um you know really can't inhibit the first of all the utility that's
being put in the ground uh but also um you know the operations of the farm and the farmer and the ability to kind of pass and repass this roadway because this road is used heavily by um residents you know at the end of blood road. Yep. Yeah. And we've we've worked
with um you know with engineers and with clients in the past on workarounds or you know how how we can manage that. Um the water department has done it. They've planted trees off site. Um y you know at different locations to okay to
help verify or justify that. And it's just something that we will probably will probably come up again. Okay. But that's fine. I'm sure they're not they're not disagreeable to it. I just there was there was a lot of uh discussion about this with the land owner and this was one of the sticky
points that came up with you know he's allowing this work on his property but it can't be kind of further hindered and uh to his to his final operations out here. So and andation would be welcome. One of the things that we've found success with is not necessarily just
like a 3:1 ratio of replanting to what's taken, but being able to meet some of that compensation of what's being removed with let's say shrubs. Like the idea that this area is some of it is sort of um bordering on forest land. if
you wanted to plant blueberry bushes in the wetland areas and so on like these are things that we have historically found to be acceptable in lie of just planting gobs of trees but it's also to be clear it's not 24in
tree equals one 2in tree in a blueberry bush right like we we want to make sure that we are doing what we can to compensate for the removal of certain ecosystems Okay. Is that something that I guess Tim, we can kind of work together
between now and the next meeting to make sure, you know, we're coming back with something satisfactory. Yeah, I can definitely provide you my thoughts on on it. Couple other comments I had here. I I don't think you're challenged with
respect to a waiver, but I don't think I saw a waiver. And I think for the sake of completing the file, we very much want to make sure that we complete um a waiver for work in the 50. Your argument for this being in the public interest is pretty straightforward.
Yeah. This also doesn't have a D number yet. Is that No, it doesn't. I I tried to get it. You only pester them so much, but they don't get back to you. Yeah, that doesn't do you any good. Um, couple other things that I want to address here
is we're thinking about this, Brian, that I I do want to see on a revised plan. If you're digging a would you say a 3-ft deep trench here, you're going to have a fair amount of spoils. I' I'd like to understand how those spoils will be managed. I assume they're going to go
back in the hole, but even while they're temporarily outside of the hole. Um, what we don't want to do is what I would like to see is you identify locations where you will store spoils and how you will do that if you
need to let's say have spoils stored more than through the duration of a workday, right? Like let's say you dig a 100 ft of trench. Where's that gonna go for the week that you're working in that 100 feet of trench? Yeah, in my mind it
was kind of explained to me and you know, David, you may be able to to add on to this, but you know, whatever they excavate and trench for the day they install the conduit, you know, it'll be backfilled and compacted. So, Blood Road has to remain open for the residents
here. So, it's not going to be, you know, it's not going to be the type of construction project that the excavation pile is going to be left in the side of the road in the way. Correct. As as long as the the material is suitable to Yeah. So, I say there's there's two things there. One, it needs to be
suitable to get put back in there. And then two, if I don't have it in front of me now, but your your your utility trench isn't just excavate and replace fill there. You're putting in conduits and everything. I assume there's sand or some sort either stone or sand going around that, right? So, you're going to
lose half of your trench volume or a third of your trench volume. There you go. Sand cover, right? So, we we do have room for for spoils at um the lead water department, just our our normal uh spoil location.
How you guys want to manage that is on you. I just um come back with a plan. Yeah, I I want a plan. And I if the plan is there will be no spoils, that's got to be not just a plan, that's got to be an ironclad requirement in the specs for the contractor. And even then, I'd like
to see a contingency for if we need to, we'll surround it with a straw waddle and we'll keep it or even a location, too. Not just, you know, I want to see where it's going to be with and surrounded by straw wles. That's a big difference. So, I
mean, is that something we can handle just with notes on the plan? Because if the spoils are going to be, you know, like temporarily over here in the sandy area or something, we can show that with a detail uh for a waddle surrounding it, but we can cover most of that in notes. That's fine with me. I just want to make
it really clear to the contractor who's doing this work what's what is acceptable. And the same is going to be true in reverse. Given the amount of sand that you guys have here, I'm going to imagine you're not necessarily going to be able to just um live fill with that.
So, think about what's going in and what's coming out. Based on the picture you showed, there's going to be a lot of dirt or whatever ending up elsewhere. Um, lastly, and we're we're this hearing's getting a little long in the
tooth in terms of the directional drilling underneath the culvert. I know, Kyle, you've got more experience with directional drilling than the rest of Yeah, we're not directional drilling. I was going to say, wait, that's that sounds very drilling required. They're just
going to line the bottom of the culvert, right? They're they'll dig up to the culvert and then just attach it to the culvert. Oh, okay. That's not what I what I thought I heard is come up to the culvert, dig underneath the cover, however big that is, and I assume with
shovels and pole or something like that. Yes. You'll be able to use the excavator to to trench basically up to it, you know, underneath it and cross over. It's these these sections of a 36-in RCP pipe, you know, they're 8 to 10 ft long
each. Um, so the earth supporting the rest of that cover is going to hold it in place. There's no need to to directional drill or shore or do anything anything special with that. They'll they'll dig dig on both sides of it, pass the conduit underneath and back fill around it. Gotcha. Okay.
Well, I think you've gotten some direction from us. Um and given that we don't have a mass file number, we're not closing this tonight anyway. So, if you could come back with those revisions, be prepared to speak to the revisions. Um, commissioners, do you do you all see
a need for a sidewalk here? Are you comfortable with just a plan review? Yeah. I mean, I don't The wetlands are what they are. We're We're right up against it, right? I don't see like we're flirting with a 50 foot line here. I don't think it substantively changes
anything, but Yeah, exactly. I don't think I need to see it. Not much that they can do differently anyway, it seems. That's generally my thought as well. Very good. Um, what would be the next hearing we'd be able to attend? Um,
the 27th is the next one. So, Brian, you want to be on for the 27th, please? Yes. Okay. I'm meeting with D on Thursday on another project where I will make sure I I beg and plead for a number. Let us know if you figure out a way to get them to give me a
number. You know, if you email them and call them enough, it actually works half the time. Yeah. But then the list of comments you get is twice. Advantage is if they cash your check, but this is a municipal project, so there's no checks. Change of hands. So,
very good. Okay. Uh, we're going to move on then to our next hearing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. And I've lost our agenda. The next item is um 8:30 p.m. amended order of condition forge
pond. Yep. We've got Dave here to speak to that. Okay. Hey Dave. Hi. Would you like me to frame our request? Yes, please. Uh okay. Uh so in the last few years uh the uh
amount of uh invasive plant growth in Lake Manawanaki Forge Pond has increased significantly. Uh a number of uh lifelong residents on the lake have said that they've never seen uh plant growth,
plant density as high as this. Um we have uh been uh using uh consistently using drawdowns uh winter draw downs uh in the last 10 years or so uh and have been
modestly uh successful with that. Uh normally uh in the last few years uh with warmer winters uh they have not uh been as successful for reasons that um
are outlined in the in the narrative. Um uh we got approval to do uh physical harvesting a couple years ago and we have for the last two summers uh attempted to do uh what's called echo
harvesting where the plants are pulled out not cut out but pulled out and put into a hopper and removed from the lake. Um the first of those two times we were constrained in how much we could do by a
limited budget and uh a uh delayed uh permitting uh largely because of um the time it took to get responses from natural heritage. Uh last summer uh we
uh had our permits but um uh we were also delayed in being able to do it because other lakes in town needed permits and the vendor uh was not willing to come and do this lake and
then come back and do the other lake. Uh the biggest uh constraint last year though was that DP decided that um physical harvesting uh needed to be treated as dredging. And so they limited how much could be
removed to 100 cubic yards, which was considerably less than we had funding for and was considerably less than we were um than than the lake needed. Um we uh have funding this year for uh a
larger um treat uh echohh harvesting treatment. Um, we were starting to get uh the uh dredging permit last fall, but we were told by DP that we couldn't start
the process until this spring, which means that we're not going to be able to get the proc the permit until after this uh summer season. So, we won't be able to do that this summer. So uh what we
are uh intending to do is to uh for the first time in um the last recent past uh try a to implement a uh a herbicide treatment uh this year to uh
reduce the level of uh invasive plants in the lake and uh to improve our chances of having uh being uh very successful at doing echoh harvesting treatment next year. Um so uh
that is uh the main uh request here for the amendment is to approve the use of herbicides for that. Um we're also asking for approval to do uh diver assisted suction harvesting
which was um formally approved uh in the last amendment. Uh but the uh request was that uh if we were going to actually use diver assisted suction suction harvesting uh we would come back and
request it. And um we're seeing that as a um process that could be uh helpful in places where uh um plant growth is very
high and there's uh uh specific uh hard more of a hardship like for instance uh uh we were planning to uh do a dash it's called dash uh divers is a suction harvesting uh treatment over at
uh Forge Beach this summer to uh open up uh the beach uh a bit more, but and it could potentially be used um along some waterfronts um as um previously was done for uh
hydroking. Uh we're not in favor of hydroking now because it creates a lot of fragments and this wouldn't. Um there are specific advantages to diver assisted. The the the roots can be pulled out. The plants can be more
selectively uh removed. Um and so uh it's more effective and more selective. Um but it is more expensive. So it would only be practical on smaller uh smaller
areas but um so we actually can't use that this year again because D has uh decided that that also qualifies supposedly as dredging. Um so we'll have to wait for a dredging permit
to be able to use it. But since we're going through the whole process of amending, uh, we, um, thought it made sense to do this at the same time. Thank you, Dave. Um, commissioners, what questions,
comments, concerns do we have here? Dave, you mentioned that in your sub. Um, you provided this to NHSP. Did they have any comments? Oh, yeah. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. So, uh we
submitted um the um once we got the uh uh approval from Westford Conservation Commission to uh approach this as an amendment uh we submitted the narrative to uh natural heritage and that was uh
April 4th. Uh it was before we got approval from Littleton Conservation Commission to to do it, but we knew we at least had approval from Westward. So we wanted to get it into Natural Heritage as soon as
possible because they uh are allowed to take 30 days and they, you know, pretty much say they will take 30 days. So that was April 4th. Um that was um 39 days ago. Last week I got in touch with them
again. Oh, and they they confirmed they acknowledged that they received it and they said they'd have a response back within the month. Um I reached out to them last week and uh after the 30 days was uh had had passed uh informed them
that we were meeting with you tonight tonight in Westford again tomorrow night and asked them if we could have their uh response in time for that. And their their answer was uh it's on our list. We will you'll have to wait the 30 days in
order to get our response. and I replied that it's already been 30 days and actually it doesn't show up on their on their website where they show the their deadlines for responding to these things and I pointed that out too and we
haven't heard response back from them yet uh which is um frustrating. You said so I heard kind of two different things there. Westford has given you approval, but you're you're meeting with them again tomorrow, Steve.
