7:30. I'd like to welcome everyone and open November 18th, 2025 to the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting um remotely on Zoom. So, welcome. Um let's see. What we're going to do is start with approving the minutes from November 4th um which have
been submitted. Does anyone have any comments on the minutes from November 4th, 2025? >> Just having a couple of very minor things under the Lonley Park hazard trees near Harwood parking uh discussion. Um in the sentence, let's
see, actually the first sentence in that it says the Boston Metro West Bible Church approach Mr. Pearson. It should just be approached Mr. Pearson. And then uh within that same sentence, it says to remove four trees located on Long Lake
Conservation Property. Just Long Lake Park conservation property and that was it. >> Okay. Super. Does anybody else have any >> I had a couple um Yeah, I had I said I submitted a couple that's similar earlier. I think one of those was one of the ones Andrew mentioned, but nothing
nothing of much substance. So >> Okay, great. Um, going forward, does anyone want to make a motion to approve as amended? >> I'll move that we approve the Littleton Conservation Commission minutes of
November 4th, 2025 as amended. >> Great. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Fantastic, Andrew. >> Roll call vote. Uh, Carl, >> Alber, I >> Michael, >> I will abstain. >> Thank you.
Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Chase >> Chase I >> Ed >> Ed Fols I >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield I >> and myself I so that is six in favor and one abstension. >> Okay great thank you. Moving to
administrative discussions. Does anyone have anything that they would like to add to the discussion list for this evening? Tim? >> Nope. I do not. >> Anybody else? Um, is anyone aware of what's going on
behind the storage on New Town Road? Um, that apparently there's some big tractors been found there. >> That's turtle habitat. >> I know. Are are you talking about the one that came in for the anrad last?
Didn't we? We approved an ad there, didn't we? >> We did. Right before Omega way. That's gotten approval. >> Oh, okay. >> Yep. That's storage. Okay. All right. So, >> Ed Ed, if you want, Tim can um reforward that to you so you can see the the final
um proposal final agreement on that. >> All right. Thanks. >> Okay, great. Um okay, let's go ahead down the list. Um first up is annual approval of invasive species treatment forge pond invasive species control mass DP 204-872.
Tim. >> Yep. So, I'm promoting Dave Bar over now. If you guys remember back in the spring, Dave came in front of you guys to get an amended order um for invasive species treatment over on Forge. And there was a special condition in that
order um that he that they need to come in front of the commission annually annually and get um approval to do next year's um treatment. >> Hi. >> Hi Dave. Good evening, Dave.
>> So, um, we had planned to do herbicide treatment last summer on, uh, Lake Manaki Forge Pond, and for a number of reasons that, uh, we can go into if
you want to, but, um, we don't need to, uh, we weren't able to do uh, herbicide treatment last summer. Uh so um but the uh amend or item C17 says that
um we need to come back each year to get approval for the next year. Um we don't have anything to report about last year because there wasn't a treatment done this year. Again, uh we wanted to do an
echo harvesting, but uh in order to do that, we need to have a uh D permit for uh dredging uh which the Phoenix committee has been
working on for the last year and uh 15 months I guess maybe. um a contractor's been hired to do the submission. Uh and that's going to take longer than um
expected and so there won't be a permit in place in time for next summer for echo harvesting. So we want to do uh herbicides. >> So Tim, where are we with this now? I just need a a a vote or if any of you
guys have any questions, but um Dave's looking for a vote if you know to approve herbicide treatment for next year. >> Commissioners questions for Dave. >> I also had a question about C16. Is that part of this particular
>> uh the the amendments or the uh additions to the order of conditions uh for the herbicide and suction harvesting application last year added C16 C17 well 13 through well it
added 17 and 18 and it modified 16. So, if we're and commissioners, I'll defer to you on this. If we're looking to an amend um that then we would probably post this as an open meeting. >> I don't know that it's an amendment. It
just says that we need to come back and get uh uh approval. >> Yeah, it's just a special condition within that order that they need to come back every year. It's not necessarily issuing another amended order. It's just a an approval. >> I mean, Dave, I I would say Dave, if you
have a question, go ahead and ask it. I will tell you I don't recall condition 16, 17, and 18 off the top of my head. So it may make sense to have you pose the question. We may not have an answer for you. >> Okay. >> Uh okay. So 17, we're just coming back because it says uh we have to come back
each year to get approval for uh another herbicide treatment. >> Um I'm not sure what would happen if we did a treatment next year and then we didn't do one in 26, but we wanted to do one in 27. Um, I I suppose we would come
back after 25 or 26, report on it, and then the next time we actually wanted to do one, we'd come back and say, uh, we'd like to do one now. I assume that's the right way to do it. Um, C16 um was uh added when we
uh got approval to uh do physical um plant removal. And at the time uh we asked for a number of different kinds of physical plant removal and the uh one that was ex so all of them were formally
approved but the one that was explicitly approved to go ahead uh on a normal basis was echarvesting and then C16 was added at the time to say if you want to do manual hand harvesting, suction
harvesting or cutting without collection you have to come back and come with a plan and get uh approval for it. Um and then when we uh last year when we came to get approval for suction harvesting and herbicides
um the sentence was added to this amended to include implementation of herbicide use. Um so my my two questions for this are uh what does that mean actually for herbicide use? Does that mean that every time we want to do a a
herbicide treatment, we need to come back with a plan each time? And u since this was put in for these physical harvesting methods that weren't uh explicitly approved, since suction
harvesting was explicitly approved last summer, um I would think that would have been taken out of there. Dave, I I think the easiest way I Sorry, I'm not totally following because I don't have it in front of me. I think the easiest way to deal with this is if
you could put your question in writing, send it to Tim and Lauren, we'll come up with an answer for you. I will tell you that in general though, as far as herbicide applications, the answer is always going to be yes. >> Like, >> yes, we should come back each year.
>> Yes. Um the other one I need to and that's just my two cents certainly folks can disagree. The other one I I just need to look at the language and understand the question a little bit better and not able to do it in real time. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. So the reason >> going forward >> do we want to table this till the next
meeting? >> I think so like a written question that that we can answer Dave would be the best way to deal with this. The reason I came right now with about the annual uh approval is that uh my understanding uh
from our last meeting with clean lace committee and select board uh lays on uh was that uh the uh town is uh preparing to do um in the process of of preparing their bidding
for next year's uh herbicide treatments. And it seemed like it was only being done for Spectacle Pond. And we were saying it should also be done for Forge Pond also. And so I wanted to come back
and confirm that we're approved to do herbicide treatments this summer on Forge Pond before they do their bidding process. Can we agree to that? and then I'll come back with the questions on C16.
>> No, no, just just write your question and we we'll respond to it. Dave, I dealing with these sort of one-offs in real time is is very challenging. Just just give us an email with what question you have, what you're referencing, and we'll get an answer to you. >> Okay. >> All right. We got to keep we've got to
keep moving on. Okay. Let's try and uh ratification and discussion of enforcement orders 172 Wickham A and parcel R13-3-15. You'll note that in your packet you received two copies of enforcement orders. Um and Tim, I'm going to let you
um try and be concise to the commissioners of of what we're looking at here. >> Sure. Um so Lauren and I were alerted to some vegetation cut. uh adjacent to the Smith property. Um after we went out, it
turns out there was vegetation cut um within the flood plane over at 172 Whitcom A and also that extended onto um parcel R13-3-15, which is town property and it's
controlled by the water department. Um >> Tim, sorry to interrupt. Do you have a parcel plan that you want to show? So I think that while you're going through the narrative, it would be helpful for the commissioners to be able to visualize. >> Certainly. Yeah. Give me one second up here
>> because in essence, we have two separate parcels here and that's why there's two separate enforcement orders. I don't know why this isn't >> if one parcel is owned by the town, why would there be an enforcement order against the town? >> It's it's not against the town, but it
is town council um recommended that we issue two separate enforcement orders um because it's on two it goes onto two different properties, right? And so you guys can see this, right? >> Yep. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So,
this is the uh extent of the clearing right here. And you can see this parcel right here is um the town parcel that's controlled by the water department. Um this is Mr. Cottonham's uh property up
here, 172 WCOM A. Um and and this area here is the extent of the the clearing that occurred. So town council directed us to issue two separate enforcement orders um both to Mr. cotton,
but for separate properties, right? Um, they recommended that the water department make a decision whether or not they want to go about the restoration themselves and seek restitution afterwards or if they would rather have this um play out as a
typical enforcement order where the the violator would conduct a restoration um and and and eventually, you know, we would monitor it and until the enforcement order is lifted. the water department um went with that
option. They didn't want to do the rest the restoration themselves. Um they just recommend they just asked if if um the commission can have a specific seed mix uh implemented on that parcel. Um and
it's the New England wetland plants wet mix that they they asked for. Um I think that about sums it up. So, I don't know if we have photos in here. Yep. So, we have some photos here. You can see the extent of
the um the clearing. There was a fair amount of invasive species in this area. Um there were a handful of of trees cut. I would say none of them were very mature trees that were cut, but there was a lot of of brush that was uh
cleared. And I think Mr. Cotton said a lot of it was um autumn olive or Russian olive. So, so, um, >> and then there are also some trees I I had an opportunity to go out with Tim and Lauren and there are some trees that
were felled that did not go the right way that are hung up in vegetation as well. Um, so when we talk about clearing, some of this appeared to be more like a grass, a a wetland. So there was a lot that was cut but a lot of it
was of lower stature. There was some invasives but you will see it is significant in terms of the area that has been altered. >> So Sarah I'm confused. Um the the town
owned that parcel that Tim outlined, the water department and um the same land owner cut the water department land >> in in essence they cut on two properties
>> two separate parcels under different management. But but but one one of them was just only one was the water department, right? The other was his land. >> Correct. Yep. So So Carl, this one right
here is is Mr. Cotton's property. Um and he thought that his property line went back here and and um so that's why he did the vegetation uh clearing back here as well. And you can see so the um the blue area here is the uh is the flood
plane from FEMA's map. >> And Carl, just so you know, so he did fell some trees that are then if you're looking at the 172 Wickham that then fell into SVT Trusty control land on the left there on your screen. So some of
those have been cut and they're hung up in in vegetation. So, so why why would the water department only ask for a wetland seed next? I don't get it. I mean, we haven't even talked about restoration. Why would they Why would
they >> Why would they even say that? >> They doesn't make sense to me. >> So, Carl, I me and Lauren met with the water department when this happened to run through what town council recommended. Um, and they said they
wanted, you know, they they said they didn't want to be involved in the the restoration. Um, and I asked them if if there was anything specific that they would want to see here. Um, and I kind of gave them a couple options and that's what they went with. I would say it I don't think they want it to just be
limited to that. Um, but that's something that they would like to see. So, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves because Tim is adding kind of some contextual of of down the road. So, what we are here tonight is that we have two enforcement orders in front of us.
We need to ratify both of them and then start the next process of how we're going to deal with this. And at that point, I would encourage commissioners to come out and that way that the cotton would come in as well if that's the way you would like to go.
I can I add one thing to that though, Sarah? As we get into sort of the late fall, I I don't want to lose the opportunity to stabilize what we need to stabilize, understanding that maybe the full restoration might come in the spring.
