Um, with that, I'm going to open up the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting of December 2nd, 2025. Um, our agenda tonight is fairly light. We've got a number of administrative items. At 7:45, we'll jump into the notice of intent for 242 King Street. Um, any
additions or uh I suppose corrections to the agenda? Anything else anybody wants to cover tonight? Okay, easy. Um, let's start with the minutes. Uh, we have the agenda says the
minutes of November 18th. I actually didn't get a chance to take a look at them. Has anybody had a chance to take a look? Any additions, corrections, or deletions to those? I just had a very minor uh correction on the second page under the North Bridge
uh water quality report. At the very end of that paragraph, it just says uh to get on a future meeting agena instead of agenda. And that's all I had. >> I sent over a few um editorial stuff to Lauren this morning.
>> Just minor editorial things. >> Nothing of substance or anything changed. Okay. How's everybody doing tonight? >> Hey, Carl. >> Hey, Carl. >> Hi, guys. >> So, with that, if um if we don't have
any other substantive changes to the minutes, can I get a motion to approve the minutes of November 18th? >> Second. >> There we go. >> Andrew, do our roll calls for us. >> Sure. All right. Roll call vote. Carl >> come.
>> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Chase >> Chase I >> Kyle >> Max >> Edai >> myself I it's unanimous. >> Very good. Um Tim, my ask of you here is
to go through the uh administrative items, but if you can prioritize those things that are likely and we don't always know, but likely to have sort of people attached to them so that we can help people move along with their night if they just have one administrative thing to sit through.
>> Sure. Um they are relatively already scheduled. Um kind of abide that. Um so we we can start from the first one. >> So I will promote over Dale right now. Um if you guys can remember at the last
meeting you guys voted to ratify the enforcement order that was issued over at 172. Um and Dale has provided a restoration plan which he's going to review tonight. >> Okay. Let's see. Do we have do we have Dale over yet?
Hi, I just had to rejoin the Zoom as a panelist if that's the right way to do that. Sorry, I missed the >> whatever Tim said, but I'm sure hopefully it was all good. >> Yeah. U so essentially Dale, I I know a couple weeks ago you had already put together some framework of a restoration
plan. And I think what we're looking to hear from tonight is what you're proposing for a restoration associated with the enforcement order. And then we can after we hear from you, we'll discuss it, see if there's anything that the commission thinks needs to be updated, changed, adjusted, and then we
can um either approve or send you back to the drawing board to make changes to that uh restoration plan. So, if you wouldn't mind uh take us through that restoration plan and what you're proposing, appreciate it. >> Okay, sounds like a win. So, uh, uh, people have had an opportunity to review
the document that I sent, I take it. >> So, >> presumably, I think you can assume that. And if we have questions, >> we'll beg your forgiveness. Sometimes we miss details here and there. >> Well, I'm the one that's begging forgiveness at this point. So, I
perfectly I understand that. >> Uh, so, uh, in my recovery plan, I had, uh, proposed doing, uh, exactly what Tim asked me to do when I met him last month. um just planned about a h half an acre that's impacted where the uh uh the
uh the brush was cleared. It's uh about 200 22,500 ft. Um I can provide receipts. Uh planning on planting early uh spring, you know, whenever March comes around and it seems like uh the uh the seed is
going to going to stick and start growing, that's when I'll do it if that's agreeable with the board, of course. and then planning to plant it myself. I can send monthly photos to the committee as the grass grows and uh uh begins to propagate and regrow in that
in that area. Um uh accommodate and support any inspections or follow-up visits as directed by the town. You're happy to come over to my property and walk around anytime you want or once again I can provide pictures as needed. You know, my goal is to be considered envir environmentally aware, as I
indicated during our meeting last month. Uh uh this would never have happened. I I was unaware that there was town property involved or that this was protected land at the time. And needless to say, this will never happen again. My goal once again is just to uh you know,
get some seed going and uh uh you know, hopefully move on from this and be considered in good standing with the town, which is my goal. uh uh any once again any coordination or approval that's required by the board I'll do that um if you want to come and take inspect anytime or I'll send photos
again uh in my um uh plan I did provide some photos uh after clearing and uh photos uh uh before clearing just to take a look at the um you know the the extent of the clearing activity and you know the brush that was removed. Um, so
you can take a look at those at your convenience. And Tim had um uh recommended when I met with them uh New England erosion control uh restore mix for detention basins and uh moist sites. And then I also saw something. It's a
New England conservation wildlife mix. So my plan is to uh buy sufficient bags to cover the halfacre and uh go ahead and plant that in March. I provided spec sheets. Uh Tim provided me with a website uh you know recommended person
to uh to purchase this from. So my goal is to to buy this um uh mix in March and plant it and send photos uh and provide new opportunity to inspect and you know once again I can you know provide you with periodic updates as the um uh the
mix uh starts filling in with the uh the area that was cleared. Okay, >> Dale, those those photos that you provided were very helpful for me who hadn't had a chance to go take a look at it. I think I envisioned something different from that sort of premoing
condition than than what I saw in the photos. So, thanks for those also. Nice one with the double rainbow, too. Um >> Oh, yeah. You did look right. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's a beautiful piece of property in all honesty, and my goal was just to, you know, maintain it and continue to have the natural beauty that
we've always enjoyed in our backyard, and that's still my goal. So, you know, >> Sure. Um, Tim, I'd like you to weigh in on this first. I know, uh, water department had some particular thoughts on what they'd
like to see for restoration. Could you illuminate for us? Is this consistent with that? >> Yeah. So, the water department wanted to see a specific um seed mix put down there. If you give me a second, I can can't remember what it is off the top of my head, but I can
look it up here and I'll have it for you in two seconds. Um >> it was the restoration mix as I recall, but I >> I think it was the New England wetland wet mix. Um, >> okay. >> Second, I'll pull it up here.