Uh we've had we had one um hearing with them and they were um uh remain with them tomorrow. Uh the expectation was that they would write up their order of conditions and review it and then um we
would have the natural heritage response back by tomorrow. and they would um they were inclined to to to approve it, but they wanted to have the orders and conditions in hand to review before the
meeting. So, yes, we're meeting with them again tomorrow and I I'll reach out to Natural Heritage again uh tomorrow. Um, and it it doesn't seem like it would be
a uh an issue for them. Everything is flowing downstream. The only endangered area is upstream of the lake. Uh, none of this is going to affect that like the draw down does. Um, and so, uh, ideally
we could get a response from them tomorrow. And um but that's where that stands. You know, Dave th this is the first time I've seen any request and you didn't mention at all in your discussion to apply algicides and that that to me is a
fundamentally different component than herbicides to deal with woody plants and and leaf plants. Um h how do eldicides fit into the existing order of conditions that was really intended to deal with vegetation, not algae growth?
And how is that not something that requires a new order of conditions? Um it's uh it's the herbicides are used for both um uh the vascular plants and the uh and
the algicide al algae plants. Um, and we uh very rarely have had algae blooms on Lake Panawanaki. Uh, there has been, I think, one in uh the last decade and a
half. Uh, very rare. Um but uh it uh the the request here was if it's if we have conditions where uh an algae bloom is likely to occur, uh we wouldn't have
time obviously to go through the process of uh requesting permit to do it and uh all that we're going through now. So the request was to include that in the um I
mean the the state approved herbicides also include two that are generally uh used for algae. Um the uh copper complexes and the u peroxy
hydrate and hydrogen peroxide. Um and we're requesting them so that they are available if we if we need them. Um it's
um again dealing with um the the vegetation in the lake. I I tell you guys I I respect that Westford is willing to entertain this as an amended order of conditions. I'm and
listen I'm happy to lose a three to one vote. I'm disincined to do so to fundamentally not just for the algicides Dave uh from the perspective of uh what was approved in the order of
conditions was were physical processes. we are now going down the direction of chemical processes and it's my opinion that that should be handled a as a a fundamentally different impact to the resource area and I'm
putting that out there. I think it's that is the threshold issue in front of us and I'd like to hear from other members of commission about their appetite to go forward with this as a just second a as a amended order of conditions versus a new order of
conditions for herbicides and eligides. Kyle, Ed, Michael, do you guys have thoughts on that distinction? If you made it a separate, what would we put differently than we would if we were just amending this one?
How would we treat it differently? Um, just off the top of my head, notification requirements, dosing requirements. Um, you know, to in my mind to physically remove material doesn't
necessarily require that the entire community, let's say, might want to know about that. But to apply chemicals to the water, it seems like things that might have a different bar for notification. Sure, that's just me shooting from the hip.
Again, I'm willing, as always, maybe that's patronizing to say, be overruled here, but um I I see them as different things. The notification and the chemical aspect of it. I I see where you're coming from there. I'm always nervous about
chemicals with the fish and other wildlife. Everybody says not going to bother them. their own set, they can survive it. But that that part of it, you know, but I could I could get on board with a separate because of the notification aspect of
it. I consider that. Kyle, one second. Dave, Kyle, Michael, do you guys have any thoughts on the this distinction? because this is a threshold question in front of us before we get to do we approve the the revised order of conditions. Chase, I
actually need to recuse myself from this discussion as a butter. Oh, okay. So, not to really muddy the waters here, then we don't have quorum for this. Yeah, we can't take a vote. I I think we can still and and I'm not sure we would
take a vote anyway without Natural Heritage weighing in, but we can't take a vote. But nonetheless, Kyle, I think I'm going to put you on the spot to weigh in here. Yeah, I mean, I can see see where you're coming from with the distinction um chemical versus
mechanical. And I hadn't really thought too much. I I I wanted to see this I think from Dave when we met last week. goes very or last meeting goes much more high level and you know this is yeah I want to see more I see the
lists I can use them that's great and I'm comfortable with the use I've sat in on plenty of the was it um the agriculture meetings and listen to them and show the case studies and the ongoing long-term projects that they've been working and the results so I'm I'm
comfortable with the uses usage of I don't know if there's enough detail in here on how which ones are they all going to be applied dossaging time year like sort of scheduling of of all that. So if that's what we if it's if it's a
newer condition chase that would get that out um and clear then that makes sense to me. I guess I thought that that might have been something we could do with an amended condition and just with conditions. Sure. You you would just add
conditions to the amendment. Okay. Jason, did you also have a concern about this setting a precedent going forward that we would blend physical and chemical together on order conditions? Before we get into that, and I don't want to cut you guys off, but without
Michael and not having quum, we really shouldn't even be having discussion. We should uh open close continue this to the next meeting so we do not have to renotify all the abutters. Okay. We'll we'll take your advice. Dave, apologies
for not identifying that sooner. Um, we are going to have to continue this for two weeks hopefully. Natural Heritage. Dave, I I'm I'm going to try and be wise here and take Tim's advice to to to just
move on because we really can't have this as Yeah. So, Dave, to the extent that you have comments, what I would what you're welcome to do is is send us an email on those, but I'm going to end this hearing right now because we're going to extend it for two weeks. We would love to have your thoughts in
an email, though. I I just feel bad that you put all that out there and uh I don't get a chance to uh respond. You're welcome to You're welcome to via email or or the next meeting and and we have to wait anyway, Dave, because we have National Heritage. we have to wait
for. So I understand that it just gives two weeks for this to sit there like it does, but Dave, administratively there there's literally nothing we can do. So um trust me, I'm not excited to have like as much as I enjoy seeing you Dave, I don't want to have to do this every
two weeks either. So it's I think I'm just as frustrated as you right now. Okay. So, I will mention that uh Dave Dave um I I don't want to have to ask LCTV to cut you off. We're we're
done with this hearing. We're going to move on to the next one. Okay. Um we will see you in two weeks though and we'll confirm that we have a quorum with everyone who can participate. So, apologies. You just say that this is
continued and we will reop open this reopen this at the uh May 27th meeting. That's correct. Thank you, Tim. That this discussion regarding an amended conditions for Forge Pond is continued for two weeks. Appreciate it. Take care.