>> So, having seen the site, and Tim, I would ask you to chime in with this. This the site is stable. There's nothing that I I think there's no um control measures that need to be put in place. Tim, do you what are your thoughts on that? >> Yeah, cuz it nothing was uprooted. Um,
it was just cut. >> Okay. >> Yep. Okay. So, going forward, what I'd like to do in the essence of time is to ratify both of these if that's where we're at. Tim, what are your thoughts?
>> Yeah, that that would be what I would ask for is is just ratification. And then we also have Dale here um if he would like to to to speak to this during the discussion. >> Sure. Can can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> So, uh am I on stage at this point in the process or >> So, Dale, if you want to first off just introduce yourself to the commission, that would be great. And then >> you want to just give us a a little history here. Um we will be meeting with
you obviously again in the future as well. >> Sure. I mean obviously I'm not familiar with the process or this uh this form or anything else. So the Elcottum uh here with my wife uh Susan were the property owners at 172 Wikam. Uh I did meet with
him uh when he came out to uh uh take a look at the property and was very thankful for the time he spent with me. um did take a have an opportunity to look at the enforcement orders and I did uh provide a uh recovery plan uh which I
believe Tim has provided to you as well. So um if we have an opportunity to take a look at that, be happy to discuss that with you. Um but as Tim indicated, you know, my objective was to um uh clear the property. Um we had a contractor in
our neighborhood. They cleared a uh the common uh stream and I had another neighbor that cleared a uh common pond by the same contractor. So, he was only there for the day. So, I you know I asked them to you know if you could just clear my backyard as well. Um we've been
in the property for 30 years. We have a beautiful backyard and you know our objective is to you know maintain it you know in a in a natural state and natural environment. As Tim indicated, the area was, you know, largely overgrown by um
uh by bittersweet and by Russian olives. Bittersweet was, you know, hanging off the trees and killing off a number of them. The the uh the tree that you mentioned, uh Mrs. Seawward was uh was dead. Um it had been killed by bittersweet. Um and um you know, once
again, just reinforcing I have no plans to develop the land. I've never done anything to the property in the back other than you know, mowing it and self-maintaining. And my goal was really just to be a good you know good neighbor and you know good property owner and try and maintain and you know get get rid of
some of the invasive uh plants. So, you know, at this point, my objective is, you know, obviously to work with you and the town and get this resolved, you know, as quickly as possible and consider myself to be uh the resident in good standing of of Littleton that as I always have been. And, you know, it's
been just reinforcing. I uh if I had known that my property went or that, you know, that the the there was town owned property at the W's edge, I wouldn't have done this at all. or if I had known there were going to be these complications, I absolutely would never
have done this. And obviously, I'll never do it again. Uh, so good. >> No markers there either. I just wanted to reinforce that as well. there were no markers and I've been there for 30 years and like I said I just you know I I
don't look at my uh property lines on a daily basis and I just had always assumed over the last 30 years that it just went to the water and you know the water's edge moves back and forth by I'm going to say 20 30 ft you know seasonally you know in the spring the
the water comes up at least 10 ft and obviously in the uh in the late summer the water recedes pretty significantly so you know whereas that line. I I I I didn't know and you know I wasn't really I guess maybe I should have paid more attention to it. Obviously I don't do
this kind of thing all the time but you know once again it was just a one-time effort. I did have a knee surgery a year ago and I let the backyard get even more overgrown. So I when the the contractor was in the neighborhood I just tried to take advantage of that to clear it up
and just get it back to a natural state. you know, I was planning on planting a lot of natural flowers in the back and just letting them grow up to the normal length they would and just get it, you know, once again back to its natural state. Um, >> okay. >> So, the uh the plan that I submitted, I
did show some photos before clearing. I don't know if Tim can share those or not. They're not in the enforcement order, but if you take a look, I mean, there's, you know, relatively speaking, you know, that there there's still some very, very large trees on both sides of my property that were not damaged at
all. And uh primarily what was done was just clearing of the you know Russian knowledge that were like in the you know 8 8 foot range getting the 10 foot range. >> So we we do have to keep going here. So I thank you Mr. C for your your comments
I um before we go on you'd mentioned in terms of clearing a stream and a pond. Was that a neighbor's property in terms of the >> not my properties at all? No. Absolutely not. >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that as as part of this process, what we would do is, as I think you
heard earlier, we have two enforcement orders. So, what the commission will do hopefully right now is ratify both of them, which means they're both now active. And so, what we would ask you to do is to come into the next meeting, which will be a posted hearing. This is
just posted as an administrative discussion. And then at that point you can go through the narrative of how you plan to go forward with um mediating the the land as well. But we recognize this was done um possibly ju just in error.
And so commissioners, what are your thoughts on that? >> I'll um if you're okay with it, sir, I'll just give you a motion. Um >> yep. So we need two separate motions. One is 3-1 and then 3-15. >> Yep. Uh, I move that we ratify the
enforcement order associated with parcel number R13-15. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you, Andrew. >> Roll call vote. Uh, Carl >> Carl Melbery. >> Chase. >> Chase. I
>> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> Ed >> Ed Folds. I >> Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Sarah Sarah Seawward. I and myself I it is unanimous. >> And then I'll also move that the
conservation commission ratify the enforcement order on parcel R13-3 one. >> No 15. >> Uh I did 15 first. >> 3 3-15 is this one. >> I thought we we just did that one. >> He said 315 first.
>> Yeah. Sorry. I did 315. Now we're on 3-1. Sorry. >> Okay. Sorry. My bad. Yep. >> Was that a second? Ed, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Roll call vote. Carl. >> Chase.
>> Chase. I >> Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Ed. >> Edi. >> Michael. >> Michael. Let me. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> and myself. I It is unanimous.
>> So, Mr. and Mrs. Cottonham. So, um either Lauren or Tim will be back in touch with you about the next steps forward. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, what we're going to do, we're getting a little behind here at 7:57. We're going to go
ahead and hold off on administrative discussions and jump into 7:45 which is a continued public hearing notice of intent 15 Park Drive DP-204-1029 construction of addition and attached covered porch. Who's here to speak with this?
>> Are we allowed to sign off now? This is >> Yes. Thank you. >> Good deal. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh we have we have Mike here to speak to this. I'm promoting him right now. >> Okay. >> I know he did mention that he's not on
his desktop, so I think he's just phoning in. Um, if you guys remember, we were waiting on a D file number at the last meeting. Um, and then me and Lauren has have also gone out since the last meeting to confirm the wetland flags.
>> Okay, great. Welcome back. >> Sorry, DP did not have any comments. >> Okay, great. So, um, we were all here for that last hearing. Um, would anyone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing, uh, from 15
Park Drive, DPL number 204-1029, and issue an order of conditions. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh, Michael Carl
Carl guy. Chase >> Chase Carbig I >> Kyle >> Knoxfield I >> Ed >> Ed Folds I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> and myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay, great. Best of luck.
>> Thank you very much everybody. >> Okay, thank you. >> Good luck. >> Okay, it's not quite 8:00. We're going to jump back to administrative discussions. Next is North Bridge uh 2025 groundwater monitoring report D204-906. Tim.
>> Yep. I'm promoting uh Flora and I think that might be it for this one. >> Okay. >> I think Larry Felman with them. >> Laura, when you're on with us, if you can introduce yourself, that would be great. >> Muted. >> Lawrence, you can promote Dr. for development too.
He's with GZA. >> Okay. >> I assume, right? >> Yep. John's here too. >> Yep. >> Hi. Uh John Pacman and Flores Sue representing G or from GZA representing
North Bridge. Uh I don't know if our client contact from Northridge is on the call. He had a conflict tonight. Uh he said he would try to get in. I don't know if he's on there yet. That that would be Tim or man. >> Um
>> I don't see him here, but if he's not over >> Great, great. We we we he did authorize us to speak on, you know, on their behalf tonight. Um so with that said, um this is a continuing u discussion about
the groundwater monitoring results, talking about the update of the our most recent results, but I see a lot of new faces here. By the way, Sarah, uh, Flora and I are in the same room. We're kind of sharing a a laptop here. Uh, neither of us could figure out how to use the
rooms a vid video. Um, with that said, um, we I see some new faces. I see some some familiar faces. How what would you like us to present tonight? Would you like a background of, you know, where we are, you know, the project, how we got here, or do you want
us to jump into the most recent data? uh what would what would be best for you? >> I I think to jump into the most recent data would be great. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So So with that, um Flora, why don't we why don't we just jump right into
showing them the most recent data and we'll take it from there. >> Okay. I'm trying to see if I can Can I share screen? >> Yes. >> Okay. Where is um >> I'm not seeing the option to share
screen. >> Yeah, I don't see it either. >> Tim, can you verify or Amber? >> Oh, right there. The yellow button in the center. It says share. >> It should be right in the middle on the bottom. Right there in the center. >> Oh, hi. Okay, >> great. Okay.