>> Yep. Not a problem. Once again, whatever you want me to to buy, I'll buy, of course. >> So, they've got Yep. New England wet mix. It's a wetland seed mix. I mean, this is this area where the clearing occurred. It's It's not like it wasn't
underwater when we went out there. It's all flood plane, right? And and sub buffer zone. Um, I think honestly a mix of of the wet mix and the uh the conservation
>> wildlife mix would probably be good. um >> given the the area of where the the occuted >> setting aside the specific mix the the water department is comfortable with restoration being
reveating with seed mixes, right? >> Yes. Um the so town council, they still haven't come up with the license agreement yet, but they're going to come up with a license agreement that's going to allow um Mr. Cottonham
to uh facilitate the restoration on that that town park site. >> Okay. >> Do they have a sense of when that'll be happening? >> Uh the agreement, I mean, >> oh that should be pretty soon.
Commissioners, any comments, questions, concerns on this? >> I just have one well one comment. Um, since the landowner wasn't sure where the property line was to town property,
I would suggest that we put down some boundary markers where his property and the town property begin so it's well defined. >> Something like stone boundary markers or
something. Carl, >> something. Yeah, some it's Yeah. just so we know for future. Um, it'd be good for the town to know also as well as the land owner. >> You're extinct that that should be part of the remediation.
>> I think we could make it. I don't see why we couldn't. >> We've certainly required in other enforcement orders boundary markers or similar things. uh not necessarily based on property boundaries but based on um the sight specific issues. So maybe
that's a property boundary, maybe that's a wetland boundary, something like that. I I think it's it's not inconsistent with what we've done in the past. Anybody have any objection to this approach of reveating with seed mixes and
potentially, you know, asking the property owner to to put uh boundary boundary markers on? I guess I I guess the other question I had, Chase, um was prior to the vegetation being removed,
um was this land usable by the land owner? And is it improved now even with even if we put a seed mix in? Um cuz the seed mix is typically going to
be it's not necessarily trees. It's you know smaller things. So I guess my question is has the property been improved by the removal of the vegetation?
>> I can comment on that Carl. So just one piece to add. There were a fair amount of invasives um encroaching that area from what we noticed when we went out there post clearing. Um there was a bunch of bittersweet um in the area to
the point where it was it was pretty much covering most of the vegetation that was adjacent to where the clearing was. So maybe some invasive control as well on
top of this um seed mix restoration. I mean I'll tell you what I see in this anyway right now is looks like so these are the Dale these are the before pictures right and then this is the this is the after picture. So this area down
here sort of being cleared and mode. >> Yes. I I think one of my concerns here is that I I do not want to discourage the property owners from managing the invasives and my understanding is Dale that that's one
of the things that you were trying to do here and maybe we ran a follow of some property lines and things like that but at the end of the day managing invasives is something that we would like you to continue to do going forward, I think,
regardless of this enforcement. >> To your point, I mean, at this point, I'm reluctant to ever step foot in that area again my in my entire life. So, um, >> that's what I I don't want to make this too punitive. >> And to your point, I mean, you know, I I all I was trying to do was just it was,
you know, overgrown with bittersweet and with Russian olives, you know, it just you couldn't even get through it. And it was just like it you can see my my lawn is getting smaller and smaller. I had uh knee surgery uh the uh in 2024 so I wasn't able to go back. I had been doing
some hand maintenance of it in the past just you know going back with clippers getting you know some of the taller Russian olives but over the over a year where I couldn't do anything I just got to be oh my goodness you know. So, uh, you know, that's why, you know, I, you know, you know, had an opportunity to to
to, you know, have a professional come in and clear it for me and it seemed like it and all honesty, I thought it was in the best interest of the the town and everybody else and get rid of invasives. And to your point, you know, that that was my goal.
>> My goal at this point is to get it back to the natural state that it was in. So, you know, >> one of the paradoxes and I think one of the things we're articulating here is that the simply mowing to manage invasives can actually be counterproductive because they can take off bittersweet. I mean, I
know all about bittersweet, believe me. I mean, you you got to get the roots out, too. And, you know, understood. Obviously, in this area, I would never even consider using any kind of chemicals at all because it's so close to water. So it's all just manual
maintenance to your point trying to rip it out and you know get the bigger bigger bittersweet out and you know at this point think it will be more manageable as a homeowner and you know with your concurrence that would be my goal as well you know. So, so, so Chase
Chase, I kind of felt the same way. Um, because certain invasives require removal using certain techniques that you really have to be proficient in.
And um, I agree that sometimes you can get more started by doing it wrong. What I would suggest here is that we we my recommendation you guys can disagree
is we go forward with the seed mixes but we also require let's say a year from now an inspection of the property and if there are invasives that are growing that we require the property owner to take measures to manually remove those
given the watershed and so on. And I agree that we we probably don't want to um be treating with pesticides, at least as a first cut. Um but I think we should also give it a chance to see what grows back. >> Sounds good.
>> Understanding, however, that Dale is also I don't know what the right word is, Dale. not invalid, but your knees and stuff that you said are not where they we you would like them to be. So, I'm I'm bringing it up so that we don't
put something ownorous on Dale. I And I I don't nec I don't relish the idea of requiring someone to hire someone, but a landscaper can do that, too, if if need be. >> True. So, so let's go through one line by
line. Sounds like everybody's good with seed mix. Any objections to that? Okay. >> Um, thoughts on boundary >> chases, I guess, as long as it's a long as it's put down properly,
just not spread, you know. So, because we we're trying we want to we want to come back in a year and hopefully see some growth. >> Fair enough. So, what I would say there is a seed mix. I I would prefer to make it a seed mix approved by the agent. It sounds like we're still trying to figure
out the the right exact seed mix. And to be honest, I' I'd rather trust him to make that decision expediently than us have to deal with it again. Um but a seed mix a seed mix approved by the agent and
let's say installed with or deployed with the agent's concurrence. Right? So Dale, we would ask you to check in with Tim next spring before you're going to deploy it. Let's make sure we're putting it out at the right time of year under the conditions that give it the best chance of growing and using techniques
uh deploying it in a way that is is going to maximize it. But again, I'd rather leave that be. I'd let Tim and Lauren deal with that. >> Yep. Absolutely. I'll I'll definitely work with Tim. Not a problem at all. >> Carl, are you okay with that idea that we we put on the agent? >> Yes, 100%.