Okay, we're going to move to the 8:45 public hearing. Notice 1065 Bruce Street. Mass EP file number 2041016. Construction and addition and installation of a septic system. We've got John Borman here to talk to. I'm promoting him right now. Very good.
Thank you. Hey John, you should be able to unmute yourself now. Can you hear me, sir? Yes, we can. Okay, John. Uh, sorry we're running 15 minutes late here, but the the floor is yours to give us an update, too. Yep. No, I appreciate it. Um, so I'm here on behalf
of the Miller family tonight. Um, we wanted to talk about an addition and a new septic system located at 65 Bruce Street. Uh, I'm going to share my screen if that's all right. Yes, go ahead. All
right, we'll go to that one. How does that work? So, first off, I've just got a map up here. Um, if you were taking Bruce Street from 2A to heading towards John, can I cut you off for a second? Are you sharing your screen via the Zoom app? If
you are, we can't see you. Let's try one more time. Share. Go. There we go. All right, I got a whole bunch of different things up, but uh so I can hopefully answer any
questions we can see now. May or may not have, but we're on Bruce Street. Uh if you were heading from 2A towards Harvard Road, uh we're on the right hand side uh shortly before you get to the big farm over there. Um just to get you orientated in town. Does that make sense
to most people? Yes, sir. All right. Um quick orientation on the site. Uh, I got a site plan here. Let me zoom in a little bit for you. So, on the right hand side of the plan is Brew Street. Um, the driveway is a gravel driveway that comes onto the
site and um is basically a horseshoe and continues back out onto Brew Street. We have an existing three-bedroom dwelling uh shown here in the brown. Um, the property slopes from the street to the back. There is a bordering vegetated
wetlands shown here with the blue line. Uh it was delineated by William Murray um from places associates there in Littleton. Um we also show here in the orange the 50-ft buffer zone which is your no disturb um buffer and the 100
foot buffer zone here uh closer out to the street. Uh as you can see basically uh the entire property or almost the entire property is located within uh the buffer zone to the resource area. We've sort of got two parts to
this uh project that's in front of you. Uh there's an existing septic system located here. If you can see my um I'll highlight you can see my outline. Uh that system I believe is original to the house. It's about 30 years old and it's tired. Uh and as part
of this process, we're looking to install a new septic system uh located in this area over here. Um to comply with your regulations and the board of health regulations, we have proposed a retaining wall that will keep any activity associated with that septic
system out of your 50oot no disturb. Uh we have been in front of the Littleton Board of Health and they have approved the plan for this. Um so hopefully this is something that makes sense. We're proposing erosion control. And in this case, I've got a straw
waddled standard straw waddle detail that would start at the house, follow the edge of the existing lawn and the tree line, and then along the limit of construction and back out to the 100t buffer zone so that this system could be constructed. Also, as part of this
project, uh the family is looking to add an addition onto the right hand side of the property if you are facing it from the street. Uh this addition is a twocar garage with a living space above. Uh and that is part of the reason that we end
up with a septic new septic system because it's an increase in the number of bedrooms and if you're following board of health regulations that needs to meet all the new standards. Uh so this system is in full compliance with both title five and the Littleton regulations. Uh I do have let me see if
I can pull it up this area right now. So, this is standing down near the wetlands looking at where that uh garage and living space is going to be. Right now, there's an existing retaining wall and that area is
utilized to park uh two vehicles. And then, if I can find the right screen, if you were looking at it from the street with the existing house on the left, you would end up with a two-car garage and that living space
above. Um, so basically we're utilizing roughly that existing footprint, eliminating the gravel parking, eliminating that retaining wall, replacing it with a concrete wall that would support the proposed addition uh to give additional living space. Uh, and
then you would have the two cars parked uh interior to the building. I'm happy to go through additional details or answer any questions. Um, you guys are having a late evening, so I figured I would keep it pretty short and sweet and see where you wanted to go. Appreciate that,
Brevity. John, um, let me start with with Tim. Tim, have you taken a look at this delineation yet? I have not been out to the site yet. No. Okay. Um, the the delineator is is again William Murray. He's from Places Associates right there in Littleton.
He's a wetland scientist, landscape architect, and planner. He's been doing this for many years uh throughout central Massachusetts. So, I'm very very confident in the line. Um and uh but I'm again happy to show it to anybody that would like to take a walk and take a look at it. Yeah, I think for the
purposes of this discussion right now, John, we're going to go forward assuming that line is the line, but um at some point we'll want our agent to go take a look at it and confirm it. We did submit the appropriate documentation because this addition is
within your 50 foot no build. So, we did fill out the waiver application. Uh, in my mind, it's uh the overall project is an improvement. You're taking what used to be gravel parking and has the potential to provide TSS loading or contamination to the wetlands area.
You're replacing it with roof runoff, which under the storm water management policy is considered clean. Uh and in addition, you're taking an existing tired septic system uh that is within your 50ft buffer zone and we're replacing it with a new system that is
as far away as possible uh outside that 50 foot and meets all of today's standards um for size, location, treatment. Um so I think we've got a couple of benefits here in terms of that waiver request. uh and it provides the
ability to expand the property for the millers uh who need the additional space. So, okay, commissioners, what comments, questions do you all have? Well, you covered part of it. The wetlands line goes right smack through the house and
the addition. So, what is the water runoff plan? the the the runs right through the building. Yes. Um so you have drains or uh dry well or what what's the plan for
the water coming off the roof of the addition? Uh we don't have any additional storm water management proposed at this point. Um we could be we can work with you if you feel that that's something that's necessary. We're taking an area that is existing compacted gravel um which if you do the
storm water calc is typically a CN of 98. Uh we're changing it to um a roof runoff which is a similar runoff rate of that 98. So I don't anticipate additional storm water volume uh entering the wetlands based on this. And
as I mentioned, you know, your TSS from gravel has potential um for erosion and potential for contaminants. Um getting those vehicles in the garage and just getting clean roof runoff, I think you've got a benefit here without anything additional. Um
so, Donna, I'm I'm not sure I agree with you on that gravel is functionally impervious. that okay that we're not typically seeing storm water models that are treating gravel with curb numbers in 98 right
they're it's significant right 80 to 90 but I'm not sure we've seen a storm water model that's tried to treat gravel as is fully impervious it's generally pretty compact in and material um so yeah I suppose there
might be a slight increase if you if you'd like to to look at it that way. Um, but I still think there's benefits to the proposed plan. Um, getting that septic system further away. I don't think we have any substantial increase from from that small footprint that's being installed there. If the commission
was interested in requiring a dry well or uh something along those lines, I think we'd be happy to consider it if if that's our our lone hurdle here. Um, that's a small one. Are you taking the old septic out? Um the system would
typically be pumped um during construction and in this case the new septic tank and the pump chamber are actually going to intersect where the existing system is. So the majority of it's going to be taken out um after it's pumped. Um some of that area that's
further uh that's closer and in the lawn would simply be allowed to stay in place. And what happens over time is the the effluent that is in among the stones simply deteriorates. And if you were to dig in it in 10 or 15 years, it would look like rocks with some soil mixed in.