>> Okay. So, here we go. >> Great. >> Okay. So, then the data. Um, so, well, >> why >> actually, let's very briefly, um, just a
quick reminder where each of the wells are on this site. um you guys will be referring to them by well name. And so GZ uh groundwater generally flows um in it's kind of weird cuz north isn't exactly up but it flows
down gradient this way towards Beaverbrook which is over here. Um, and so we have kind of working from the most upgradient well down gradient, we have GZ4, which is right off Monarch
Drive. It is our upgradient well. And then we have GZ3 off the corner of the building here. GZ2, which is kind of downgradient from this small parking lot. And then GZ1, which is downgradient
of the larger parking lot. So um here's the data that we have collected since we started the monitoring in June 2021. Um and this is for chloride and we have it for each of the road salt
constituents that we were monitoring. And so the yellow one up here is GZ4. That's our upgradient well. The blue one is GZ1, the most downgradient one. And then the gray um is GZ3, the one that was off the corner of the building. GZ2,
the one off the small parking lot is orange. And we see very similar trends with the sodium, which makes sense if they were using sodium chloride as the deicing product. Um again, we have GZ4, then GZ1,
and then two and three are pretty similar. Um, we also were monitoring calcium in case they were using calcium chloride as a product. Um, here we see GZ1 in blue and well they're all pretty similar at
that level and hardness is related to calcium. So very similar trends for hardness as well. Um, we also did some additional >> before that you just comment that
>> it's important to note that our highest concentrations are in our upgradient wells. That's that's a big takeaway here is that you know that that yellow line is our upgradient well. So that's that's the groundwater quality coming onto the site coming on from you know this those
that well is actually downgradient of interstate highway on 495 as well as route two. >> Yeah. >> Um and and you know we're also downgradient if you look at think of it as as Florida pointed out our regional groundwater flow pattern is to the to
the to the left and to the top uh following bigger brook. So, we're also downgradient of the clover leaf interchange uh from 495 to route 2 as well. So, there's a lot of salt being dropped onto those those roads uh during
the winter months. And so, that's really key that our upgrading groundwater quality is the worst that we see on site. And so then we also did some additional checking of the historical concentrations that have been measured
in some of the town wells nearby. So those for example uh the around cheesy one there's DT5 which is a little bit down gradient in the wetland. There's DT3, which for some odd reason the label is not showing up. It's right here, and
then DT4 SND. So, the concentrations that we could find from the town for those wells are plotted and um they had data from like about 2006
to 2019. And you can see that uh in each of the constituents are the same color. So in this case um blue is all chloride. Uh orange actually that got mixed up a little bit. But um
basically what we're seeing is that for wells that are in this similar area as um as our wells, I see it backwards, that's why. for wells that are located the town wells that are located in the same area as the
monitoring wells that we've been uh monitoring on a quarterly basis they have shown concentrations at least similar to if not higher than what we're seeing. So, what we're
starting to wonder is if the baseline criteria that we set on this one-year snapshot is accurately reflecting what has historically been seen at this property. >> If I could just chime in, let's just go
backwards a little bit here. So, we've been monitoring this for a couple years now and the criteria that we have for this site uh was established early on before the Amazon facility was constructed. And the criteria were based
on monitoring for one year that was uh you know selected you know when the project was approved and then comparing that baseline uh monitoring data uh to future data and and we compare it on a
on we have two criteria. one looking at seasonal variations, the other looking at uh uh total uh impacts of the project. So we look at you know do we and the criteria as was as negotiated between uh north bridge and and the and
the conservation commission um is you know exceedences of 15% hang um you know our one criteria looking at seasonal fluctuations and the other one is 25% looking at total impacts and what
we saw now that we've gone through our baseline year we've got a few more a couple three more years behind us is what we're seeing it is that we are having actual testing results that are exceeding the baseline criteria. So we
started saying well why is that and and I think the reason for that is that the baseline criteria is just what it is. It's only that one small snapshot of one year's data and you know in reality um environmental data is complicated and
it's you know in this kind of data is is is varies by by season varies by by year. Not every year gets the same amount of snowfall at the same time. Um and we're seeing that in the data. So when we saw that you know we were not
meeting those those uh baseline it was really representative a very small snapshot in time. We then as Flores pointed out you know we looked at what what are the data we have to so we can assess what what the maybe what the groundwater quality looked like before they built the building to see what our
total impact was. And we we you know we've been in very good communication with the Littleton Water District. uh they they are developing the the back of the site for you know water supply and so and they you know shared with us their reports. So we looked at their
reports and sure enough you as typical they they they've been monitoring for for general chemistry parameters including uh calcium and sodium and other parameters that we're monitoring for. So we then compared our data to
their data and and sure enough, you know, their data are are greater than our data. And what o over the long term and and what that told us is that you know the over the long term um our
impacts are are consistent with what was already there before. Um and and so separating out, you know, the the incremental, you know, amount from from the Amazon site versus what was already there is really challenging to do. And I'm not sure we can do that. Um so then
you you take the the fact that our our highest concentrations coming in are greater than what's downgraded to us. And then you look at, you know, comparison to the historical data. As Flora pointed out, we're starting to think that those baseline criteria
aren't really all that appropriate for this site given it's such a short duration uh criteria. So these these plots, as Flora pointed out, rep, you know, show a comparison of the historical data on the left and the
actual data with the dots on it, which is the stuff we've been monitoring on the right. And you can and and this you know the the the vertical scales are the same. So you can see where like this is GZ2 and you know our actual data are much
lower than what we saw in the past. And if you go to or if you could go to GZ1 >> let's just go through each one. Similar type of thing. GZ1 is is downgradient. though it's it has some buffering from the the effects of the wetland down
there and and you know travel time impacts. Uh but what we're seeing is that our our recent data right again fit right in with the ranges that that that were there before we built the building. Uh and if we go back up to three or back
down to three, I should say, which is one of those wells that's sort of in the center part of the site, you you see the biggest impact there where you know our our concentrations are again much lower than at G than than what was there beforehand. And if we go to number four,
well number four, which is that upgradient well, uh we go to well four. Um, >> oh, we didn't plot for did we plot for >> not with historical data because there aren't wells in >> Europe. That's right. We didn't have we didn't have any any any nearby wells to
look at directly comparison but you know a similar trend starts developing and and you know that we it becomes apparent that you know four is that upgrading well concentrations coming on site are higher than what's on you know downgrading. So, we start thinking, you
know, I don't think we're ever going to meet those criteria given that we're trying to bring in uh meet meet criteria that that we were exceeding before we even built the building, that the groundwater was exceeding before we even built the building. So, that's what the
data shows us right now. And I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing. What I think it shows is that we have background levels of of salt that are there from decades and decades of salt application along those roadways
and along that clover leaf. We we we know that they apply a lot of salt on interchanges because they're, you know, they curved and people tend to spin out on on curved offramps and on-ramps. Uh and also most of those those
interchanges have detention ponds built in with them. So they function as a as a as a reservoir for salt. Um so that's another source. So that's what the data is telling us right now is we're not likely to hit those
somewhat um narrowed criteria established in that you know that that one-year baseline that was established when you at the beginning of the project. >> Okay. It doesn't reflect what I'd like to do now is to go ahead. Yeah,
I wanted to know sir if I could ask some questions about that data since we're talking about data. >> Y >> um the the first thing that I want to understand, John, is your your groundwater flow directions. So Flora, would you mind to flip to the map that you've got with
>> the groundwater contours or the inferred groundwater contours? >> Um >> yeah. The first thing I want to understand here is why we think all of the water is flowing
let's say plan west right to left. I I think clearly GZ4 and GZ3 show some sort of downgradient pairing although 30 ft of elevation change in that distance is weird something strange there but then
when we look at GZ1 and topography. >> Yeah, >> sure. >> It has to do with topography. >> And that is that GZ4, GZ3 are on the edge of the wetland. And if you go out there, you know, you're on a hill there and it drops pretty steep. So the
groundwater, you know, topography is is a is a subdued version of the surface topography. So that's why you have a steeper gradient there. And then as you approach the wetland, the gradients just flatten right out because the wetland flattens right out. So that's why we
can't contour in the wetland because we don't have enough gradient there. And we're inferring that groundwater is taking a bend and going to the to the north or the top of the paper further down simply because if you look on a regional level
um Beaverbrook flows to the to the top of the page and and you know goes under a culvert underneath the road and and it you know again looking at just general you know hydrogelologic principles. groundwater flow is going to follow the
the the valley of you know of the Beaverbrook. So it's going to go to the north. So, so we don't have a sufficient resolution in our monitoring well network to to demonstrate that or quantify that I should say, but we you
know first principles of groundwater flow is groundwater is flowing to to the to the left and then it's going to start moving to the north as as it follows Beaverbrook. So, so what you're telling me is 30 feet
of elevation change in the groundwater elevation across 200 ft is just typical in your experience. >> It is it is what's happening there because that also corresponds to the upland area of the site. So there's sufficient topographic
elevation to have that groundwater to reflect that groundwater gradient. Have we looked at and engaged the other wells on site DT12 the the town controlled wells are those still in place?
>> Some of them are. >> Yeah. >> Do you want to talk about that floor? >> Um we have gauged them but we don't have elevation survey for so it's hard to tie it in with our weld at work. Yeah, but the, you know, >> but they do show similar water levels as
ours for the ones that are about the same elevation. >> Exactly. And again, it's because they're in the wetland there and are, you know, gradients in wetlands are very very subtle unless there is uh a a an outside
or a sink of some sort. And the most common sink in this area would be a pumping well. So, if the town of Littleton were to put in a pumping well, that would create some vertical gradients that you might see a a a greater uh gradient, but as of right now, they're not pumping any of the
wells there. So, there's nothing creating a a gradient in that direction in the downward direction or or or otherwise. >> What I'm getting at here is that for Okay. Well, let me move on from that
point then. Um I I think before we go down any path of talking about changing what our understanding of baseline, we need a comprehensive understanding of the flow directions here. And I I will tell you that I I I frankly just don't believe a 30-
foot elevation gradient in the groundwater contour over less than 200 feet. Something seems weird there. Those are surveyed and at times >> yeah those is all surveyed and we have high confidence in those. >> The thing is we only have four wells
over a large area. So you have to >> you have a lot more wells that you've gauged. You just need to send a survey crew out to ga to to tie them in. >> Well the other wells are in the wetland. So we don't expect to have a large gradient there. >> There's no reason to believe you'd have a large gradient there. And that's why
we pull those gradients back to so it coincides with the upland area of the site. You >> you you're telling me from 200 large constant head. >> You you're telling me from GZ4 has a large constant head. >> Okay. If you could let Chase speak and
then we'll go ahead and address other questions. We do have to keep moving on. You're you're telling me, John, that from GZ4 to GZ3, we have 30 feet of head >> and then from GZ3 to DT1 significant hill. >> I I understand there's a hill, but then
you're telling me from GZ3 to DT1, we essentially have no gradient and we have a wetland there, but we don't have major breakout. I don't that that doesn't make a lot of sense. What I would like to do if we're gonna if we're going to go down this path of
exploring the changes in baseline, I think we need to understand the comprehensive data that we have available to us in terms of groundwater contours. That's point number one. Um point number two is you referenced town
data. Um when you looked at the my understanding was you looked at chloride well other salt indicators in town data, right? Correct. >> Do does the town have more modern data
than what we have in this report? >> Um, I could ask them again to see if they have anything more recent. >> When was the last time you asked >> for data? >> Um, last fall. And the most modern data they gave you
for some wells was 2015. What I'm trying to understand is like >> for some wells is 20 the most modern I think is 2019. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You have to understand why that data was generated. It was all part of
evaluating the the aquifer in that area as a potential water supply. And what what's commonly done is they'll look at it from a hydraulics point of view and do a pump test and see what the yield can be, safe yield can be, but they'll also look at the general water quality.
So they can assess, you know, is it feasible to develop this uh from a from a water quality point of view, how much testing, how much how much treatment might be needed. So they'll do some general chemistry parameters as an initial screening for that, but they don't develop a long-term groundwater
monitoring program for that. they'll they'll monitor long enough so they can make some general uh decisions or you know form some opinions based on that and then they they'll stop. >> So again, if if we're going to go down the path of changing our understanding
of baseline, my expectation would be that you would get authorization to sample those wells so that we could understand what's going on more comprehensively than the four wells we have. Um, two other points it as we go down the path of trying to consider
changes in baseline. The third would be I would want to see a statistical argument on the trending. >> Um, I appreciate the graphs. I' I'd like to see the statistics that support those. And then the the final point here is I I appreciate that there are things
like the clover leaf, but some of the features that you referenced just don't exist. like there that particular clover leaf right there. Unless you can point out to I don't see a a catch base in there. I' I'd like to see you evaluate for us
in the context of baseline what are typical road salt concentrations in groundwater in proximity to roads because right now we're trying to figure out what's going on out here. And if we're going to change the baseline and if your argument is going to be this is typical, you need to substantiate that
argument. then I I don't see it. >> Okay, I'm not sure that we're suggesting we change the basel. So, I'd like to ask other commissioners if they have any questions that they would like to be addressed for a future meeting. So, we're obviously not going
to resolve this this evening. So, I'd like to open it to other commissioners. Thank you. >> Yeah, I guess maybe this was might be a question for Tim. What is our overall? We've just talked a long time about potential changes or whatnot. What's the
overall monitoring period? Isn't it almost over? And I guess if we're talking about extending, that's so be it. But I don't see the I don't necessar. >> So certainly it can be extended. >> It got extended Kyle because of
>> because we exceeded the the the baseline criteria, >> right? Okay. >> Yep. So, we're still in that holding period. It can be extended if we wish. Anyone else have any other questions? So, my suggestion would be um this
discussion is recorded. It's online. So, Flora and others, I would encourage you to kind of go back, take notes, and we will um have you discuss with Tim potentially how long it would take to be able to answer some of the questions that were put forth tonight. Um, and
then Tim can go over when our scheduled uh will accommodate your timeline as well. Tim, is that okay? >> Tim's still here. >> Tim's muted. >> He's muted. >> He's muted. Yeah, that sounds good to
me, Sarah. >> Okay, great. We certainly appreciate your information, your data tonight. We have a full hearing, so we're gonna keep moving on. >> Just get get us Don't don't mis don't misunderstand. We we're not suggesting we change the baseline. I'm just
suggesting we may never be able to hit it just based on the conditions we have out there. >> And John, before we hang up, it think about this though in the context of GZ4 and GZ3. If you really do have a 15%
grade in your um groundwater table, the water is going to be rocketing through that area. It doesn't make sense to me that we would have such a steep groundwater contour and still have salt observable there in the summer. One of
two things is either happening. Either the area's got to be flushing so fast that you would see some seasonal variation in it, which we see some, but it doesn't flush out. 15% is a huge gradient, or GZ4 is somehow not representative of what's going on. And I
I we can talk about that more when come in and sort of answer some of these other things, but um it something feels wrong. >> Okay. All right. So, we're going to close the discussion. Thank you for joining us this evening. Now, we're
going to move on. It is 8:25 and we're going to open our 8:00 um continued public meeting request for determination of applicability 34 Fletcher Lane, which is an installation of a septic system. I've promoted Matt over. Uh Tim, who else?