>> Okay. Um, so that's a seed mix. Uh, boundary markers, we've talked about them. Do we want to require them or not? So, I I assume this would require the property owner to have the property surveyed, at least in those back
sections, the the back and the corner. >> I I would think we could possibly skip a formal survey here and just do it with like a GPS tool. Those can be good to plus or minus a couple feet. The water department knows
that he was somewhere he was obviously on theirs. But had he only gone a little bit over, presumably they know where their boundary is. >> So I guess that was going to be my question. Is this something that the water department could do that you might have the equipment readily available to
do that and send a couple guys out there be like I know that we've we've used this in other hearings and whatnot. with this being restored. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the restoration, the seed mix that's going to get put down isn't just
going to be from the property boundary onto the water property, right? It's going to be it's going to cover both the properties. So, I'm not as worried about putting a demarcation down where he's going to be replanting a much broader area where
I guess I'm not sure what the demarcation that obviously creates a property boundary and I that's important at some point, but >> I'm not sure personally worrying about the boundary marker at this point. Dale knows he went too far.
He's not going to do it again. I don't want >> that. You don't want him to have to incur any kind of surveying cost because those are very expensive. So >> I guess that's my thought, Ed. I' If we're going to require the property owner to incur costs, I'd rather see it
be in the interest of restoration. >> Exactly. So Lauren and I can take out the iPad and we've got a free GPS uh software that we use and it's it's pretty good. Um, we can go out there and just find, you know, the >> I think that's all that's I think that's
all I'm looking for is that we should easily be able to find those points. That shouldn't be difficult. >> He was trying to do the right thing. Maybe he didn't do it quite the right way. Who knows? He did hire someone to do it, so he's not the one that did it
wrong. and and uh you know so I I I don't want to see him punished if that's even the right word but you know what I'm saying it's >> yep >> he's going to fix the mistake then let it go at that >> so what I'm hearing is like Dale to put
some stones out that identify the boundary as identified with a typical handheld GPS and the associated precision and Tim can help you do that um If you can't do it with your available tools,
>> I have no problem. I think I have a lot of stones along the side of my house. I'll definitely be happy to put those in. Not a problem at all. >> Okay. >> And the the third element of this is long-term monitoring. Um, sounds like we
expect the property owner to at a minimum report back after a year to ensure that it's regrowing and to give us a status update on the regrowth of invasives and if invasives are regrowing that the property owner take some
measures to physically remove the invasives that are regrowing. >> Okay. Okay. Is that >> is that where we're at? >> Sounds good. >> Okay.
>> We just holding this to a year. Is this I mean >> Well, that's usually three year period, aren't they? Don't we usually three years? >> We do three years. >> I'm probably not going to be living here in three years in all honesty. I don't know if that's a consideration or not, but >> I'll probably be selling the house and
moving. I'm very close to retirement at this point. we'll probably be selling the house in 2026 2027 in all honesty. >> So that's that's that's even more reason to have that boundary marked.
Um that that was one of my other thoughts is that if you decided to sell I didn't want to bring it up cuz but that was my other thought that at least it gives the new land whoever comes in after you it gives them an indication of
where the line is. Could that be >> sorry? >> I'm just thinking could that be more harmful than perhaps good though in the future though, Carl? What if it's slightly off and we're pretty much branding it as the property line, right? If it's not officially surveyed meaning,
>> you know what I mean? Like I don't want to have, you know, Dale and his family incur any surveying costs at this point. >> Um, but I just don't want to mislead any future land owner saying this is your property line. Um, >> because that's up to the buyer to to
determine. >> Yeah. All right. I'm I'm with you on that. It's up to the buyer. You're right. >> Yeah. I think as long as Tim is able to help Dale with where to put the rocks and Dale's got rocks, then to me that's more than sufficient.
>> Works for me. Um, so Dale, I I do think to to um Kyle's point, we typically require three-year monitoring periods. Um, and I think we need to require that here for the sake of consistency. However, there are circumstances in
which things have grown back and we can lift that monitoring period early because it's regrown. And if it doesn't, then um essentially I'm not sure how it will work on like the town owned property, but you would retain some
responsibility to make sure that that regrows um or transfer that responsibility to the purchaser. >> Yeah, I would definitely be looking to avoid that at all cost. Um I would anticipate you know based on my
experience in my backyard that uh uh when spring comes it uh things are going to start growing like weeds literally and uh you you are not even going to notice that I did anything in uh in um in June July you will have no idea I did
anything at all in my backyard. >> That that's kind of what I'm thinking here because you didn't disrupt the soil. So, you know, I think we should stick with our standard which is 3 years, but you can certainly come in after it's reveated and ask us to lift
that based on the condition that you observe. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. So Tim, I need to coordinate with you at some point and having you come out and just recommend where you'd like the markers to go. And then if you want
to get back to me with specifically, you know, what type of mix you'd like me to use, obviously I'll do that as well. So I'll touch base with you at some point over the next uh next few months between now and uh uh early March. >> Sounds good.
>> Those are my actions. Is that correct? >> Yep. And I think we we probably need Tim a motion to approve the restoration plan. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> I move that we approve the restoration plan at whatever the address is.