Um, so there's really no need to to whole scale excavate. Um, but in this particular case, they're going to be working in among it. So that yeah, portions of it will be removed. Can we come back to the storm water thing for a second? I think that was an
important discussion. But our bylaw requires in addition to the 50ft no disturb zone that any expansion in the buffer zone of more than 1,000 square ft or 5% is subject to the mass storm water
standards. Is that something you've considered here, John? Um I have not. I can certainly take a look at it. I I looked at it as exchanging one thing for another. Um and again if you feel that uh we want to provide gutters on the back of this
addition into a drywall or some form of infiltration happy to provide it. Um again if that if that's the the main concern the the commission has here at this point. Um can I suggest we take these in two different pieces? So first let's talk
about the septic system to the south is north up. Let's go with south the septic system to the south because I I think there may be different considerations here from the commission commissioners in general. What issues or concerns do you have
there? Questions that we need John and his clients to answer concern I have is material handling of materials stock piles. Yeah, I'd like to see an area called it. It looks like the entire propertyy's in the 100 foot buffer here, right? Um, so if material
is leaving site every day or what the what the plan is for that control containment. So we're looking at stockpile areas. We're looking at erosion controls of those stockpile areas. Yeah, I would uh anticipate clearing and
grubbing and you would end up with the stumps and the materials all being hauled off site. Uh then uh and lom and top top and subs soil being removed for the excavation of the system. Um and again probably being hauled off site being given the limited uh space that
we've got on this property. Construction of the retaining wall uh and then uh imported materials to create that uh that system in place. Um I agree there's very limited space that's uh available on site uh considering the family is
also going to be living there. Um so I I don't see a lot of material being stored on site. Obviously, I think dayto-day you'll end up with some stock piles adjacent to the work area. Um, those are all again uh north or upstream
of of the erosion control barrier that we're proposing. Uh, so I don't think there'd be any concern about it washing down into the wetlands. Um, but uh you're right, it's a tight site and I think most of the stuff is most of the material is going to head off site um during the construction. I'm totally
comfortable comfortable with that. Um, but saying that to us and having a contractor do it without it being on a plan, um, I feel like a very different case. So, it's something that you with these types of sites I personally like to see called out on a plan. Um, show
that location in that outside 100 foot like you had shown and a note saying surrounded by your shaw wall wherever your erosion control usage is going to be just so it's there. Your septic is bigger than the previous
one obviously because you're putting in additional bedrooms. How much additional effluent if that's the right word? Um do we anticipate uh from it because it's going to be feeding to the
wetlands eventually. It's so close to it. Well, looks like we might have might have lost John here. Oops. I imagine that that effluent is still better than what was coming out of
the the previous system, right? I'm sure the volume Oh, I don't know. I don't know if the volume would increase if it a more efficient, cleaner system. benefit. Well, if it's in tough shape, you may be right that that's that's just the benefit I think
outweighs the even if it is a slight increase in affluent. Yeah. My other I I think their other consideration and we can repeat this when John gets back is that entire southern portion of the property is forested. Um, and we're going to want to
understand the extents of the tree clearing there, which he isn't going to be able to put back because of the septic. I believe that is probably right. But one of my questions for John and his client is are are they essentially proposing to turn that
entire area into lawn or they what what's the what's the scope of everything there? Yeah, fair question. So, how do we proceed where John is falling off and maybe having trouble
getting back on? Um, let's do this. Let's keep that hearing open. Um, we'll see if John comes back. If he does, we can reopen that discussion because we haven't closed it out. But then we can move on simultaneously to
the next item on our agenda. So, it looks like next up we have Taylor Street, the 9 900 p.m. 151 Taylor Street, construction of a structure for vehicle diagnostic testing. Um so that's the one that
um they found out that they did not receive a variance for plumbing and so they had to relocate um that structure and it's going to be relocated in an area where it is not within our jurisdictional buffer zone. So they had requested a formal withdrawal of the
notice of intent. Okay, very good. So that makes that one easy that's been pulled back. Um almost getting us back on time then. Um, oh, it looks like we have Randy Miller, who I believe is the property owner. Could we promote Randy to a
panelist so he can comment? And to be clear, while Ry's getting on, Randy, you're the property owner of 65 Bruce Street. I am. Yes. Okay, very good. Uh, so I just uh was texting with John. He's trying to get back on now. Um, I could answer some questions if you
would like uh if you'd like to wait for John uh to come back on uh we can do that. Uh but like you some of the questions that you were posing uh in regard to the uh septic site itself um mainly the septic system where it
would be located uh that would be lawn. Um, I'm not opposed to planting trees along the eastern edge along Bruce Street uh to provide uh definitely some um I guess masking or uh privacy uh for
the uh the property itself. So, um not opposed to replanting, uh vegetation, trees, uh whatever the commission would like along, uh the wall there um to help offset what's going to be cleared. Um and again, I don't know what John has as
far as engineering goes, uh between uh how close we can actually get to the septic system itself. Understood. Yeah. With with respect to trees, one of the things we're going to ask uh I imagine we're going to ask you to do, Randy, is to quantify for us the
trees that will be removed within the buffer zone and provide us with a plan for how those what can be replanted, where they will be replanted. And it essentially what we're looking for in so many words is to
the extent that there's an impact to the buffer zone, how is that going to be offset? Understood. I was listening earlier to uh 64 I think Beaverbrook Beaver Street as well. So, uh I mean we're kind yeah we're kind of like we're going to need some help with uh with
that from you uh because there is kind of abstract uh so uh yeah I'm open for suggestions and you know I can make do or try to accommodate the best I can. Okay. Yeah. The the first step here is going to be an inventory I think of of
what's going to be removed. Commissioners let me know if you disagree but that that's pretty typical. There's there's mostly large uh pine trees that are in the area uh that will be excavated. Uh those mostly are all
old and uh I've had I've had some uh different companies come in, tree services that have already kind of uh labeled those as um suspect of of breaking and falling down and are old. Uh there's a few of them that have already crushed the power lines and I'm
sure the electrical company will be very happy to have them removed. Um, with that everything else is there's ash, there's sugar maples, uh, a lot of them that are smaller, uh, less than 12 inches of diameter.
Yeah. Well, uh, the best way to do this is just have have your team inventory what's there above, uh, we're typically looking for inventories above 2 in or so diameter, breast type. Okay.
Um Randy, while while John's still waiting to sign on, I I I do think it at the risk of testing your patience, um I'd rather have the rest of this conversation while you're say represented. Um so if it's okay with you, I'm going to put you sort of on the
back burner for a minute while we take on another one and then we'll give John a chance to jump back on. Absolutely. No problem. I just wanted to uh just let you know what's going on. Sounds good. Appreciate it. Um, so we're going to move to the 915 notice of intent for 97 and 99 mil road parcel IDU
3531A for construction of an electrical equipment area. Is there someone here to speak to them? Yeah, I'm promoting them now. Hey guys, I I can leave this one off again. Uh, this is another uh light uh topic, Littleton light topic. So, just to kick
it off again, introduce myself. So, it's been a little while. So, I'm uh Dave Ketchin, assistant general manager from the Littleton Light and Water Apartments um discussing this 97 and 99 Mil Road project with me. Um I believe Steve
Burn's going to be here from Citizens. Um Scott Cameron and Don Severs from the Morren Cameron Group. So, with this property, uh, you know, it's it's obviously you guys know where it's located, right on
Mill Road, right along, uh, the 495, um, exit off-ramp there. And we're hoping to utilize this this property for some peak shaving ability. So, what we're proposing tonight is to install a new battery storage system on the property
connected to our distribution system that will be owned and operated by uh citizens. And it's sort of a a cost sharing uh model where they'll be able to charge the battery during, you know, off- peak hours. And then once the peak
comes around and able to to shed load on our system, we'll be able to dispatch that battery um system for three hours at a time. Um and just the the kind of short of it, the reason this is important is because how we get charged
for purchasing power, energy, transmission capacity, all all depends on these, you know, peak hours of the months and and of the year. So, the more we can do during these peak hours, um dispatching things like like batteries,
like our our natural gas generators at at our at our um at our own offices help drive those costs down and keep our electric rates low. So, that's sort of the the overall um purpose of this project. And and I'll invite uh pro I
think I believe Dan Severs from Warren Camera Group is is uh gonna speak next. Hey Dan, it looks like you're on. Floor is yours. Good. Thanks, David. Um, appreciate the handoff. Good evening, members of the commission. Thank you for having us
tonight. Um, may I may I share my screen? Yes, please. Right. All right, for the record, my name is Dan Seabirds and I am a registered professional civil engineer with the Morren Cameron Group at 66 Elm Street in
Danver, Massachusetts. We have the pleasure of being the civil engineer and surveyor for this proposed battery energy storage system project located at 97 and 99 Mil Street. We have been working with David Ketchin and Steve Burns on developing the site plans for
this proposed project. Um I'm going to speak a little bit about the background of 97 to 99 Mil Road. The proposed um property or the property is situated along the boundary of 495. Um let's see
here. Give you a little idea of the location on the boundary of 495 to the north of the site. the Bieber brook of perennial stream located to the south of the site and also at the
intersection of Warren Street and Mill Road. As you may know, the property is in the industrial B zoning district and is previously developed property that has been used as such for a better part of the century. It was previously used as lumberyard and some evidence is still
present on the ground as you can see on sidewalks. The property was recently acquired by Littleton Electric and Light Department and is now being used for municipal electric and light operations as well as other temporary contracting uses such as material
stockpiling. All right. So, we had LEC environmental consultants based out of Worcester, Massachusetts delineate the limit of wetland resource areas on site, including the mean annual high water along Beaverbrook. um which establishes our brook bank
which then establishes our 100 and 200 foot offsets from the bank otherwise known as your 100 and 200 foot riverfront areas on site. Additionally, there's an offsite isolated wetland to the north associated with the highway drainage of route 495.