>> Uh it should just be Matt, I believe. >> Matt, there's somebody else. Please let me know and I'll promote them over as well. >> There you go. Matt, if you can introduce yourself. >> Good evening. Matt Maro, Maro Environmental Consulting here on the continued request for determination for
34 Fletcher. Um, first of all, I apologize. I did turn in some documentation that was requested at the last minute. Um, I had a personal issue that actually kind of kept me from getting it in sooner. >> When did you submit it, Matt? >> Um, the transact and the waiver request
one submitted this evening. I did email them to Tim. So, >> okay. So, as you know, we asked to have it Thursday before the Tuesday meeting. So, if you want to go over that and we'll see if we can discuss it. Thank you. Yeah, not a problem. Um, if I can
share my screen, >> you should be able to go ahead. >> So, this item I actually turned in a little over a week ago. Um, I sent it into temp. So, this is the um the the version that was requested with
changes on it. Um the two sump pump lines are shown and labeled out here. Um the red maple tree that was on the property and the stone wall midway through the property yard in the back is shown here as well.
Um there are notations for a um trap rock outlet or trap rock in the outlet from the um basement sump pump that comes out and was causing an area to start to gully a little bit close to the wetland. Um, you can see
from the area right here based on so many sitewalks that other commissioners did that the septic system itself is clearly in in lawn area. There is no tree removal that is going to happen
from where the tank is to where the septic is. The only tree in the closest vicinity is here. This area right here has a kind of a um a brushy area that was there but apparently had been cleaned out around
the stone wall. It was mostly invasive scrub growth that was there that was cut down so that you know you could see the wall. Um the transct I don't know if my tabs are going to go through but tell me uh
can you see the transect sheet? >> Yep. So essentially what we had I was asked to do a transsect around flag seven and 72. So I did um basically in arc like I normally do between 772 and 8. The area
is currently in mild drought. What it basically showed was it showed the vegetational makeup I have here goes from um inner part of the wetland to the edge. So essentially you have the 50%
which is mostly made up. You have a herbaceous layer. There's no real overstory in this particular section. It's mostly a shrub layer that is mostly rose of multifllora and some high bush blueberry that's being choked out within some of the rose bush. Um
the upland section of this has a lot of Canada golden rod. This is actually the wetland transact. The soils in this wetland transact showed to be about a 22 when you started getting down between, you know, seven and 16 in. Um, if you went to the
upland transct, the upland transct was actually a 10 yr54, which was actually right around the area where I have flag 72. Um, in all honesty, I could have taken 72 and moved it down a few feet towards the wetland. Um, so it's on the little, it's a little
on the conservative side. So, it's basically showing that when I did flag the area, I tend to, as I usually try to tie the flags, you couple feet um in front to give the wetland an advantage. Um the waiver request form
that I filled out um essentially talks about leaving the trap rock in place in the um the section here where the sump pump comes out. And that is essentially for um preventing erosion from happening. So
it would be the large 6-in trap rock. It wouldn't be um you know any little piece stone. That stuff would just wash out. >> The other um part that is in the waiver request form is when we walked around uh when I walked around with Sarah and Tim
um we noticed a you know a lot of old detritus that was on the ground. some old sighting pieces of wood, you know, other assortments of trash from the prior owners. Um, that will be picked up and removed by hand only. There won't be
any equipment that would enter in there or anything really cut out other than maybe some rows if it gets in the way of picking it out. So, that's basically what I recall. Um, we had asked, Sarah had asked to have these walls from the
abuing property added onto the plan. Um, for lot reference, this is the abuing lot here. Um, this is an internal stone wall here um that we saw on setup. So, that's
basically it, guys. >> Okay. I just had a couple quick questions. Um the two lines that you refer to as sump pumps. Are they both sump pumps or isn't one coming off the roof? >> Uh let's see. 14 is a roof drain. So you
can see this one which is labeled 14. >> Mhm. Which >> is shown here. That is actually you're correct. Labeled as a roof drain. We're going to add some trap rock to the end of that. Same thing on 15. We're going to add some trap rock here. 15 is the one that's really, you know, cutting a
little gully in there. And I think if we just add the 6-in trap rock with a little trap rock pad down on the bottom to dissipate the energy, that'll stop that from >> That was my next question. Matt, you're on your what you commented. You said you were going to leave the trap rock, but in fact, you're adding the trap rock to
that gully, which is almost 2 ft deep. >> Correct. >> Okay, Tim, you don't happen to have any photos of that, do you? >> I don't believe I do. >> Okay. Okay. It is significant. That's what I want the commissioners to note.
>> I believe Kyle saw it as well when we went out there. >> Kyle, do you have any thoughts on that? >> Yeah. No, I definitely made that comment to Tim that Well, at the time I I guess I didn't realize you guys went back out. So, at the time, we didn't know where where those lines were coming from. Um,
but we had made that note comment that they should be investigated and and stabilized. One of those does have did have stone on it. One of them was stable, so it must be 14 maybe. At least when I when I saw it, one of them was stable the rock and one was not stable at all.
>> That would be 15. >> Okay. So, obviously this is going to be under a monitoring period anyway. So, we'd like to watch that to see if it does flush considerably. Um
th those were just the two questions that I had. Commissioners, anyone have any other questions or comments? >> I mean, I guess just to go back to the the actual proposed work. Um, I went out there with Tim and I we saw I guess no
no issues at all until we started walking towards wetland more. The project itself I don't think is going to cause any sort of any sort of issues on the the property or or the the well. Um, I think the like Matt said, the the tree line that's pictured here is very
misleading. It's not it's not overgrowth like that um like it shows. So, I have no no concerns with the the actual work itself other than protecting runoff from those two lines. >> Matt, can you um show us how the where
the construction access will be? uh construction access is going to go around the side of the garage. >> Okay. The only reason I ask is if we need to pull that the erosion control, which is where your cursor is now, further
around. >> Well, I mean, we can add a line here because I'm sure they're going to have to go around a little bit just to get at this tank. So they may cut around here to get at the tank and may go around to get at the the leech field and the lines here which is the more intensive part of the construction. Um so I mean we can
take line nine and extend it out to the corner here. >> Okay. To the approximately to the stone wall. >> Approximately the stone wall. >> Okay. >> And is it noted in your narrative that the debris is going to be removed by
hand? I know you said that verbally, but is that the in the narrative? >> It was actually I put it in the waiver request form that the debris was going to be removed by hand because the debris would be within your no touch out. >> Okay. >> And when we had talked about the waiver request form, you had asked me to note
the hand debris removal and the trap rock um in the waiver request form. >> Okay. >> So, in the waiver request form, I put that. Yes. >> Well, obviously we haven't read it because we just got it. So, >> yeah, I apologize for that. Um,
>> Tim, have you had a chance to review it? >> No. >> Okay. >> I I can see if I can pull it up here. >> Up to the commissioners, but I'm always leerary to approve things that we haven't had a chance to read. >> Given that this is reasonably benign, if
we could just take a look at it. I just want to make sure there's not particularly uh problematic language. I I'm not opposed to moving forward unless I trip over something I don't like. >> Great. Can someone put it back up on the screen? I do have it here. Uh if you
just give me a second, I'll I'll show >> You said you had photograph photos also. >> Matt, do you have any photos? >> Um I'm actually looking right now to see if I have something. So, while Tim is working on the waiver,
see if I can zoom out here. Give me a second. And just to be clear, this outfall is already this the sum train outfall that we're talking about here is the one that already exists, right? >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> So, you're just really improving it.
>> I'm okay with this as written. Okay. >> I'm just looking for some pictures here. >> Okay. Well, I've been out on site. Kyle's been out on site. Tim, >> that's fine. >> Commissioners, what's your pleasure?
What would you like to do? >> And as much as nobody seems to have any real issues, I think we should talk about approval. >> Okay. Someone like to make a motion. This is a request for determination of applicability. Ah,
>> I move that we approve the request for determination of applicability for 34 Fletcher Lane installation of a septic system. >> Negative3 determination. >> Correct. >> Sure. I don't know what that is.
>> Do we have a second? >> Second. Okay. All right. Roll call vote. Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Chase. >> Chase Car. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Carl.