>> 172 Wickcom. >> At 172 Wickham. Thank you. >> As amended and discussed. >> As amended and discussed. I'll get that right one day. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Once again, I want to
apologize just happened and sorry for inconveniencing you and you know, thank you for working with me to uh to get this resolved. >> We'll get through it. >> Yeah, you were doing trying to do the right thing. So, >> I I was Yes.
>> Yeah. >> We have a motion made and seconded. >> Yes. Roll call vote. Uh Ed >> full time. >> Carl. >> Chase. >> Chase Carbai. Kyle >> Maxfield I >> Michael
>> Michael Livingston I >> and myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay, very good. Um we are now well past our 7:45. So we're going to
jump into our 7:45 hearing for 242 King Street. Uh looks like we have a number Mass E number 2041030. Who do we have? Do we have anyone from Light and Water to speak to this or just >> Sorry, I just Bruce Wrong person. Um,
no, that is the right person, right? Bruce, you're good to go. >> Hey, Bruce. How you doing? >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> I don't know why my video keeps shutting off here, but I'll try to get it back. There we go. >> Good evening. >> Evening. Um,
>> so Bruce, I I know we've um >> we had this in front of us once and it was just continued administratively. I think probably having you lay out what's going on and what's what the water department is proposing or what you're proposing on behalf of the water
department. Give us a little narrative and then we can get into a discussion. >> Certainly. Um Tim, can you bring up the the plan? >> Yeah, give me a minute. Well, Tim's bringing up the plan. Um, you folks are, I think, familiar with
the property at 242 um, King Street. Um, Tim, if you'll zoom us into the locust in the lower right corner for starters, please. >> Sure. Give me a second here. >> Yep. I apologize that I don't have the
ability of doing that this evening. I'm sitting in the foyer at Lehey Hospital in Burlington. >> Oh my goodness. Okay, >> Bruce, if if for some reason you need to, >> you know, this out or something. >> No, no, we got this. Uh, we've already
pushed it out. We were waiting for a DP number, we got that. Um, let's rock and roll. So, in the in the lower corner here in the Locust, you see the entire property. Um we're focusing in on the on the lower right hand corner of that
which is the existing house um that was uh there and is still there at the property. um as you're well aware cuz you've done a permitting uh a couple 2 three years ago with uh CMD Smith for
the um treatment facility that exists um there's exist now that it's been under construction for the last couple years um on the uh the main portion of this property and Tim if you want to bring us over back over to the the site. There
you go. Just slide that right over in there. Perfect. Okay. So, the existing driveway um is off to the left. If you want to go over further, Tim, with that cursor, keep going. Keep going. Right about there. The existing driveway is right
about there. And the dash property line that you see coming back. And then right in the very bottom of this, you can see the edge of the pavement and uh more or less a property line. Um that is because of uh the mass DOT ramp area that's a
little further down the road starts widening there and that is an area that is a um part of 495 and a no access um section of the land. Uh the existing drive has been converted. The previous
drive has been converted um and aligned with the authorization of Mass DOT um for the commercial use of continual access in and out for the treatment plant for the new town sewer. Um you can
see right above where it says uh King Street where it says STR in the street name. That dotted line comes back and aligns with the other line. And that's the end of the no access zone. So we are right on the
easternmost portion or westernmost portion rather of King Street that we can have access off of. And we did that so that we would be outside of the 50ft no disturb zone even though the area is previously disturbed as lawn. Um we
didn't want to go into that 50ft zone. Um we wanted to keep as far away as possible. Um, there's only supposed to be four parking spaces here. One's actually a turnaround. Um, and they're not even supposed to be numbered, but one of my engineers got a little zealous with it and striped it and did the whole
nine yards. But it's it's typically it's a driveway and it's um a big house, so we added a couple more parking spaces. Um, it has had an apartment in the past in the rear. So from that standpoint, we added, you know, another parking space
should a future owner want to have an apartment in it as well. The proposal here is that this property come off of the septic system, which you can see in the rear right corner of the house is where the existing tanks are.
And then right behind that is the leechfield. The leechfield will stay where it is in the ground, but it'll be disconnected from um any effluent from the house. And the dark circle that you see right on the corner is the location where an E1 pump system will be
installed for a force man to tie in this property to the treatment facility which is right next door. Also, we'll be removing the pool and its impervious area which is partly in the 50ft no
disturb zone and partly out of that 50ft no disturb zone. Um, and the yellow line, I'm sorry, have I got the right lines here? The red line is the um 100 ft buffer.
And um, yeah, the 100t riverfront rather. And the next dash red line is the 200t riverfront. And the yellow line that you have in through here is the 50 foot. And then the other solid yellow line is the
100 foot. There you go. So, we're removing also have already removed under the other filing, but part of this site was the um the driveway and this whole area of pavement that is on the
side of the house here um the left side of the house. the water department already removed that um area from here and that's outside of the 100t buffer and well a little corner of it in the back is in it but it's outside of the
riverfront and outside the 100t buffer. So the proposal is to put in a a small residential paved driveway uh small in that it's short in length um larger and that it has four parking spaces. Um, this is a reduction of a little over
2,000 square ft of imperous area within the riverfront area and I don't know the exact amount uh, but it's a reduction within the um, the wetland buffer zone as well and staying outside the 50ft
buffer zone with all of our grading. Because it is a reduction, we're put in this driveway and we've put in a small ponding area. Um, we did not put in a pre-treatment. Um, typically because pre-treatment is designed for commercial
uses and and much larger uses. And this is a driveway. And as I say, we've reduced the impervious area within the riverfront by um over 50% down from over 4,000 to, let's see, I'll give you exact
numbers here. Um the the impervious area right now is 4,970 and the proposed change would be 2,460 of which 175 ft is within the right of
way and 2,235 ft are within the um the riverfront area. Um let's see what else do I have on here. Um we have submitted also to the
planning board because we are um doing have to do storm water management under the new storm water management bylaw um which we have submitted the full calculations showing all of what I've just explained in much shorter terms and
done all of the documentation for um the stormwater management D forms within the notice of intent as well as the um the standards of care and I can go through those if you'd like or I can just open it up to you folks for questions.