This is delineated with wetland flags and has a 100 foot buffer zone extending onto the site and is only jurisdictional under your local bylaw and not the wetlands protection act. The bulk of the proposed work associated with this project is primarily within the
riverfront area. Might be hard to see here. You've got your 200 foot riverfront denoted here and your 100 here. Um, ahead of filing application, Scott Cameron of the Morning Cameron Group met with town staff and officials
to preview the proposed project on site. Earlier iterations of the proposed work had a larger footprint within the 100 foot riverfront area. From feedback feedback received, we were able to adapt the project to be what it is today. Proposed enclosure. Let's go to this
sheet. As you can see, the proposed enclosure is outside of the 100 foot riverfront area. and as close to the existing buildings as we can without
um right causing access issues around the enclosure for both the existing uses on the property along with any large maintenance vehicles or emergency vehicles that would need to get around the enclosure for the future. Um, from a stormwater
perspective, according to 310 CMR 10.585, the proposed work on site is considered a redevelopment within a previously developed riverfront area because it falls entirely within the footprint of the developed riverfront area. While we are proposing work within
the 100 and 200 foot riverfront areas, the proposed work will increase the natural buffer between the stream bank and developed site. reduce the graded riverfront area on site by approximately 600 square feet and decrease the overall total
impervious area on site by around 20,000 square ft. Additionally, we are proposing to restore an area um that has previously been degraded with gravel and material pilings offsite along with on-site which
totals for about 4,300 square ft with about 1,000 square feet of that being within the property. Um, we are proposing a wetland pollinator seed mix that we hope can bring back some pollinator habitat
habitat in the area closest to Beaverbrook. Um, and just for a comparison, the the area proposed restoration is about the area of the equipment enclosure on uh that we're proposing. Um, as part of our submission
and plan preparation, we followed the rivers protection act section addressing performance standards for for previously degraded riverfront area prior to August 1st, 1996, which is the case here. Um, I could run through the eight associated
standards if you would like. Um, I'll just go ahead and go through them. So your standard A a covers your um minimum proposed work shall result in in an improvement over the existing conditions. The proposed project here
includes about 4,300 square feet of restoration of the innermost riverfront area adjacent to the proposed work which includes removal of gravel and fill and replacement of such with lom and pollinator seed mix like I've said before while also increasing the
natural buffer to beaver brook. Um so standard B covers your storm water management being provided according to standards established by the department. The proposed work will result in the net reduction of impervious surface on site.
Thus mitigation of runoff is not necessary and the project will improve its capacity to infilt infiltrate storm water due to this reduction. Additionally construction erosion control measures which I'll point out right here. We have proposed um sealed
socks around the the areas of proposed work. Let me see here. What do I call that? Proposed silt side along the proposed boundary of um work. Um and then moving on to the the third standard C proposed work shall not
be located closer to the river than existing conditions. We are not proposing any work closer to the stream bank. Um we are actually increasing the natural setback to Beaverbrook.
Um standard D proposed work including expansion of existing structures shall be shall be located outside of the riverfront area boundary and away from the river. The fence location is situated outside of the 100 foot river front buffer zone and was value
engineered to reduce the footprint by approximately 30% um during application consultation with Littleton Conservation Commission agent. Um any other area on the property that would accommodate the enclosure and
associated required access around it would have been situated within the 100 foot riverfront. Standard E. The area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area which be covered by all the proposed work occurs within the degraded
riverfront area and no new riverfront area alteration is proposed. Standard F which talks about the restoration requirements related to proposed alteration of the riverfront area. We have covered because the project has no new alteration proposed
that requires restoration. Standard G, the the standard does not apply since we are not proposing any mit any mitigation. In standard H, the standard covers the requirement of a certificate of compliance for this type of proposed project which will will be
met once the final certificate of compliance is issued by the commission and the quarter. I'm not sure if Steve's available to talk to the specifics of the electrical equipment. Um, but I can pull up kind of
a a give you an idea of what we're proposing for the electrical enclosure. Um, which I think either Dave or Steve could speak to you more precisely about
the specifics, but um, I can I can speak to some of the specifics that are going to be on there. It's basically if you want to zoom in there, there's four there's going to be four 20 foot battery uh containers. Um it's we're referring to it as an inverter skid. Uh that'll
have two inverters and two transformers, one each on each of them. And then we'll have um some additional switch gear and kind of a a control panel uh on another um concrete platform. So we're either
going to have four there's four battery containers, so four concrete platforms. And then we're either going to do two each uh on the the other side um or it'll just be two in total. Um so we're
we we have as Dan said, we have value engineered this this to make it um small, you know, kind of keep the the plan alive for Littleton Electric and, you know, redeveloping the rest of the site as well. So, we were uh trying to
adhere to what they're trying to do in the future for the site as well as um you know, make it appropriately situated in the site for permitting purposes. But, but just to be clear, future plans not withstanding in LWD's master plan,
we're only looking at the application in the context of a battery storage facility. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yep. Um, I I mean I think we've got the general lay of the land here in terms of what's going on. Commissioners, what questions do you all
have? So, you mentioned batteries and I don't I don't understand what a battery I understand what a battery is and not to this scale. Um, but all you've mentioned is that they're sitting on concrete pads. Is there any sort of containment, secondary
containment? Walk me through what that setup looks like for these. Can I tack on to that question because it may fit into this, not just secondary containment, but also firefighting considerations while you're talking about that.
Yep. So, we we've met with um Littleton Fire Department. We've had preliminary discussions with them. Um they've seen uh the proposed system. um we haven't gotten any direction from them on what requirements they're going to have. This
this system will be fully designed and engineered um with a battery energy storage integrator and that means that there's a you know very high-tech battery controls u management and um each container is
you know self-contained. So there are different ways to approach the safety aspect which is why we're trying to work with the the fire department ahead of time. Um but basically um you know there are there are different ways there are different
aspects of the safety um that we need to you know work with Littleton Fire to get where they want to be uh for that. But um I guess there there is no we're not planning to build in any secondary containment for any um any emergency
events if that's what the question was around. What about if the uh I assume these are liquid fil batteries not solid state. So, uh, what about if they should springly, rust out, whatever the term
you want to use is. Um, well, they're lithium ion batteries. Um, I've never had the question before. I think if they had some sort of leak, um, that would be contained within the the container itself. Um, I've never had
that question before. So, they're they're liquid cooled. Um but I I've never had them. So what kind of liquid? Um and what about containment of the liquid for the coolant? My my interest is I know this
property is quite wet or can't be in spots of it and so you know I know you're at the top of it but we don't want I don't want to see any leech out or leak out or you know whatever words you want to use.
And if it does, how do we contain it? This is the time for us to ask those questions, not when it happens. Yep. Yep. Understood. Um I I've never been asked about a a battery or any of the coolant getting out of the container
itself. So I can I can see if there's any literature on that or any any sort of direction on that. Yeah, I I think maybe what you're getting a sense of here, Steve, is I'm going to speak for myself in part that the overall improvement to the project
to the property that that makes a lot of sense, right? Like Dan laid out how uh a lot of the requirements for work within a previously degraded riverfront area are really seeking to improve it, not necessarily make it pristine. What
you're hearing though, I think, is some concern about impact to resource areas through the operations, whether that's leaks or fires. And part of this is we do a lot of septic systems. We don't do a lot of battery storage. And so
understanding the potential impact of resource areas here is something that we're going to have to get comfortable with before we permit it. If if that makes sense to you. Sure. and and I'm going to glom on to that with respect to the firefighting questions.
Um, I'd really like to understand what could be done to ensure that if there was a fire, what it what I would not want to have happen here is if there was a fire for those for whatever firefighting
activities to essentially push all of the impacts from a lithium ion battery fire into Beaverbrook. So, if that's some burming on the edge of this, if that's um some sort of containment system, that that's one of the things
that I'm going to be looking for. For the record, we are we're still going through the process with planning board and fire department and you bring up a lot of valid things that need to be addressed and you can address those with fire department from all the things that you bring up and your concerns today.