Oh, Carl, you're on mute. >> Carl Milberg. I >> Kyle. >> No, not too late. >> Ed >> Edi, >> myself. I It's unanimous. >> Thank you. And then Matt, if you can just let the office know um timeline
when they're going to start and erosion controls are in. >> I will definitely do that. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Have a good night, >> guys. Thank you very much. And again, I appreciate the leeway. Um y, thank you. >> Okay, it's um 8:40. We'd like to go
ahead and open the 8:15 continued public hearing discussion of current and future land use for town owned parcel U12-14-0. I think that's a zero. All right, Chase, I know you were taking the lead on this a little bit. If you First off, I'd like to thank everyone
for submitting comments um to um Tim, which have been posted on the town website as well. So, thank you for those of you that are joining us that have done so. >> Yeah, there were very thoughtful comments and helped inform a little bit of what we're going to talk about tonight. Um, what I would propose to the
commission is I've got some alternatives to talk through. Uh, when we had last talked about this, I had hoped to have these out in time for everyone to sort of see them. We could ruminate on them given that I didn't meet that, but we we do have alternatives to talk about tonight. What I would propose is that we
commit to not making a decision, but we do work through narrowing down some of these alternatives because I think what you'll see as I work through some of these alternatives is there are there are lots of threads to be pulled on with each one and part of what I need to know is which which alternatives do we need
to go deeper on and which ones are not sort of appetizing to the commission in general. So, what I would like to do, how I would like to structure this is I'd like to talk through the alternatives that um I've sort of put together. Then Sarah, if it's okay with you, we can open it up for public
comment, but um my hope is that everyone has read the comments that people thoughtfully put together uh and are posted on the website. Um to the extent that we do have public comment, we're going to hold people to 3 minutes, you know, one set of comments. Um,
essentially the same rules that we use for for town meeting. We also have town council. Tom Harrington is here tonight. Tom, we may have some questions for you as we sort of talk through these. Sarah, is that okay? Sound okay with you if I talk through the alternative? >> That sounds great. And you just let me know at what point um for those of you
that are in attendance, the best way to move forward is just simply just raise your hand, which is a button that you'll find uh optional for you. So, please go ahead, Chase. Okay. So, um, let's blow that up. So, this this is a document that will be
posted to the website. It's it you you don't need to get lost in all of the words here. Um, the way I've structured this is we essentially have alternatives that we need to think about in the context of the docks. We have alternatives that we need to think of in the context of sort of the upland boats
and storage. And then we have alternatives that we need to think about in the context of sort of the landscaping. What are we doing in general with the the use of the land and the docks and the the little footnotes
down here. Um what they say is first of all the alternatives for the docks and the alternatives for the upland sort of boat storage are largely independent of one another. So don't read alternative one here and then you'll see alternative one for boats and upland storage and alternative one for landscaping. It's
not one comprehensive alternative. It's alternative one for docks, alternative one for boats, alternative one for landscaping. We might choose 3, two, and three or something like that. Um the other qualifier here is that these alternatives are we're we're just
talking right now about parcel U1214-0. That's a conservation controlled parcel. Uh we are aware of the the fact that there are other uh unpermitted activities on along the Long Lake shoreline that are not part of that parcel. This discussion may inform
those, but we're right now focusing on those. So here's how it breaks down. Based on the feedback that I got from the commission a few weeks ago, I really see four alternatives in the context of docs. everything from remove all of the
docks to allow the structurally sound docks to remove and remove all other inwater structures. So that's sort of our book end. We that's narrowed down from what we talked about a couple weeks ago where it could be lazy fair. We could just sort of not do anything that
didn't seem appetizing to people. It also did not seem appetizing to the commission to um ignore sort of the falling apart ones. So the let's say the most permissive that this is always structured. So alternative one is the the sort of the most constrained.
Alternative four is the most permissive. Um alternative four here the most permissive is essentially leave the structurally sound docks in place. Remove all the other structures and then the way I've structured this is we have a lot of follow-up questions that we need to answer. Um I don't think
all of those follow-up questions for these are let's say threshold questions. I think only some of them are they they all have headaches associated with them in some way like um would we need to permit the removals maybe but I figure we could figure that stuff out. Um these
are what I think are the threshold issues around the dock alternatives and really the middle ones are the ones that are probably the most challenging in some ways because alternative two here is remove all of the docks in water and the town replaces that with a dock. some
of the public comment we got a lot of and not all of actually uh there were was at least one set of comments that was like we should do nothing we should essentially rew wild the whole area but in general the comments were we want to see some kind of docs here so
alternatives 2 three and four leave some docs in place alternative two is with sort of we take out what's there or we require to be what's there to be removed that's a question I'm going to come back to you Tom Um, alternative three and
then we put a a down a dock in on behalf of the town. How we do that, how we fund that, we would have to figure that out. Alternative three is there are several docks that are in good condition, particularly good condition along the shoreline. Perhaps we leave some of
those in. The town assumes control or I suppose technically has always controlled those um and utilizes those for public purposes. In those cases, we have to answer questions around what what are the appropriate uses of these docs. And then alternative four is we
essentially leave everything in place um that's structurally sound. All of these run through a fundamental question. You can see alternative 2D, alternative 2E, alternative 4D, all ask a question about the appropriate uses. And one of the things I I think and Tom correct me if
I'm wrong um that we heard from town council is it may not be easy but there's at least a pathway to license use of these docs and we could at least consider that as an alternative. Is that fair Tom?
>> That is fair. >> Whether whether you like it or not maybe is a different thing but we could we could figure out how to do it. >> Yep. >> Okay. So the what I'm going to do now is sort of stop and commissioners what I'd like to do here is um
well and you know what I want to do is go through sort of all of these then we'll take public comment. The goal here though and what I want to hear from you all is not which alternatives do you necessarily support. Um but which alternatives can we scratch out which ones are we sure we're not going to do?
Um so that's the docs alternative. um the upland boat storage. Um we have sort of a a related but different set of issues around upland boat storage and that is that right now we've kind of got upland boats kind of all over the place.
They're they're wherever people decided to drop them. Um we have a similar range of alternatives here. We could just say conservation controlled property. Nobody's to store boats there. Somebody stores a boat there and they don't remove it quickly.
I don't know. We have to figure out what to do with it, but we make it go away. We take some sort of enforcement action. We confiscate. I don't know what that would look like, but that that's the most extreme. No boat storage. The most extreme on the other side is sort of a lazyair approach to boats. What I heard
a couple weeks ago was, eh, they're a pain, but like you know, people are using them. And the public comments around boat storage were also compelling in that um one of the arguments there in the public comments was this is a way for me who doesn't live right next to
the lake to to utilize the lake. So we've got alternative one of essentially we prohibit everything. Alternative two which is we designate a couple areas but we don't provide boat storage racks. Alternative three is we designate a couple areas but we provide those racks.
And alternative four is let's just sort of police ourselves, ask neighbors to keep it orderly and and see if we can get through that. Same general structure here. There are some threshold questions um that we're going to need to answer.
Probably the most important and this is the same with the docs is if we have conservation controlled space that is a finite resource. How do we allocate that finite resource is a challenge. And I think one of the
threshold issues that we've got to get our heads around if we're going to go with alternative any of these alternatives for docks or upland boat storage. Um the other question and Tom I'll I'll let you think on this and then we'll come back to it is both for the docks and for upland boat storage is
what kind of liability is the town assuming if we license or we allow boats to be stored? You know, I think we it's one thing for us to say we're okay with it. It's a different thing for us for the town to unwittingly assume
responsibility if somebody's boat gets stolen or damaged or something like that. So, I'll I'll come back to you, Tom, with some of these questions afterwards, but at least give you a moment to think about them. Um, and then the the last thing is the landscaping alternatives. And here, same general
structure. Um, alternative one is we just rewext public comments was not well supported. Alternative two is we rew select locations. So right now there are a number of places which are functionally lawn um or otherwise cleared. Uh some of
those maybe we allowed to rews we maintain as landscaped spaces. Alternative three is we maintain the existing landscaped spaces but we don't add more. And then alternative four is we actually go a little further and we
consider adding landscaped spaces. Um the threshold questions here are actually around things like invasive species and who's responsible. We know along the lake that there are pockets of invasive species. It's the same challenge that we have in lots of
different areas. I do think one thing to consider here is that in the context of the public comment there were we'll have to figure out a way to memorialize this there there was a lot of willingness from the public to help manage and maintain some of these
resources. So one of the big issues around landscaping is invasive species and then the other is I think there's a a fundamental difference particularly in the sort of the ecological health of the lake in that those spaces being essentially lawn fertilizer mowing all
of those things versus let's say something more like a meadow or something like that. So if we wanted some of these spaces to remain open, we would need to answer questions around what what does that mean? But I think those are things that once once I get a
sense from you of hey, I we we really don't think we should rewild the whole lake shore. Okay. Then I can act alternative one or alternatively maybe that's strongly supported and we need to go deeper on that. But what I'm looking for from from the commission tonight are
are those issues. So with that, Tom, if it's okay with you, I'd like to ask you a couple questions. And let's go back to sort of the boats and the um the sort of the boats and the docks question and the liability concerns there. Is there a is
there a way we can reasonably manage those liabilities if we were to say allow people to store boats or to utilize the docks in a way that you could eventually get comfortable with? >> Yeah. So, um, the way we manage
liability is to get waiverss, right? So, we, if we're going to allow someone to do something on our land, we want to accompany that with a document that would say, you know, what
we're responsible for and more importantly, what we're not responsible for. So I so that the liability part of it I'm you know I'm not concerned about. We can cover it with um with waiverss and we can cover it in
certain instances with requiring that they provide a certificate of insurance to us so that we're protected that way. >> And would that sort of vary like boats might be just a a waiver like you're going to store your boat there. And if if one of the questions that I think we
have if we have a dock is if we were to license sort of you know seasonal access to that dock that might be something where we need something more intensive like a COI. >> Indeed. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Um
I I think the other threshold legal question for you Tom is because this is land controlled by the conservation commission one of the things that we've got to get our head around is this is sort of a
>> if we were to do anything other than some of these alternative ones, right? We're essentially facilitating a certain amount of recreation here and whether like sort of where the bounds are in terms of conservation land becoming
recreation and whether or not you think there's a legal pathway for docks on this land and a legal pathway for allowing let's say boat uh boat uh wrecks or something like that.
>> Yeah. So, um sorry and I probably should have given you a chance to think about these questions ahead of time. You're just doing it on the fly. No, it's more fun this way. Um, so I think what's I I think I I like the idea and I think this
is actually a very good document. So I like the fact that you're laying it out because what really helps us most is understanding what you want to do and if you guys, you know, this group can decide how you want to approach it, we would then like the opportunity to say,
"Okay, now we understand what you want to do. Now, let's kind of put all the legal arguments in place because I don't want to get too prescriptive with concerns because I might be thinking about it differently. It might be a kind of a bigger project than what you're
thinking about. But in general, um, think let's think about it in two ways, right? There's the pond and there's the dock in the pond, right? So, we know that docks are allowed in ponds. It's just a we you just have to go through a
process and there's a you know there's typically a chapter 91 license or in certain instances um we can go to D and ask that we be allowed to license the docs for chapter 91 purposes on their behalf. That's a
lot more work for you. So I want you to understand what you're signing up for if that's what you sign up for it. So there's the chapter 91 component. There's the wetlands component, but what that but once that's done, you know, it's okay to put a dock in the water.
Where it gets more interesting is where the dock leaves the water and hits the land because now it's your land. And this is where we get into the part where we can't lease it, right? or if we do want to lease it, it that's going to be
a big process because we're going to need we we cannot convey an interest in land of article 97 land without the legislaturator's approval. So, I think that's kind of we don't want to go there. We can license
the ability to do that, right? >> You know, Tom, to lawyers, that's a distinction without a difference, right? >> Let them say that. >> Okay. Um >> I hear the same thing when you say lease versus license. >> Yeah. So a le so the key here is right.
So a lease is it's an ownership interest that I control. I have a lease. I get to use it for this and as long as I follow the rules of the lease you cannot take it away from me. A license is different. a license is permission to do something
with the understanding that the grtor in this case the conservation commission can take away that permission at any time. So um so that's the key. We can I think we can figure out a way to license some of
these structures but the people need to understand you know it's permission but it's not permission with you know with a time frame. We can you know if we think you're you're misusing it or not using it the way we want you to use it we can
take away that permission. So I think that's the key. >> Okay. That's actually really helpful. Um, last question for you Tom and this is this is specific to the docs and that is responsibility for removing the structures that are in place. Um, I will
tell you that I think my instinct is I don't really want to go down a particularly latigious path, but our options are everywhere from the town do it on the easiest side to to actually pursuing the parties that put the the
structures in place to be responsible for removing it. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So it's so if you if you imagine um you know someone puts a swing set in your backyard, right? It's your yard.