>> Uh my recommendation here, Bruce, so let's just go to questions and then we can tease out what might need more exposition based on those. >> Sounds great to me. >> Commissioners, uh what questions do we have here?
I got a few I'm happy to start with if uh you guys are still formulating yours. Okay. Um what was the reason that the parking lot or the parking area got
moved? The the existing parking lot seems like it's still within a property boundary. Well, the whole thing is within the property boundary right now. Um, we will
be creating a new lot line that will be um just to the uh to the left or the west of the proposed sidewalk um that goes from the parking to the front door and to the uh side door there. Um that'll go up and chop off and
it will be basically a 40,000 ft lot. Um the reasoning again was because we're create the new driveway is a is a commercial use driveway. It's going to have big trucks and other things going down and they're trying to
give them a little bit of screening and separation from the commercial use that is out in the backyard, if you will. >> Okay. Thanks. You bet. You guys okay if I jump into my questions here?
>> Sure. >> Um, let's start with the resource area delineation. Bruce, I saw you gave us as part of your package the wetland field data forms. I I didn't immediately there may be dated and I just didn't see them.
Are we relying on the a new delineation or is this associated with the delineation that was done for the treatment facility? >> This is the line that was done by CDM Smith and the data that we submitted was
data taken from their notice of intent package um done by CDM Smith. It's the exact same line and it was uh reviewed with you folks previously. So, we're actually still within the 3 years of that and
>> lines line. >> Um, Tim, could you I if if you're okay with this, I'd like to ask you to just take a look at it and make sure go back in that record and make sure that we
we actually approved this portion of the line. And the reason I say that is the the wetland or I'm sorry, the treatment system wasn't really related to this. So, I just want to make sure that we we've actually approved this in the past. And
Bruce, I no reason to believe we didn't, but I want to make sure it's it's clear that we're >> So, I'm going to take one step more that will make it easier for Tim because it had been a while since I looked at this thing. Um, when I was reviewing it all tonight, and if Tim, if you just go to
the CDM submission in that package there, they incorporated an ORAD from uh that was done prior to their filing. So, they did the delineation, did an O-rad, then incorporated the O-ra plus the
forms in their notice of intent, and we incorporated the notice of in the uh delineation forms in a portion of their report in our notice of intent. >> Okay, cool. So, we we had an O-r before that that makes this really clean. >> Yeah, that's kind of what we thought. >> Yeah. Okay, good.
>> And I know on top of that, I know we I actually remember visiting this site and walking that with at least Sarah and Amy, >> if not others. >> Yeah, I I I I remember walking it too. The only thing um
we we may have had in mind that we were focusing on the treatment plan, I mean, it was definitely flagged. I'm just want to make sure that we put the same emphasis on looking at this part of the line as we did for the
>> Oh, yeah. I'm saying that that because I remember walking through this lawn area. >> There's a couple other features that we were looking at. So, I know that Amy has been has been down there. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't Let's just do the eyes, cross the tees, make sure we're we're square on the line.
>> Super. Um the next question for you Bruce is whether or not the planning board has required a peer review because this to me is something that I would like to have peer reviewed but also you know it's pretty common that we uh yeah
this one >> that's fine by me. Um I I am I have to be 100% honest with you. I don't know how many other people on are looking, but I am blown away by the peer review action that is going on in Littleton right now for single family homes. Uh,
this one is a single family and mixed in with a treatment plant. So, it's a step above, but there is a very large base number that the consultant asks for that is more than the money that we put into the
training here to review it. And you know, it just it it's happening constantly over and over again. And it and people wonder why things cost so much, why homes cost so much, why everything. And it's it's it's all of this. But neither here nor there. The answer to your question is it is under
review right now by Green. And um we're in the middle of that with uh the planning board. Um they just before Thanksgiving, I think the day before Thanksgiving completed their review. to be quite honest, have not looked at it because I've been spending an awful lot
of time here at Ley myself and um you know there's uh a lot of other things are going on. So I have a continuation to the 15th with the planning board at the moment. Um and I've got to you know dig into green stuff and see what they
have. I will further state without stepping on anybody's toes, but just for the facts that some of these reviews have gotten to the point where they've spent a lot of their money and then had us spend money on other projects
where we finally proved that their questions and things they're looking for were a waste of time and energy and money and not necessary. And so it's just it's getting out of control. So that'll be the end of my soap box for tonight. I'm sorry. Fair enough. Understood. Um, nonetheless, it it it's
my opinion. That said, I'm one member of the commission. I mean, if if the rest of you all think >> it's already being reviewed, so it's there. >> I I would say though that if the conservation commission joins that peer review, Green will probably have a couple of other eyes to dot and tease to
cross with respect to resource area calculations. >> Well, we can't do the resource area because it has an O red and we're in that time frame and I'm sorry, but I put my foot down on that one. I mean, they can go look at it all they want, but they're gonna spend more money on it. Someone else has got to pay for it. >> Bruce, you're you're misunderstanding.
I'm not saying the lines if the O-rat is good, the lines are good, but we are also calculating things like changes as of impervious area within those defined lines. And I can they can recalculate my calculations anytime they want. >> Yep. And so there will be some added
scope associated with the conservation commission. Um, commissioners, your sense on whether or not you'd like to have this, whether or not we'd like to join the planning board's peer review on this. >> If we're to do that, we need to do it pretty quick. It sounds like the review
is done, right? >> Right. Exactly. I I didn't realize that it had gone that far. >> Well, they've done their first round. Like I say, we've got to read it and respond back to it. Um, the planning board also wanted us to show on this plan where the other driveway is. I have
those plans that I can share with my screen. I brought that on a thumb drive in case that wanted to come up for discussion. I am going to add it on to the the planning board's plan, which is your plan. They're one and the same. Uh, I will be adding that on. So, you'll have that to see because it sounds like
we're going into a continuation anyhow. So, you'll be seeing it in a revised plan. Okay. If if you guys decide to to join in on planning board's peer review, are there specific items that you would like me to uh ask Green to include?