Yep. Yeah. I I figure we're not going to be the only ones, but we are we are charged in with looking primarily at the resources. So even if the fire department says we're happy with this from a ability to put out a fire context, that doesn't necessarily mean
that we're going to be comfortable with it from the impacts of putting out that fire to resource areas such as to put the fire out, will they have to use foam? Well, where's that foam going to end up? Yep. Things like that. Yep. I I would say from the the water department
side, we're in and the light department, we're on the same page. So, um it's getting late here and I I don't want to draw this out too much. My sense is here probably the next step is probably a sitewalk, Dave. Does that
make sense to you guys? Absolutely. Yep. Okay. Um, are you guys in a position to do a sitewalk right now or are you just introducing the project and you need to get a little further with other parties before we do a sidewalk? I think we're ready to have a sidewalk for sure. Okay. So, that means
resource area is flagged and delineated and footprint of the project is marked in the field. Yep. It's currently staked out. Okay. Commission, what's your appetite for a
sidewalk? Yeah, I'm I'm curious to see it. Is this something um we could tack on to our sitewalk on the 22nd that's currently at 4:30? If we tack on something say 5:30.
like the words right out of my mouth. Chase, is that okay, Dave? You and your team okay with maybe a little later in the day there? Yeah, that that should be fine. Okay. I'm going to give you the same qualifier I gave uh the other applicant.
We'll confirm that with you via email just in case uh rest members really can't do it. Okay, that that works. But let let's let's plan on the 22nd at 5:30
p.m. Um, commissioners, any other threshold issues you want to go through tonight or are we good moving on from this? Just have a quick question on on demo. So, kind of nothing south of that is really or south on the plan is is being touched. Those existing buildings
are all staying. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. So, we have a couple sheds that we are proposing to remove over in this area. There's a leanto shed and a shed. Y um this general area along with a lot
of material piles which you'll see on sheet one that we're calling out to to remove. But as far as the other functional existing buildings, those are all to remain as the current um use for the property as well. Then we'll leave it at that. Dave, you
know how to get a hold of Tim if uh you want to discuss this further, you know, get get some additional thoughts when it's not 10 o'clock at night. Absolutely. Cool. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we're going to pivot back to Thought I saw
John. Yep. We're going to piv pivot back to 65 Brew Street. Um John, you should be able to unmute yourself. Uh, understanding that it is almost 10 p.m. and we still have one more item to do, I'd like to keep this as quick as we
can. We were working through issues on the southern portion of the property. One of the things that we had indicated to Randy while you were off was um we will want a tree survey. What's what trees are going to be removed and we will run a replanting and restoration
plan. Um Tim, conservation agent can help you work through what is generally been things that we've accepted there. Um commissioners, any other comments on the southern portion of the property
before we get to the addition on the north hearing? No objection. I do want to take on this idea of the addition to the north. Um, let me preface this by saying, John, we tend to take a
fairly say dim view of of work in the 50. And so, one of the things that I'm going to ask you for is to expand upon your waiver request specifically with
this addition in mind. um review specifically the language of the waiver and tell me exactly how this addition meets the requirements of the waiver. Um and I think that's that's going to be an important piece of this.
Um other commission comments, Kyle, Ed, Michael, Tim? I don't suppose moving the addition forward that there's enough room to do that to get it out or even most of it out. taking some of the driveway.
Yeah, your your 50 foot buffer zone is is cutting right through. Um yeah, if you're not familiar with the site, I mean, there really is no option to put anything out in the front. It it it doesn't make any sense with the existing house and footprint. So, um and this is
area that's already utilized for vehicles. Um it standing there looking at the site, it makes sense to me at least. So, um I off I would certainly take your input, but uh it's the appropriate place for it. Um I would
John, I I do have one question about that that argument though that it's used for vehicles. So, it looks like the addition is proposed to be 24x 24, but when I pull up an aerial, the footprint of that area is not 24x 24, it's half as
wide as that. Are are we really building this only on compacted gravel? The Yeah, there's the existing retaining wall is shown on the on the plan. It's a little hard to see in the color up because it's behind the brown. Um and
then the gravel area is contained within that. Um I can open up that photo again. It's it's two cars wide and and it was survey located to show the sizing of it. So does it match it exactly? No. It's probably 6 in off on one side and a foot
off on the other, but it's it's not half the size. Um it it it's the same same general footprint. I would note you you called out that the addition is 24x 24, which is shown on my plan. Um I did receive the architectural plans today.
Uh and they're looking at 24x 26. So they're coming out uh another two feet on the front. So I do need to update that uh information to you and then make sure that that gets into the application. Uh but that is a little bit little bit increase in size but on the
side away from the wetlands. Um so I want to make sure you're aware of that as we move forward. Okay. Something I think we'll want to see in the field. John, I do have the pictures if I can get back to them, but I apologize and I appreciate your
patience. Um, uh, whatever. My computer just crashed and didn't want to play. No worries. Uh, while you're pulling those photos up, uh, commissioners, what other comments do you have here? The usual
protection against uh erosion and all that stuff. Okay, I did go and look at what is the average width of a truck and width of a car. And if you take just those two immediately
touching each other, you're at about u uh 13 or 14 feet. So, wouldn't be the first time the angle of an aerial just doesn't line up really. I was just going to say R. Yeah, the aerial's tough. Um Yep. I mean, this is
this is based on survey information. Um Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think that's something that I'll want to put eyeballs on in the field, but uh it to the extent that it is not a match, that could be a problem, a bigger
problem. To the extent that it is, I think we still have some challenges. John, I I'm not sure that historically we have ever permitted an expansion like this um of an existing residence. And just to give you a sense
of how closely we've held this line with respect to work in the 50, we've turned down applications to have people put on elevated decks that simply extend into the 50. So that that's where I I can't emphasize enough the importance of
making your best argument in a waiver request specific to that addition. Okay. I I appreciate the the the cander. Um yeah, and I certainly would not have suggested to the client
that this be proposed if it were in an area that was, you know, wooded or natural. Um, in this case it is uh I think we got some you're 32 feet from the wetlands
but you're also 10 ft or so off the tree line currently which is is existing lawn at this point. Um, and this does show that's that retaining wall right there. Um, which is about 25 ft off the building. So uh or actually we're
slightly under what that footprint is and it's it's parking. So, uh, again, I wouldn't have come in front of the commission if we were cutting down trees, uh, and and in a naturalized area, but this is, uh, area that's currently used. It's where the cars sit.
So, it seemed to me that, uh, if it was going to go anywhere, this was the right place. So, understood. I just want to set the expectations there. That's definitely the part I'm struggling with, Chase. I totally agree that this something is a non-starter, you know, probably 98% of the time, right? But
I'm trying to weigh the benefit of keeping a gravel driveway there over a contained garage where you're getting rid of sediment, getting rid of oil, other fluids that
are going into the ground right now. Um I don't know. It's you're not actually getting rid of them because they'll end up on the garage floor and eventually But yeah, I I hear I'm with you. Sure. That's yeah big feels to me like an improvement. Um but it's so much in the
50. That's Yeah. Well, the whole the whole lot's in the 50. I mean the the whole house everything it's been there. I think it was constructed in what 1945 or maybe don't quote me on that. But uh it's been there a long time. So yeah,
I don't want to belabor this too much, John. I think you you've heard where the commission is in terms of paying attention to these things. So um so what we've asked you for is with respect to the septic area uh tree survey
construction plans in terms of material storage and stockpiling. We've asked you for an expansion of our an explanation of to the north the the basis for why this meets the waiver requirements and
we've asked you for consideration of the storm water ress. I will point out to you that where our bylaw says a thousand square feet or 5% more there there is to the extent practicable and so we don't
necessarily intend to impose the the full storm water regs on people if it's completely impracticable but but you need to make that argument. No, I understand. Um I'll point out that under the state regulation, single family homes are exempt from the storm
water management. uh we're under that thousand square foot uh requirement. Um I suspect we are not under the 5% which is uh a very low percentage. Um and we can certainly work with you to try and provide some infiltration. Um which in
this case is about in my mind all that would need to be uh mitigated. Uh I don't see TSS removal as an issue. We're already improving that. Um it you know a little bit of infiltration to mitigate pre-post um seems like it would be a
reasonable approach. So I I think you're on the right track. Okay. Um commissioners, do we need a sidewalk? See the fact that the house is in the in the mostly in the 50. I will tell you I think at a minimum we
need to confirm the wetland line. Right. So much of this turns on where that line is. Sure. Um that Tim if nothing else I think in the intervening two weeks it'll be important for you to get out there and confirm you're comfortable with that line. Commissioners, any other need for a
sidewalk? Sounds like no. Okay. Um then John, we we'd ask you to agree to continue this for at least two weeks or as long as you need to address some of the things that we've put on your plate. Is my understanding you typically
have a oneweek um submission deadline prior to your hearing? A few days. Yeah. Not a week, but Okay. Uh but then I'd like to be on in two weeks. I think we can we can react to the questions and I can reach out to Tim and make sure that
I've gotten uh some of the items checked uh and come back in two weeks and then if for some reason we have a hangup um you know we could always continue to to a later date. But I'd like to leave the option open to to resolve this as shortly as possible. Okay, very good.