You can remove it. It's when property is when when someone installs or places property on your real estate. You always have the right to remove it. You don't give up those rights. You can al also instruct them to do it, but you would be
in essence granting them permission to come on to your land to remove their property. Good. Um I think with that, thank you very much, Tom. Um I think with that, what I'd like to do is take public comment here. I've sort of left
the docs alternative up. I'm going to put the upland >> before we do public comments. I mean, that's assuming that the rest of us are all on board with everything you have on that paper. >> Well, fair enough. Do you want to go the other way, Ed? We can go the other way.
>> Because I I have serious concerns about your document having seen it a few minutes ago. >> Sure. Sure. and and specifically you're presuming that we will in some fashion provide the either
access to or the ability to have docks uh access to or the ability to store boats although I do see that your option one on boats does say no and I don't think well for storage of boats I think we no way we should not we've
already said that at least at least on one of the pieces of property we have. We already discussed that to some extent, but >> the the docks though, I mean, we're opening up a a Pandora's box here that I don't think we want to be opening to um
license docks um and say, "Okay, you know, you can have a dock and you can't have a dock and so forth." The town already provides a boat ramp. The town already provides access to the lake. The lake is is
not strong. It's it's better since all the work was done on, you know, the septics and everything else to clean up a lot of the affluent that was going in, but and and putting in the the sewer and so forth. And I just don't and I also appreciate that people have the docs and
you know I read the comments and it was quite a mix between you know we've been here for n number of years blah blah and others that said well it seems unfair that they get to have one and we don't or you know we shouldn't have them at all and that kind of thing. My own feeling is
having the docks is a convenience for a small amount of people. And no matter what anyone says, if I put a dock in, you're not likely to go use it because you're not going to perceive that it's
your dock. And even if the town puts one in, I still feel like we're we're accepting a liability. No offense, Tom, but we're accepting a liability that I just don't think the town wants to have and can afford to have. So that I mean
that I get that my comments are all fairly negative and I don't mean that to be the case, but I guess maybe >> that's fine. And and to be clear, alternative one is take all the docks out, right? Like that that's very much as far as docs are concerned.
Alternative one is take all the docks out. As far as upland boats are concerned, it's we're not going to allow storage on that property. And as far as landscaping, it's we're going to rew it. It it's essentially rip everything out. And I think that that's very much on the
table. >> All right. Cuz when you were describing and discussing, I came away with a a definite feeling that you were going >> No, sorry about that. The reason I spent more time on those is because they're more complicated. Rip all the docs out
is pretty self-explanatory and straightforward and then end of story. >> All right. Well, then I apologize for mis reading. >> That's okay. I gave it to you all of an hour ago to read. So um so since we've gone down this pathway
what would be really helpful to me is I heard from Ed at least as far as docks and boats are concerned a lack of interest in facilitating those. What I'd like to hear from is the rest of the commission as far as where you would like us to go deeper and as Tom
indicated sort of there there's lots of details to work out on these especially the ones that involve licensing and so on. I think the thing that struck me Chase uh when you were talking about the boat storage is
you know it will either going to provide a finite resource uh and only so many people will be able to participate or it it becomes an infinite resource
and it it just feels like we're abandoning our our mission. in that case uh you know how how do we how do we land on something fair
in in that in that regard? Uh you know I know we talked about um there's a parcel that we spoke some weeks ago about putting boat racks up and we you know kind of explored that idea and uh you know to me that that seems like
something that's that's sensible. uh you know not trying to making the resource unlimited doesn't seem reasonable to me. >> So in that case Michael you're saying you would want to
provide broadly some boat storage racks maybe a locations to be determined. >> Yeah. No, that that makes sense to me. And I I think a number of the comments uh were kind of around that. You know, I don't want to have to drag my canoe six
blocks or three blocks or two, whatever to uh to get it to the water. um you know, but being able to leave your your boat along the shoreline, you know, uh regardless of uh of where
you live or uh you know, seems like it's just inviting um a an awful lot of traffic and and uh clutter on the shoreline. >> So, you don't like alternative 4 here? You'd scratch alternative 4. Just sort of put your boat where essentially
alternative 4 is what we have now. People put their boats where they feel like that seems reason. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Does, let me ask this just in terms of narrowing this down. Does anyone want alternative 4 in terms of boats?
>> I was going to second what Michael said. I would also remove alternative 4 from the boats and honestly from the uh from the landscaping one as well. It doesn't seem like it. Yeah, I I I would be against that. Okay. >> Tell me what else I can knock off this
list. >> Do we want to be in the business of maintaining any landscaping? >> Hate to break it to your head, but we are. >> Yeah. I mean, that's one of our purp That's exactly. I mean I use landscaping here but maybe
>> I agree to that resource management right but I I feel like we need to be better at managing this property right like or maintaining it and that's part of the problem I think >> I exactly >> I I think the whole lakefront should be rew honestly because the lake is not in
the best water quality condition to start with and anything we can do to help improve that in shoreline Um shoreline restoration um would certainly help get some ve get
have you know get vegetation along there. I don't think we should have any u spaces that are you know vegetated avoid the vegetation if we can do something about it. Carl, does does that
mean to you like maybe we should define what rew means there? Like >> open spaces, open access to the lake, but maybe it's planted with >> wildflower grass or are you talking about allowing it to grow in in whatever
form it is as long as we manage the invasives? >> Yes. No. Number two, I I would um even but but saying that um I would support some type of um
some type of dock uh owned by the town, controlled by the town um for small boat use. I mean, I'm not talking about motorboats pulling up to it, but basically um access for people
to walk out, do some uh bird observation, wildlife observation. Um you know, a place to maybe tie a kayak up to. Um but, you know, certainly not um
motorboat use. more more more things that that people would do on conservation land. I guess that I get what I'm think I'm thinking about this from a conservation land perspective. What what would we typically allow?
>> So does does that mean Carl you'd be okay with alternative two or three whether it's town owned or we sort of assume control as long as we answer this question about how the docks are used in a way that you're comfortable with? Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. >> Chime in on um Carl's just in terms of landscaping. So, I would be keen on finding a balance like we do at Frost Wickham where there's certain times of the year that protects. you can you can
cut once or and then have areas where we have like a vista like where if you have certain sitting areas for for that as well. So I I'm in between finding that that balance. I I concur with Carl for the health and habitat we need to
reveate uh rew wild some areas but I'm happy to find a balance where we can you know cut on occasion which would help u mitigate some of the invasives as well. Okay. >> But definitely, right, we're talking definitely strike alternative four here.
Sounds like no one's in favor of going that far and opening up space. Okay. >> Uh Chase, you didn't factor in here anywhere the docks that like was it park and wreck that did the dock last year, which I assume they'll do again for
fishing and so forth. Um >> that that's right. Th this is talking about the currently unpermitted docks. You're you're right, Ed. There's the fishing dock and then of course there's the recreational dock over both over by the >> lake. Yeah, I I didn't count the recreation, you know, where they swim
out to and that. But the reason I brought it up is that would that alleviate some of the dock thing because there there would be a dock for fishing and and presumably putting your canoe or kayak in the water,
you know. So what I've heard so far is as far as docs are concerned maybe a willingness up to alternative three as long as uses are tightly controlled. Definitely not alternative 4.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I'd agree with that. >> Definitely not four. As far as upland boat storage, definitely heard support for alternative one, but also some version of alternative three where we
provide some kind of storage space. Um, but definitely not alternative 4. >> I'd like to make sure that that's for town residents only as well, which is what you see in the majority of other municipalities.
>> Sure. >> Right. So, if we did put some storage there, it would be it's got to have a tag on it for, you know, >> you have to you have to tag your boat. You have to license your boat even if it's a kayak. They do that in many other towns and states as well.
>> I would be careful though if it gets stolen and we're providing the storage space, we're now liable for it having been stolen. >> No, I think Yeah. Okay. And then as far as landscaping goes, it
sounds like, and I'm now very receptive to this idea that I probably shouldn't have used landscaping, but um landscaping goes, definitely not alternative 4, and it sounds like even alternative three and sort of maintaining of the existing landscaping space as is probably not something we
would support. Perhaps maintaining the openness of it with controlled management might be a subset of that. But something more more uh wild, more natural would be the most extreme.
>> Yeah. Described as number two. >> You can expand number two, right? >> Right. Yeah. Somewhere between those. Okay. >> If number two included stuff like put a bench out for people to sit and enjoy the water and stuff, I could probably get behind that. >> Okay.
Um, other comments on this before I open it up for public comment. Okay. What I'm going to do then is we're going to open it up for public comment. Um, I I would very much emphasize to folks two things here. Uh, we're not
making a decision tonight in in any capacity. Um, >> Yep. And so what we're gonna do is that you would just um raise your hand and when we go ahead and let you in to please identify your first and your last
name and where you reside. Um that would be great. And we'd like to limit it so that everyone can speak once. And as Chase mentioned earlier, ideally in that 3minut realm because um we recognize these are lengthy discussions and we do have other um hearings after this as
well. So, if anyone wants to raise their hand, I will try and see you as best I can. It's a big screen. Tim, you can help as well. >> Shoot. Guys, was I not showing this the whole time? >> You were not.
>> You were not. >> It was very unclear if you meant to be or not, and I didn't. >> Oh my goodness. >> Someone wanted to interrupt you. You were honorable. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Sorry about that. You should have interrupted me. Okay,
Tess, let's see. Promote to panelist. Oh, sorry, Tess, you should be able to speak. Sorry, I didn't mean to move you as a panelist. I just meant to >> be speak. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead,
>> Tessgan Burch Road. Um, I wanted to thank you so much for being so thoughtful around this topic. I think I I hear the desire that you have to do
right by the lake, by the lake shore, and also by the residents that live around it and that use it. Um I I personally carry my boats or my um
paddle board down and I carry it back up. Um, I have no issues doing that. I find access points that are not docks that I just walk towards the water edge and I can easily do that. If I had a bigger boat, I might drive it around. We
have a boat launch. I feel fully comfortable using it. Um, so I don't I I don't know if I feel that um I would need a a a structure there to store my boat. Um, I think for me the
most important part is the lake and its need and that it is impaired and that we need to do something different from what we have been doing in order to provide the a future for it.
Um, I like the idea of reing the uh the lake shore and I think um mitigating the invasives is a is obvious for that. bringing in natives um native plants for it would be would
be really important. Um and then the dock question as I said I personally do not need it. I see that some people do and feel like they they would really like to have these docks and I would caution then to see what does that improve uh does that bring more traffic
to the area where we have people parking on the sides putting their docks out onto this now public dock putting their boats out onto the public dock so there's a bunch of questions still that need to be answered but I really really
uh congratulate you for for taking this up in such a respect respectful manner. Thank you so much. >> Great. Thank you. Um I'm now going to go with Kathy followed by Dustin. Go ahead, Kathy. >> Hi Kathy Hoire, 33 Lakeshore Drive. Um
I've lived at the lake since March of 1982 and I've seen the lake go through a lot of change. Right. So this um my my biggest concern is this discussion about
rewing or landscaping or however you want to discuss it. um if we let the little bit of land that people have maintained over all the years um
rewaces. Um, I live in what Lenny Adams, who was a trustee for many years and his father before him, um, gave me a photograph of our house. It was the first house built
on Long Lake and it originally was owned by Mistress Medbach and the gravel quote parking area that was across it's across from 33 and 35 Lakeshore Drive was actually the boat house for the house I
live in. Um, and it was graveled back then. So, uh, I think I get very upset about people wanting to, um, control the the wildlife, um, around the lake.