>> I am particularly interested in ensuring that we are it's standard storm water condition stuff minimizing the runoff of the site. So, it it's nothing that isn't going to be obvious like do we really have enough capacity to contain a 1-in
event and are we really going to get infiltration that we expect and so on. And one of the questions I have, Tim, and I I worry always about any infiltration structures on res on single family homes is
we may have the necessary infiltration in the ponding area right now, but I always worry about those particularly where they're right next to a driveway and uh snow is going to get pushed into that
area and it's going to end full full of silt and sand. Whether or not we actually are going to have the infiltration in the long term and the capacity in the long term to achieve the storm water standards in those areas. That that's my big concern here and it's
my always my concern with single family homes. And I'm not even gonna respond because we'll let Green do their thing and then I'll respond once and for all. >> Well, it but that does bring me that that you get a soap box, Bruce. I get a soap box. Um
>> that that does bring me to another piece here and and that is sort of that idea of worrying about any infrastructure that needs to be maintained in a single family home um to manage storm water. And one of the
things I don't know if we can make you do it. Um, but I'd like to ask if if there's ways that you can minimize anything that actually requires O andM because it frankly it just doesn't happen. And
>> well, that's why we have just this ponding basin. Um, number one, um, from the soil test data, um, for the septic system in the back, you can see that it's good perking sandy soil. They had a depth of groundwater 60 in. Um they
mounted it up because they had a big system that they put into the area. Um the soils maps indicate it's the same soils all the way to the front here. We did not do a test hole in the lawn in the front area here cuz we felt it wasn't necessary had it been closer
number. Um but we're we're essentially um we're holding the existing ground grade as the bottom of the basin or actually half a foot above it to a foot above it as the bottom of this little basin area. So we're basically just building a burm. So if there's a 60-in
depth of groundwater and we need to have a twoft separation 60 in we have a 5ft separation. Then it's just an open area with lawns. So, it's an area that can be raked out and um
you know blown with a leaf blower, whatever you want to do. Uh you talk about sediment getting into it. Um there'll be some I don't know about you, I don't have a lot of sediment on either driveway where I live now or when I lived in Actton for 30 years on Main
Street and I was, you know, similar amount of traffic at King Street gets. Well, King Street might get a little bit more, but I was I was right in the center of town on Main Street for 30 years. And, you know, uh I didn't get very much sediment in my driveway. >> I mean, Bruce, th this is an area we're
we're right on the ramp to the bridge over 495. If there's one place in town that gets more sand than anywhere else, it's it's essentially right here. >> Yep. >> Um so, so like I said, >> I am concerned about it. Yeah, we don't
have any underground structures. We don't have any things that need to be dug out. This will be lawn, so if sediment is in there, it'll be easy to see and it'll be something to be easy easily removed. >> It it that's so easy for us to say,
Bruce, it just doesn't happen with single family homes. It cost money. I mean, that's our option, not putting anything in. What I want you what I'd like for you to explore is is there is there an alternative to this that is
equally viable. I mean part of what I I understand right now it's one contiguous lot and this is the water department applying for this. Um at some point it will be subdivided. I would actually be curious to know whether or not we can push the storm water into their existing
structures and whether or not there's adequate capacity there in a system that will be maintained in perpetuity. So the answer >> for you to think about >> the well we've thought about it believe me I don't want to do anything over here in my mind we have reduced over 50% the
reduction in the imperous area and so it should just allow it to free flow over the lawn for 75 to 80 ft before it gets to the wetlands and it's going to get the best treatment ever because it's just over that area end of day the
basins when you go through the drainage calcs for what you previously approved for the other site, their storm water. They have less um rate of runoff and less volume post construction based on what their calculations and what you folks approved. And I took a look at
your order conditions that made references to the documents that were submitted. So, you know, that's that's what there is. So, all in all, yes, there's a reduction already and we're making another reduction now. So, the best thing would be just let it be. Can
this be tied into their drainage? No. This is downhill. And you want to have a pump put in and a catch basin to a to a sump to a >> We don't have the crate to work with there. Maybe I'm misremembering it. We This actually sits below those
structures. >> Yes. Well, they may be below it, but there you got to come up to the to the house site. As you can see, this is coming up across there from the brook up and then over where it says BM BM number
one. Um the little square box there, that's kind of like a ridge that goes on back and then on the other side it goes down again in the new basins that they've created. And and the other wetland that's on the other side of the old barn that's no longer there. So you
got to pump it up to get it over there. >> Gotcha. Fair, fair enough. Um, nonetheless, take take these comments and and think about if there is any way that we can adjust these. Couple other things that I know are going to and if you come back and tell me there aren't, then then you
aren't. But >> please, please humor me. In any case, >> thinking about this for a long time and getting it prepared and submitted and working with the water department to get everything that everybody wanted and and uh >> I can think about it. It's just been but
it's not going to change the answer. >> We're not going to get there. Okay, fair enough. Um, couple things though that we that I'm sure we will want to see. So, between the >> between the driveway and the ponding area, I think one of the things that we will want to make sure is that that
ponding area is not used as snow storage. What uh we typically require here is like boulders along the driveway between the driveway and the ponding area or at sort of the top of the ponding area to demarcate that. Another
thing that we typically want to see here is um an identification of where snow storage is going to to occur here. I would assume it's probably off the back of the driveway. Yeah, it goes straight off the end or over into the corner off
to the right. >> Yep. >> I mean, you're going to be hardressed to plow this into this area, you know, just because it's 14 ft wide, you know, you can't even turn the vehicle, so you're driving in forward.