We'll um we'll continue then to the 27. Thank you. I appreciate your time tonight. Okay. Okay. We're almost there, guys. Well, not really. We got a bunch of administrative stuff to do, but um we're Looks like we got Tim here. I imagine Tim's not just here hanging out
to talk about listening to parks and wreck. We'll pull Tim in to talk about Long Lake Docks and maybe Saul too, I think. I could actually lead with this, Chase, if you'd like. Yep. Go ahead. Whatever gets us through this faster. Yeah. So,
why we're here is is because of the storage of the docs, right? And um there were concerns raised about the location of uh where the docs are being stored. Um in the order of conditions that we issued um when this was permitted, it
states within the findings that um the docks will not be stored within the buffer zones. I went back and I watched both meetings where this was discussed. Um you guys asked him where the docs have
historically been stored and and he mentioned where they're being stored now. it's within the um the access that gravel access to the boat ramp, right? There was no further discussion on that. There was no explicit, you
know, docs will not be stored within within the buffer zone. My theory about what happened was we have boilerplate language that we take for special conditions, right? And we had a dock that was being permitted at Zero Fort Pond in the months prior to that. My
best guess is that the boilerplate language from that from those special conditions, we copied it over and it was a mistake that it wasn't removed and that's why it's in there. So, not sure if you guys would
like to see this as a request for an amended order of conditions where we can remove that language or how would how you would like to proceed with that. And Tim, if you have anything to add, by all means. Yeah. Uh just real quickly um if I can uh share my screen real quick
um just so you guys can. So we've been working prior to all of this for the past couple years to uh work on um getting the boat ramp updated and this week de uh the fishing game commission actually was able to come out. Um I
don't know if you guys are able to see. So, um this is currently one of the uh items that was brought up was where the signpost was the kiosk that was uh the fish and game kiosk. So, the new D
chapter 91 regulations require the kiosk to actually be on the driver's side uh within um a certain distance of being able to drop in on the actual boat ramp. So, the sign is now relocated onto the beach side um rather than being on the
passenger side further up the boat ramp where it was. I thought we were pedantic sometimes. So, this is the this is the new uh kiosk that was actually installed on Wednesday. Um along with uh all of the signage that was replaced from the
waterway all the way up to Goldsmith. Uh we were two generations behind fishing games signages and uh regulations for where they wanted certain things. Um happy to share all of this with you. Um just for brevity, I will show you the one thing that was contested the most,
which was the hitchhiker sign and the placement of the docks in front of the kiosk were brought up in that one um comment. I have actually talked to Rob since then and he was pretty ecstatic that all of the changes that had been made and very happy to know that we had
worked through this. Um the other thing that I wanted to share with you all um sorry is uh currently we are working through the whole process with the showing up here sorry
um I shared it with Tim I'll just talk to it right now. Uh so I did go through the whole chapter 91 process. As you guys are aware that there's a complete new process for filing for docs. Um it's taken about 17 hours so far uh for the
full licensing through the WW1 process which will give the uh seasonal dock permits for the next 15 years. Uh today I filed the request from the state for the public notice which will be posted on March 5 or May 15th.
um for this particular situation and um it can take up to an additional 6 weeks to finish the process. So we are going through the full process uh which ultimately comes back to you guys and what we're talking about tonight.
So after all that's resolved, it sounds like the last piece is where the docs are stored. Is that right, Tim? Yeah. Okay, commissioners, let's start with this. Any any objection to allowing
parks and wreck to store the docks adjacent to the water cuz right now they our conditions say they're not allowed to. If there is a problem with that, then we should stick with our language.
Can I this one question just for clarity for everybody because it's kind of a double question. So we can move the docks back. I think Tim and I measured it 17 ft and they are outside of where your restriction is. However, the
comment that was made by the resident also took into consideration the uh storm water runoff basin that was put in by the state. Um, and should there be a buffer zone to that. So, I just want to put it all on the table while we're
talking about it. I can easily move the docks back 17 feet, have plenty of room for storage, including the new docks that were approved in the CPC. um the the additional docks that we're going to request with the CPC funds. I
think the bigger question now is is are we going to be held to moving back from that catch basin? Tim, was that 17 ft to get out of the 50 or to get out of the 100? I forget what we talked about. I think
that was out of I think that might have been the 50. Um in the language that's currently that exists in the order, it includes the the 100. Okay. But the the area that Tim's talking about is there is a uh a drainage channel that runs
from uh it might be an outfall. I haven't seen it in person myself, but it runs from I believe it's an outfall to uh Long Lake. So that would be considered. So it's the storm water that runs down Metobrook and it's the storm there.
There's basically four basins that are taking out sediment before it reaches Long Lake uh from that coming off of Goldsmith from that side of Manbrook and and Long Lake neighborhood. Let me weigh in this way. Um to the extent that the objection for the docks
being proximal, relatively proximal to the water is being raised as a concern. I I I understand some people, the public, have had concerns about how parks and
wreck has managed the docks in general. I will tell you from my perspective, that's not our purview. All we're answering is whether or not that has implications for the resource areas that and so to the extent that the issues are how they're stored, are they
messy, so on and so forth, that that's for you to sort out, Tim. Um, so let me It sounds like when I asked this once, nobody really had any issues. I want to confirm though, nobody has any substantive issues with the
parks and wreck docks being stored within the 50oot buffer. Is that correct? Are there any issues with that? Because if there aren't, then we can talk about process. Yeah, I don't see an issue that we let them store we let them store them in the resource, right?
What's the difference storing it within 10 ft of the resource? Thank you. If it's not causing a any sort of functional problem of that area um other than maybe an eyesore that again that's not our perview. Right. So I I don't see
I personally do not have a concern with the way they've been stored. Yep. Hearing no other objections to that then it's a process question. What I would put on the table for the commission is we should handle this just as an amended order of conditions. Uh that we agree, you know, need a motion,
but we agree to strike that particular language from the order of condition. Yeah. Remove condition number blah blah blah condition C5, whatever it is, Tim, like is that do you know what it is? Uh it's it's actually not even a special it's not a condition itself. It's it's
just within the findings. Okay. But strength this language. If if we were to act on this as an amended order of conditions, we would need this hearing wasn't posted as an a request for an amended order. It was just posted
as a public hearing. So, we would need to post that for the meeting on the 27th and make any action at that meeting. Okay, let let's do that. Tim, appreciate you keeping us honest on that.
And uh other Tim, bad Tim. Our Tim's good Tim. Bad Tim. I I don't think you need to like, you know, we'll try and get you on early so we can just get right through that. So you don't need to spend three hours of your evening listening to us yammer on.
Okay. Unless you want to. I say you sound disappointed to not do that, but All right. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um yeah. Okay. Let's Let's move that forward. And Tim just put Tim on good
Tim put bad Tim on early in the Let's try to We've already got four that have time set. So I think we're being pushed out until probably 8:45 now. But beats 10 o'clock. So I mean honestly Tim if if you want to Good Tim if you want to give bad Tim 7:40 p.m. Right. Like this is
just going to be a five minute thing. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We're gonna unless there anything else, we're gonna move on from this one. Good Tim. Have a good night. No, not good Tim. Bad Tim. Thanks, Jace.
Good Tim. We got Thank you everyone. Appreciate you guys. Take care. Uh way to close this down. We got to circle back to the certificate of compliance issues. Yes. Do you want to run down those? Essentially, are there any that you're concerned about? There are some
that I feel like the details should be touched on. Um, and but I will keep it as as concise as possible. In fact, I've got notes here in order to do that cuz I anticipated a long meeting. Um, so first one being 35 Grimes Lane. Um, the older
order, there's two requests for certificate compliance for this property. The older order, work was never started under this order conditions. Um, since work was never started, uh, a certificate of compliance would be issued for an invalid order of
conditions since it expired. No work was done. It's a new one, but okay, cool. Um that I'm going to move that we issue a certificate of compliance for 35 Grimes Lane Mast file number 2040620. Second. Okay. Motion's been made and
seconded. Roll call vote. Kyle Max. Ed. Michael Living I. Myself, Chase Gar. All right. Next one. 35 Grimes Lane. Um when they came in front of the
commission, they got an order. They changed up their plans from what was uh approved in the previous order. They have since completed their their work in compliance with the order conditions and the site is stable. And you've inspected it relatively recently. I have. Yep. I went out there
probably two weeks ago, three weeks ago at this point. Yeah. Okay. So, you're recommending we issue the COC? Yep. Okay. I'll move that we issue a certificate of compliance or 35 Grimes Lane D file number 2040829.