It it it it disturbs me because there is this something like 93 acres and 110 acres between the Prrowy and the Wickham properties. I think less than 10% of the lake is actually mowed like lawn area as
it was called. Um I know myself and my next door neighbors never use fertilizer or anything like that on the lake. Um not even on my own lawn. Um I would never do that. I think uh all of the septic systems around the lake add more
nutrients than um any fertilizer people might be using. Um it it I just find it disheartening that people have complained about those of us who tried to make a beautiful view uh for people
to enjoy. Um I I lived on the road when it was a dirt road and it was only 18 ft wide. We used to have horses come down. everyone came down and walked the lake um because it was a beautiful view and it still is. And I think if we let it
overgrow and because what what grows across in that strip is prickers and you know all sorts of nasty things. Um and I it just it it kind of breaks my heart that this has become such a huge issue.
I I wouldn't mind taking my canoe and storing it. Hey, I'm I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but your three minutes is up. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. >> No, no, no. You're great. Thanks. >> Dustin, you're up next. If you want to introduce yourself, please. >> Hi there. Thanks. You can hear me. Okay.
Right. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, thanks. Dustin Neil, 17 Lakeshore Drive. Um, just a couple of things. It sounds like there's actually been quite a bit of backtracking on um the discussions that we've had the last couple of meetings and that's a little
bit concerning. Um particularly with regards to um there's been lots of discussion about folks wanting there to be more public access and it I want to ensure that that hasn't backtracked at all and anyone that has maintained a dock I think has been pretty open about
ensuring that they would be publicly accessible if there was a good licensing option moving forward. Um and the issue between the docks and the upland boats are not distinct issues. And thank you uh Chase for uh sharing the the screen.
That helps a lot because if you have if you allow upland boats, you're then inviting people to put in directly from the shoreline, which is not the the most minimally invasive way to launch. That having a dock to launch from near those boats is actually really important. Um,
and if those were removed or even substantially reduced and driving all of the traffic to the boat ramp will actually be the most dis disruptive options for how people access the water because it will force everyone into
single places and, you know, squeeze in parking at the boat ramp, which isn't town property, by the way. It's state property, right? Um, and it's not exactly convenient or easy to drag a kayak across the sand when it's a, you know, a beach full of people on the
heaviest usage months um, of the year. Um, plus park and wreck has been pretty kind of, I don't know, aggressive about in enforcing beach permits for people just walking across, but I know that's a park and wreck issue, not for this one. And then just lastly, I'll say that if a
licensing option is available to folks, um I'd be very happy to kind of corral the existing doc maintainers to figure out what like a good amendable to both sides option would be and make sure that
everyone kind of can be on the same page about uh what works and doesn't work and what people want to or able to sign up for. and obviously shared resources if there was like a need for um certificates of insurance like town council mentioned stuff like that. I'd
be happy to kind of lead the effort to work with the folks around the lake to figure out the best way to operate within a set of guidelines and kind of come back to you guys or rather work collaboratively with you guys as a liazison between the groups so that it
could be done with as little work on your part as necessary. Thanks, Dustin. Um, I I will comment on what Dustin said there. One of the I think uh components of some of these alternatives that are embedded is to to
explore them and flesh them out more means working with, you know, the Long Lake Neighborhood Association or working with Dustin or something like that to get more details on how they're I haven't done any of that yet because I wanted to see where we land in terms of alternatives that make sense versus ones
that don't. Okay, great. We're going to go Kieran, then Molly. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. I didn't realize I was in control of my volume this time. Uh, Kieran Odwer, 33 LRO Drive. Um, yep. Thanks for hearing me. I just want to
quickly, uh, Kathy is my mom. I just kind of want to finish what she was saying. I think we're not um opposed to moving the canoes across the street if we have to. Um that's not a big deal. I think most of us most of our concern is around uh landscaping. And the the
picture that she references has a Model T in front of the house. I mean, so it has been maintained in some fashion by the people that lived here for over a hundred years at this point. Um and the the parking area maybe the this
is uh I think it is activities 9 and 10 in front of 33 and 35 Lakeshore Drive. Um I want to point out also that we're not using any fertilizers. We're not even maintaining all the way down to the water. Um and you know kind of Dustin has uh mentioned his project last time
about um the the ducks and the birds. This is also an area where the migratory birds can come up on the shore, which they have because we've had, you know, ducks stay for the whole season before. In a lot of places, they're not able to do that because the entire um back half
of the lake is just forest. Um we I haven't really been able to review this document cuz we weren't able to see it. Chat is disabled. So, um we couldn't chime in and say that we couldn't see it. So, I I'm hoping that at some point before uh the commission makes a
determination on this that we can have an in-person meeting or at least a meeting where there's more open participation because I mean Zoom is uh greatly convenient for a lot of things, but I think you do uh lose something um you know, not being in person and having
the access that um we had before the pandemic. Um, I also just want to hope I I so I I read all the comments and I'm overwhelmingly seeing maybe 15 people are more in favor of less restrictive
and four people are, you know, kind of leaning towards uh super restrictive approaches. Um, and I'm just hoping that the commission kind of takes into consideration what the what the people that live here want and not just um what a select few loud people who are upset
about certain aspects are. I mean, it is such a small area of land um given the the size of the lake that is actually mowed and it's just it's just grass. If we let it overgrow with with even even return it to a meadow, um people aren't
going to be able to you walk your dog in there, you're going to have to check them for ticks immediately. Um kids aren't going to be able to get down there and fish. Um I just I just hope that the commission takes into consideration what what the people that live here want. >> Great. Thank you very much. Next up will
be Molly. >> Okay. I'm um speaking through Molly's computer, but my name is Joan Wood and I live at 43 Lakeshore Drive. >> Okay, Joan, we can barely hear you. Can you either speak louder or turn your mic up a little? >> Okay, I'm speaking as loud as I can. Is
that better? Are you able to hear me? >> We can kind of hear you. Why don't you give it a go and we'll see what we get. >> Okay. Basically, I just want to thank everybody for weighing in. I think it's great that the commission is facilitating this community dialogue and
I've learned so much and I really want to be sensitive to all my neighbors. So, um, personally, I'm taking a lot of learning from this, but I want to support Dustin's proposal. I think it's an excellent idea for him to work with the people who have the docks currently
and uh, we'll all be happy to collaborate with him to create the the outcome that's going to serve the community best. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you, John. >> Thank you. Anyone else? I know Emily, you had your hand up. Yep. Emily. Emily
will be up next. Go ahead. >> Hi. Uh, thank you for for having this um public meeting. Um Lucy, I want to reiterate um Tessy's point and what I sent in my letter that I think the land
that the conservation commission controls should be um the focus should be the um sustainability and the um health of the of the lake and the lake area. Um so um I really want to
emphasize that. The other thing I would like to um propose is I'm hearing um people mention that there's a you know you're looking at number of people who um are saying one thing versus the other and um if you really want to know what
the um Littleton residents thinks I think you need to do a survey. Um the people who um are living directly on the lake or across the street from the lake
um have a very um vested interest and um and are very aware of this um public meeting and I think there's a lot more input that you can get if you are looking at as a number you know number
of people um um talking about you know the number of people who um are putting in comments or speaking at the public meeting. Um that's um thank you for holding this. I do appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you for your input. Um next
will be Sebastian followed by Rob and then Sarah. >> Hi there. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. If you could introduce yourself, Sebastian. >> Yes. Sebastian Klein to Dogwood Road. Uh just wanted to bring up two points that came to mind um as I was listening
tonight. Um in addition to all that was said in the the comments that everyone submitted. Uh first one being more around the you know a real reality check and and no disrespect to to the commission and anyone on this call. Um, but I do believe that and I'm mostly
talking about people who may not be on this call or as worried about the issues at hand or may not have cared for the the lake and maintain the shoreline and and uh as as most of the people on this call, but I do think that people want to enjoy the lake and will find ways to do
that. They will find access points. So, I'm very much for the idea of channeling this traffic um mostly through some either public or communal uh or private docks. Um because my concern would be that if we move everything, those people
will still find their way and uh potentially damage what we've put in place. Um and I don't think it's feasible for anyone to be out there every weekend to police it. So, I I just think that that's likely what's going to happen, knowing that that people will find their way to the lake. And then the
second point is I am concerned to hear, you know, thoughts about just letting it go, returning it to the wild. Um, from my perspective, it this part of the lake is not going to go back to nature, quote unquote, because we have paved roads.
Uh, there are houses, there are delivery trucks, uh, there's salt being spread in the winter, way too much in my mind. Um, I live at the end of Dogwood. Um, and if you go down there by the lake, uh, it's mucky. There is a water outlet, I
believe, because it never freezes over in the winter. Uh, it's full of weeds. They're invasives. Um, I actually enjoy the parts that have been maintained by the community because they actually look and feel better to me. I think we have a responsibility to care for the
shoreline. Um, and that sort of more active management in my mind rather than just letting it go because I am afraid that we'll see more dead trees that become a danger, more invasives. Uh, and I'm not an expert here, but I'm not sure I see the path forward of of
nature just taking it back and getting back to a place where it would be beneficial to the lake. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, Rob, you're up. >> Okay. Hi. Um, I agree with Sebastian.