>> And if they have a snow blower, then it's shooting over the top of it. driving them forward doesn't prevent them from pushing the snow wherever they want. >> No, they could they could they could push it off to the side. >> Yeah. So, >> um I think we also are going to want to
understand it looks like we're talking about taking out the existing pool. Is that correct? In the existing pool shed. >> That's correct. And the deck all around it. >> And the deck all around it. So, another thing that I'm sure we're going to want to understand there is, and if it's in
here and I missed it, I apologize, what the replanting plan is there, cuz at least a portion of that is just lawn. Okay. >> Um, what about the cedars that are coming? Are the cedars that are sort of demarcating that staying in or are they coming out?
>> They're staying. >> Okay. Uh, all of the trees, are they staying? >> All the trees are staying. Okay. Can you explain the retaining wall area? But so there's a little retaining wall where those X's are. It's about a foot high. It's coming out. We're just going to
grade it off. >> And you're not going to kill the tree in the process? >> No. Actually, we're going to help the tree because we're getting rid of that retaining wall that's right up against it. So, let it have some air. So because that's within the the
riverfronts, I would suggest we have enough jurisdiction there to require you to put some sort of demarcation boundary around that so people don't kill the tree in the process. Something we've typically required in other circumstances. >> Not a problem. We have
>> and I would argue the same with the removal of the existing pool. The trees to the plan east and actually I guess it's probably the south here. Um the trees to the right of the existing pool Bruce will will want to condition or we'll
want notes in the plan that those will be protected as well. Essentially snow fence or something to demarcate them within the drip line of the tree. Um, it's an extensive >> footprint that we're worried about. >> What' you say, K? >> Yeah, within the drip line. Right.
>> Within the drip line. >> People just wrap construction fence around the trunk and call it good. And so, yeah, it's protected. >> Well, if we go around the the drip line of this tree, I think it's only an 8 in tree, but um I think it extends if memory serves me right over the retaining wall, then we won't be able to
take the retaining wall out. So, we have to work together on this to make it work. >> Yeah, of course. There's obviously the the give and take, >> but the the desire the desire is for the construction crews or endups not to get too close to the tree. So, once you take
the retaining wall out and you put the protection in, then that tree should be protected >> 100%. >> Um, that's Oh. Oh. Um just a couple nits. Um Bruce, in some of
your some of the components of like your O andM plan, there are references to the there are references to Actton. Uh not just take a second read through that. We'll just get the details right. >> There's a couple notes that were left in
there that say it references a previous project. Yeah. >> Cut and paste errors. That that's all I've got for right now, but I I do want to see the results of the peer review. >> Oh, there's Sorry, I monopolize that for
10 or 15 minutes there. But okay, sounds like there are no other comments right now. Bruce, um, what we'd like to do with, uh, your permission on behalf of the water department is continue this. The question for you is
when you think it makes sense to come back in. >> Um, not having a calendar, maybe I do in front of me. I'm trying to picture your next meeting, the 16th. Is that right? >> 16th is our next meeting. And then after that, off top.
>> January 6th. >> Yep. >> All right. Well, let's shoot for the 16th. and uh cuz I'm on for the 15th and if I'm getting ready for that hopefully I can get ready for this as well and um I will uh be in touch with Tim if we
can't we'll just continue to the next meeting. >> Very good. Anything else? >> Very good. >> I'm good. >> Appreciate it, Bruce. >> Thanks. >> Thank you guys very much. >> Thank you, Bruce. >> Take care. Good night.
>> You too. Chase, I do want to take the discussion, the administrative discussion going back to that one of them out of order and just >> Yeah, it's your show now. You take it order makes you happiest. >> Yeah, I think this one will be quick and we do have somebody here to talk to us. So, we're going to skip ahead real quick
to the Brownswoods Pollinator Garden. We have Melissa Cranmer here. Um Oh. Um, while Melissa is moving over as a panelist, Mark Arnold raised his hand. I just want to
>> see Mark, if you should be able to speak, Mark. >> Yeah. Hi, this is Mark Arnold here for the enforcement order for 359 King Street, just so you know. >> Okay, sounds good. We'll get to you in a couple minutes, Mark. >> You're right up next after this one, Mark.
All right, Melissa, I am promoting you to panelist. And if you don't want to do that, I will allow you to talk um so you can go ahead and and just review what you're uh requesting um from the commission. >> Okay. Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Yes, we can.
>> Y uh good evening. So, um you said panelist. If you want me to be a panelist, that's fine. >> I I think you're fine here. I think this works. >> Okay. I wasn't sure. Um, okay. So, I'm on the LCT
and I'm a land steward and I think it would really be great to put a pollinator garden at Brown's Woods. Um, I have pictures if you want to see where it would be in the front. Uh, Tim, would you be able to
post some of those photos I sent? Um, did you send them my email? >> Yes. >> I can I can go pull them up. If you have them ready um on your computer, if we just promote you to panelist, you can share them. If not, it's just going to take me a second to to go pull those
photos up. >> I'm just going to push Melissa to a panelist so she can share it. >> Sounds good. >> I think Melissa might actually be a panelist now if I'm looking. She's showing up as a panelist in my view. So,
Melissa, you should be able to unmute yourself now that you're a panelist. >> Okay. >> And then you should also be able to share your screen if you'd like. >> Okay. Let's see if I can get that on there. Okay. Can you see this photo?