Second. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Ed Edi. Mike. Michael Livingston. I Kyle Kyle Max. Myself Chase. Big eye. All right. Next one. Long Lake Long Lake Pathway. Um
this work was actually completed not long after we issued the order. We were just waiting on uh the area to be stabilized and it has since been stabilized. So, it is good to go. Okay, I'm only pausing for a second here in case anybody has questions. Uh jump
in if you do, otherwise I'm just going to keep rolling through these. I move that the that we issue a certificate of compliance for Long Lake Pathway D file number 20410002. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Uh Michael Michael Livingston
Ed Kyle Hy Max myself Chase Gigai. All right next one 17 Madawanaki trail we are waiting for stabilization again. Uh the area has been stabilized and the work has been completed in compliance with the order and I recommend that it
is good to go. Move that we issue a certificate of compliance for 17 Madaguan Key Trail DP file number 2040985. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Ed Ed. Kyle.
Michael. Michael Livingston. I myself Chase Care. All right. Next one. Apologize for looking down the whole time. I'm just reading my notes I wrote for myself. It's okay. Um 73 Heart. Well,
um, order conditions was issued by you guys for this work. Upon appeal, D issued, uh, superseding order. Both orders were recorded. Um, even though our or your guys' order should not have been. Um, there was minimal work that
was that was started. Um, I believe it was just some clearing for the driveway. Um, but because no work was done under our order, it was only done under the superseding order and our order should have never been recorded in the first place. I spoke with D about this and
they recommended again issuing a certificate of compliance for an invalid order condition. So, it should have never been recorded. um they will have to go through the process of getting a certificate of compliance for the superseding order through D before we
can issue a new order of conditions for the NOI that's in front of us right now. So they're uh the property owners are in contact with D regarding this and they're DP is going to have to do a sitewalk the whole nine. Yes.
Okay. So this is this does not prejudice our ability to look at other elements of it. We're simply saying superseding order is all that matters. Correct. Yep. Okay. Then I move that we issue a
certificate of compliance for 73 Heartwell Avenue D204-0859. I'll second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Michael Michael Livingston I Edi Kyle
myself Chase car big guy. The next one 166 Wickcom all these unique certificate requests it cuz you know I've been here what almost three years now and I feel like these have never come up but they all came up once.
um order conditions was issued for this upon appeal superseding order issued by D or back then it was the D equivalent because it was so long ago. Um both orders were recorded and they got a certificate of compliance for the superseding order.
However, our order still uh remains uh tied to the title. So we would be issuing a certificate of compliance for an invalid order conditions. Very good. Then I move we issue a certificate in compliance for 166 WM a
mass DP file number 2040091. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Ed. Uh Michael Michaelson I. Kyle Kyle Maxfield Chase Carbag I Yeah, that's an old one. 009.
I don't even remember that project. So, I just tried to pull up on the map to see if I could recognize it. I don't even All right. The uh discussion for the the conservation parcel and parks and Rex uh you know storage proposal. Do you guys want to table that to the next meeting?
As long as it's not time sensitive. Yes, please. Yeah. Not time sensitive. All right. Okay. Next one. Donation of land uh parcel ID U2316. Um gentlemen would like to donate
this parcel to the conservation commission. This is over by the Long Lake outlet. Uh I could pull up the uh the imagery of it if you'd like. It's all of those roads that are now there's nothing. It's all natural now. Um, all
of the surrounding parcels are under the care, custody, and control of conservation commission. So, if you guys voted to approve this, um, I've got the language here. I I believe I included in the email. I can pull it up if you guys, um, would like to vote to approve, but
obviously open discussion first. I I did have one question here, Tim. Um, nothing's ever happened on this land, right? like in terms of operations build like I I'm wary of the town taking over something that I don't know maybe I just live in contaminated sites too much
but had some bad thing happened in the past honestly I I'm I'm not sure I've seen the assessor's maps that show all of these uh properties subdivided um and and all the roads but I've never seen
imagery of of actual roads and you know houses or or whatever Um, I can confirm that with the assessors, but I honestly I'm not sure. If we already own the all the lots around it, then if there was anything
bad, as you say, Chase, wouldn't we already We're stuck already. We're already in for a pound. I I don't see why we wouldn't take it. Okay. Yeah. And wouldn't be the first time I
was being paranoid about that. And it's nice that the person is trying to protect however small or logged. I don't know how big it is. It's over two and a half acres. That's a nice piece of nice chunk of change. Yeah. Like I said, it's nice that this
person's willing to protect it. I I will add the process for this, if you guys vote to uh approve the the donation, it would need your guys' vote. It would go to the select board for a vote and then it would come back to both boards for signatures.
Accepting it. I don't know how. All right. You want me to read? So I'll move move to vote that the conservation commission accept as a gift from John Mcweeny the land located at do drive littleton Massachusetts identified on Littleton's assessor map as U23-16-0 and being the same land that
was deed to John Mweeny by Daniel Mwy by deed recorded at book 12395 page 13 which partially contains 2.66 66 acres more or less for conservation and passive recreation purposes under article 97 of the Massachusetts
Constitution and on such other terms as the conservation commission shall deem to be in the best interests of the town. Second that was a lot. Yeah. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Kyle, Max,
Ed, Edai, Michael, Michael Livingston, and myself, Chase Cary. All right, next one. Tree City USA. Real quick, just to update update you guys. We uh we finally received recognition for uh of Tree City USA for Littleton
for the year of 2024. This opens us up to uh grant opportunities and some other things. Um, that's all for that. Um, any any questions or concerns? You okay with me moving on to the next? All right. Uh, assistant conservation agent
updates real quick, too. We've received probably 2025 applications for the assistant agent position posted at 40 hours a week. The incoming assistant agent will be working 40 hours, focusing on only conservation till the end of summer, where they will then begin splitting their time. 25 hours
conservation, 15 clean lakes committee uh or clean lakes related issues. Um the 15 hours towards the the lake issues is going to be funded by the water department. So just want to let you guys
know uh interviews for that start up next week. I will say having looked at the the list of résumés um I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the resumes. I I really thought we were not going to find a lot
of good applications and it went exactly the opposite way. Make it work difficult sometimes. Yeah, Tim Tim's got some work in front of him here. And I believe Andrew andor Sarah are going to sit in on those interviews.
Sarah is a co-chair. Andrew because frankly sits in the building and has a bandwidth to participate and of course brings more experience than any of the rest of us with the conservation commission. That's it for me. I don't Anybody have any anything else? They bring up just
one more thing real quick. I don't want to I don't want to make Chase mad, but I talked to Tim about this. So, um, when we didn't show up to our last meeting, our last quorum, um, the next day or two days later, I received a basically a
bill from Tim for me to sign off on. Um, that he had to renotify everybody because we didn't make quorum. Um, I guess there could have been a a way around that as well if we would have posted something on LCTV or whatnot, but
long story short, we had to spend $150, $200 of our money to repost everything. It seems like something we should be able to avoid with seven people on the board. So, just I don't know. We got to be a little bit more conscious about waiting until Tuesday night to say, "Hey, I'm not going to make it." You
know, so we can come up with a an alternative plan. Yeah. And I mean couple hundred bucks isn't good, but also I I worry that it undermines our credibility with people too. And even tonight, not that it's my
fault, but you know, it happens again tonight. No, I I was someone who bailed at the last minute a couple weeks ago, too. So, it try not to do that again. Now Tim, in terms of dealing with that, if we if we know we're not going to have quorum,
let's say on the Wednesday before the subsequent Tuesday, that's less of a problem for you, right? Um, yes, because we have No, it it's things are already noticed for that meeting. Yeah, I mean, it's it's we'd still have to do the same things and have LCTV post something during the time
of when the meeting was scheduled. Um, that gives us the the power to not have to renotify the abuters for whatever meetings were or whatever public hearings were scheduled for that night. Gotcha. Okay. Well, we'll try to avoid
it, but it is nice to have that advanced notice to be able to let LCTV know, too. Sure. Okay. Thanks for that reminder, K. Um, anything else that we need to cover tonight? Okay, I think we have room for one last
motion. I'll move that we adjourn the Conservation Commission meeting of uh May 13, 2025 at 10:23 p.m. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call vote. Michael Michael.
Kyle. Kyle. You don't want to end Kyle hear me anymore. Kyle, good enough. We we heard you. Uh Ed full and myself, Chase Carve. Thanks a lot for sticking around tonight, guys. And thanks for all your help on this, Tim.
Yeah, of course. Good night.