>> Rob, if you could introduce yourself with your address, that would be great. >> Yep. Sure. Rob Brown's 25 Juniper Road. I agree with Sebastian's comments. I agree with Emily's comments pertaining to a survey. I think not stated here is
this Lakeshore probably being most walked roadway. Um, so I think this rewelding concept is contrary to that. So I think you've got to get a much broader perspective with regard to how the lake is utilized and appreciated. Um
other perspectives I agree Dustin's scenario I think fine you know good. Um but the one that you started off with Chase is problematic. Park and Wreck is a big player on the lake to not have them participate and be involved and
consider such things as they have CPC funds I think totaling 42 grand with plans to put in a fishing dock at the intersection of Beach and Lake Short at least last time they publicly stated that's where it was going to go. They have another dock. Um, so I think to not
consider that solution or that coming element to this lake that's a shared lake is problematic. I previously wrote and think it's also problematic to not consider the property maintained by uh select board. Um, and then an issue that
I've spoken with you folks before, the conscom's permission to allow offseason storage of the existing what's commonly referred to as the sailing dock and the space that that takes up in that parking
area. Um, combined with the docks I just made reference to possibly which I stated previously to you months ago. um another potentially two sets of 42- ft extensions. The limited space beyond
the, you know, 3 months that the docks are potentially in the water at the time that you're considering removing all of the existing docks used by, you know, not permitted for motorboats. Big problem. I don't think you have space to
get all these potential people that you're separating from using using the lake. It I don't see how it all works. So all of that to basically summarize and say while I understand you are just trying
to deal with just this parcel, the lake has other parcels and other components of the town and I think you have to gather them all. Certainly you have to gather them all if you're going to do a survey because this limited perspective I don't think is indicative of the lake
and how we utilize it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Rob. Next is Sarah. >> Hi everybody. My name is Sarah Corey. I'm at 35 Lakeshore Drive. Um I just wanted to say thank you to Dustin for offering to kind of corral
all of us. Um I am totally in favor of having that discussion and kind of coming together. Um, for those of us who have been able to maintain what we have, um, like Kathy and Kieran said, have maintained what has been kept up for
decades now. Um, one of the things I wanted to point out that I didn't mention in my comments that I had submitted is that, um, while Lakeshore Drive is definitely a busy walking road, um, it's also a busy driving road. Um, there's a lot of car traffic. Um,
letting the the lakeside rew um could mean that there is no place to step off the road when all of these cars are coming back and forth when the middle school bus comes bombing down the hill off of Emerson onto Lakeshore
Drive. Um, we need a safe area for our kids to ride our bike ride their bikes. Um, for us to be able to walk. Um, there's no sidewalks in this neighborhood. So you let it re wild and then you have an even more dangerous uh walking area which like Rob said is one
of the most popular walking areas in the town. Um so we are happy to continue to maintain what we have um to allow for the view to allow for safety to allow for fun activities for these kids who are fishing and not getting into
trouble. Um it's it's a it's a beautiful neighborhood that needs to be kept up and so we can support, you know, this next generation coming up while I raise my own kid, while I watch so many of our neighbors um have the next generation of
lake kids. Um, Kieran was one of them and now I get to graze one here and and I just really hope that the commission takes that into consideration um because what we have in this neighborhood and as a group um is really awesome and uh we are very much in support of maintaining
what we have. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Sarah. I'm going to turn it back to you, Chase. >> Sounds good. Yeah, looks like we've gone through comments. So what um what I would propose we do Sarah is um
ask folks to that this document with the alternatives will be posted. Um, commissioners, what I will do is pair this down a little bit and tighten these alternatives up. And then I would suggest um it with your leave it may
make sense to check in with Dustin and probably with Tess in her capacity at the Long Lake Neighborhood Association president to um maybe get some more details fleshed out on some of these alternatives because some of them do at least some that we're willing to
contemplate involve potentially a dock or some amount of landscaping or something like that. So try and tighten the alternatives that we didn't exclude up and come back in I would say probably four weeks time with some more specific alternatives here and then we can think
about making a decision. >> Okay, that's great because we're actually following up. We've got others. So, we're going to end this conversation, but um we will discuss that's coming up soon is our dates for our next meetings. And so, it will be
posted um probably two meetings from now when we're going to do that. So, we're going to close. >> Sarah, one um one I saw Rob raised his hand. Rob, do you have a just a administrative question? We're not going to take another comment, but >> wait a minute, Rob, let me allow you to
talk there. Go ahead, Rob. Yeah, just briefly because Chase just mentioned Long Lake Neighborhood Association. There's been a flurry of opinions within LLNA members as to should discuss this issue or I read it as should not discuss this issue. I just want to make you
aware, Chase, that if that if you're going to be contacting LLNA, then LLNA has to present itself available for discussion in a way that that is not being debated um pretty strongly.
>> Okay, I and I appreciate that, Rob. So, we'll certainly take that into consideration. My um um request to Chase is that he does not reach out. So, that we'll stay through this forum and keep open discussion. so that there's no back channeling. >> Okay.
>> Okay. All right. So, now we're going to go ahead and move on. >> Pardon me. >> I think Rob's just not muted. >> Yep. Wait a minute. Okay. Um, let me just work on this for some. Hold on one
second. Okay, great. Here we go. Okay, so um Tom, thank you for joining us this evening. Um, we're going to go ahead and carry on with some of our other hearings. >> Okay. I'll talk to you all soon. Thank you. Appreciate. I'll give you a call tomorrow. We can start to work on some details.
>> Thank you. Okay. It's now 9:39 and we're going to open the 8:35 to um actually let's before we do that, let's jump to the conservation our meeting schedule because that might help some people that are still on. Tim, can
you kind of go over that with us? Uh, I don't have it up in front of me right now. It was more so just if if you guys see any problems with the dates um or if if you don't see any problems with the dates, >> can you tell us what the next two dates are? >> Yeah, so the next two dates should be
December 2nd for the next meeting and then the 16th for the for the following one. Wait a minute. Doesn't that say 15th? This was the memo you sent out, Tim. I was just >> Yep. So,
this doesn't cover the second December date that we have for this year. This was >> Yeah. So, the next meeting is December 15th. >> We have the second and 16th on our agenda. >> Second and the 16th.
>> I thought Yeah. So, are we going second and then 15? It looks like that's the submission deadline date for uh January 6th. >> Yeah. Okay. This is for next. >> We're on the 16th. The 2nd and the 16th.
>> Okay. So, Chase, would you want to have the next hearing on the 16th? >> I think that makes sense. >> Discussion for the 16th for the lake. >> Okay. So, those of you that are still on with us, let's go ahead and earmark that
for the 16th. Okay, great. Okay, so now let's go ahead and officially open the 8:35 discussion, the conservation budget, um, FY27. So, Tim, we're going to roll this over to you. >> Sure. Um, and this was part of this was
just letting you guys know that, you know, we've come up with our our budget. if you guys want to meet um we can certainly meet with you and go over everything that we're requesting in it. Like I I think we met with Kyle and and maybe Ed last year. Um so if if some of
the commissioners want to do that, we're certainly uh able to do that with you guys. >> So are there two commissioners that would like to help Tim kind of flush that out? We'd like to have two. Can't have three. did it last year.
>> What' you say, Ed? >> I did it last year. I certainly can do it again this year if that's >> okay. Super. Is there someone that would like to join Ed and Tim on that? >> Yeah, I can do that. Okay, super. If you could, if there is a way to kind of have
some conversations and then Tim, would you come back for December 2nd with something um a little bit more concrete that you could share with us? >> I was going to share some of the stuff with you um right now, but I mean, >> perfect.
>> It wasn't going to be all of it. Certainly. >> Okay. >> Um >> that's great. So rewind back to the spring when we were determining Lauren's position. Um there was some back forth was going to be 25
hours was going to be 40 hours. Um and what we landed on was 40 hours and that 15 hours was going to be funded by the water department 25 um by conservation. So what we've got in the budget for next fiscal year, what we're requesting is is
there's going to be a transition. uh is we're going to be requesting 32 hours for for Lauren under conservation and then E is going to be water department. Um so so nobody's caught off guard. That's
what we're going to be requesting. Um >> didn't you just say 15 hours water and 25 conservation? Where' the 32 come? So she's 25 conservation 15 water right
now and then next fiscal year we're going to is going to be uh the change in that. And so the understanding was that Lauren was going to similar to what I was doing with the water department um helping with with lake management issues. I was doing I was a little more of involved with the clean lakes
committee when I was uh over there part-time. Um she's just generally helping out with with some of the lake management stuff over there. Um, and so following up on that, so we were asked and and this was is kind of the big
change within our our budget ask for next fiscal year is that we were asked to um include some of the lake management um items within our budget as separate line items um and take that responsibility
away from the the Clean Lakes Committee to have to go in front of the Slack board and do that themselves. just to sort of consolidate like the budget requests around environmental things under one umbrella, Tim. >> Yeah. And and and so the water department funds almost everything with
with spectacle pond because they have the well there and and they could justify it. The things that we're going to be requesting uh funds for are for Forge Bond and for Long Lake this year. and we're going to be requesting funds
for lake management plans for both of them um and for herbicide treatments in the in the surveys that are uh involved with that. So they are the cost is is pretty high for those especially compared to what our
previous budget we've requested has been. Um so just didn't want anybody to be caught off guard when they see a number or those things within our budget. Um we wanted to give you a heads up that they're going to be in there. So, >> so they're consulting in contracting costs though, not not any marginal
increase in labor responsibilities. Is that right? >> Say that again, Chase. >> The the the added budget as the sort of Clean Lakes things fall under our broader umbrella. The those costs are associated with contracts, external contracts or
external vendors. They're not additional internal labor. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And and Tim, that money that was with water is coming over also. It's not that we're having our budget increased to do these things that water
was doing. The money that was going to the things they were doing is moving with the with the items. Correct. >> Can can you can you say that again, Ed? Sorry, I don't >> So follow. We are picking up some
responsibility for things that water department was doing. Do I have that correct? >> Yes, Lauren. Right. >> So, the the the money that was budgeted for those items, that's also coming over with those
items. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. Yep. Because we're requesting it. All right. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a case of our budget was being raised and the money is staying with water. >> No, no, no. Yep. >> Okay, >> that's correct.
>> Okay, thanks. >> Anything else you want to add, Tim? I think um after you have a chance to go through that with Michael and Ed that might um help for the the next meeting on December 2nd. >> Yeah. No, no, we um I don't have anything to add right now, but yeah,
we'll we'll have it on the agenda for December 2nd. We can talk about it further. >> Um I I would like as you guys think about budgets um to also think about we always seem to move at the last minute
with CPA applications. Um Andrew has been very patient with us helping us make that happen. But as we think about the budget, it may be worthwhile to think about, are there any CPC funds that we may want to apply for?
And maybe we could actually get that done a little earlier than previous years. >> And and certainly, you know, if anybody thinks of a project that they really see coming up, you know, down the pipeline, uh, yeah, if we can get it in earlier, the better. Um, but, you know, we we can
work with what we have. if not. But yeah, if you have any projects in mind, feel free to bring them forward and we'll try to make them happen. >> Andrew, can you um refresh our memory? Are there any certain timelines that we need to look as benchmarks for funding?
Yeah. So, in order to get an application um for consideration for the town meeting in the spring, uh I believe this time around, it's either late February or early March that we'll have to have the projects kind of in and approved by CPC. And that's, you know, the two-part
meeting, eligibility, one meeting, funding the next. Um then it' have to get placed on the warrant, select board, close the warrant, you know. Um, so as long as we get it in fairly early, that's an easier process. Otherwise, we're kind of rushing around uh trying
to get it approved before the warrant uh closes. But, um, we should have plenty of time for anything uh going into FY27. Uh, as long as we can get it in. Let's shoot for maybe January
uh to think of any proposals, get them in writing and then >> So, can we put that on as an administrative discussion on one of the next two meetings, Tim, when you see that there's an opportunity to have that or we might just put it on both to see
if now that we start to talk about it and think about it a little bit more. So, I would like to make the recommendation to put that on for the second and then perhaps if time permits to the 16th. Sure. Um, I will say I've been talking with Lauren and we've been kind of brainstorming and not just
Lauren honestly. We've been meeting with folks from LCT, um, Rick, Aaron, Alisa, uh, Rob, and we've been talking about prioritizing properties to treat invasive species. and we have been talking about putting
in an application in the spring for for more invasive uh terrestrial invasive uh work. And so that that's something that's kind of on our radar and we just hadn't brought it to you guys yet. Um but just want to let you know that that's something we've been talking about.
>> Okay, great. Let's go ahead and keep the dialogue going. Okay. >> Um if you all want to just kind of look back, I know we've kind of jumped around a little bit tonight. I don't see anything else on the administrative discussions that we have and I think
we've followed through with um all the appointed ones. So with that it's 9:50. If there's no further discussions if someone would like to make a motion to adjourn. >> To adjourn.
>> Okay. So we have a first and a second. Ed and Andrew. >> Yep. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Chase >> Chase. I >> Carl >> Al Melberg. I >> Ed >> Edi. >> Michael
>> Michaelston. I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Kyle >> Kyle Masfield. I >> myself I it is unanimous and we're adjourned. Thank