>> Um, nothing yet. >> Nothing yet. Uh, it doesn't seem to be working. Well, Melissa, why don't you um just describe for us what what you're envisioning here and then um maybe Tim, while Melissa's describing that, you can
find them in your email and then we can pull them up. But Melissa, why don't you go ahead and just describe it? >> Okay. So, it would be, you know, a native garden pollinator for um all the at risk pollinators right now, monarchs,
um the rusty patched bumblebee, the bumbus ferris. very um very important to get another garden I think in town. You know, all the um it would be a
Monarch Way station. Yep. Right there. There it is. So, I think >> you're envisioning this Melissa on the Tahadawan side of Brownswoods. Is that what I'm looking at? This is like the pulloff area.
>> Yeah, that's a nice open area. That would really be nice to put a pollinator garden there. >> Are are you picturing back here, Melissa, or closer to the to had one road?
>> Well, in that whole area, the whole grassy area >> just this whole ground. Okay. >> I mean, it doesn't have to go if you don't want it to go past that sign. I mean, would you have a problem with it
going past that sign >> like closer to like the view of the camera? >> I think we probably want it and now Commissioner, you could you could speak if you think otherwise, but I think we probably want it on the far side just so that the sign is visible from from the
road from people. >> Oh, yes. I wouldn't um I would make sure it didn't obstruct the sign. Melissa, do you have a rough um like dimension planned out for this or are you still kind of working on that?
>> I did I did measure the area and it's approximately 50 ft by 30 ft. Okay. And so are Tim help me out here. Are you we
just taking the commission's temperature on this or are you looking for us to give you a thumbs up so that you can manage the implementation like essentially what's the what specifically is the question from >> so Melissa's offering to to um
>> yes I want to um >> yeah I want to install the garden >> just giving >> Aaron Jade she put in the garden at um Bumblebee and I've been helping her with that. And um I'm just really into
gardening and really into trying to save the pollinators. And I just think it would be so great to, you know, I'm trying to make a corridor really pollinator corridor. >> I think it's a great idea.
>> Really bring up the numbers of the pollinators that are at risk. If you go over if you guys get a chance to go over to Bumblebee, Aaron Jade's Garden is amazing. Uh she's done a great job there and uh you know, Melissa, thank you for helping with that as well. Um but yeah, I mean I think that would
be great at this particular site. I'm just curious more like how it be laid out. I don't know if possible, maybe we could do a couple stakes, maybe drive by. >> How will it be protected? >> Oh, you want me to put in stakes? I could do that.
Yeah, I think that'd be great just to kind of give us a rough idea of where you're thinking, Melissa, and then um we can go from there. >> My two signs would be to go even one step further than that. And and presuming that the commission is generally supportive of this,
essentially empower Tim and one commissioner to work with Melissa to make this a reality. So that Melissa, you I I I love hearing about these projects, but sometimes having to wait two weeks to get an answer on something
can slow you down. I'd rather, frankly, my two cents is empower someone to make decisions with you and we go forward and do it. >> Yeah, I'd love to get started this spring.
>> Commissioners, what do you think of that? Is someone willing to sort of step up and be the commissioner liaison here to work with Tim and and work with Melissa on this? >> Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. >> That works.
>> Okay. Uh Tim, do you need seems like >> Oh, go ahead. Um Melissa, what is the success of the of the garden of bumblebee as far as attracting pollinators? And would you be
using if it's successful over there, would you be using the same plant structure? >> Yes. Um it is very successful and um I think it's what three years old now maybe. Um I'm trying to remember.
But I would be using Dr. Robert Grigger's um preferred plant list. He's um he's down in New Mass at Dartmouth and he has studied the pollinators for many years
and he has a list of the preferred pollen and nectar for the atrisisk bumblebees which are the bombus terracola bumbus feritis. >> That's Gregar's list is like the gold
standard for >> Yes. Yes, >> definitely. I would be using um all those plants >> and um would would the conservation commission be responsible for purchasing
these plants? How would they >> Oh, no. I would I will be taking care of that on my own. Yeah. No charge. >> Okay. To be a donation basically to the
conservation commission. >> Yeah, it's kind of like um because I'm a land steward, you know, it's, you know, part of that's how I view it. >> Okay. >> Is another extension of being a land
steward. >> Thank you for explaining that. >> So, Chase, I think what you're about to ask is do you need to vote? >> Yeah. Do you need do you need a vote on this? >> I don't think you necessarily need to vote. You can you can vote if you feel more comfortable. Well, that way we have it on for the record, but I don't think we need one.
>> Let's not add formality where we don't need it. But I do I do want to emphasize, Melissa, please inter um pull in Tim and pull in um through Tim, Michael, uh so that we can get things like, you know, it it sounds like folks would like to
understand what the boundaries are. Maybe we put a couple stakes in. Um, you know, make sure that the planting list sounds like we're working with really great planting list, but let's make sure we're comfortable with that, you know. But I I think what we're saying here is Tim and Michael can can work with you to
make those decisions. >> Okay. >> I'm happy to help as well if if you need a a third uh wheel here. >> Thanks, Andrew. Yeah, basically it would be um all the
plants that Aaron already has a bumblebee and then there could be, you know, others as well, you know, because I want it to be, you know, also for monarchs. So, I'll throw some in there that are
native plants. Everything's going to be native. >> Yeah. Well, thank you very much, Melissa. This is a very generous offer and uh and greatly appreciate it. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Look forward to seeing what this looks
like. >> No problem. >> Good luck. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'm going to promote promote you over now, Mark. Um and if there's anybody else, Dwayne, I'll promote you over. I'm not sure if
Eric's with you. If he is, let me know. I'll promote him over as well. So Tim, once they come on over, looks like Mark's over. Tim, um, do you want to take 30 seconds and set the stage for us on this and then we'll ask, uh, Mark
to jump in? >> Sure. Um, if you can remember, there were there were trees taken down within the the buffer zone. Um, this was back in uh, early fall. Um Mark came in, Dwight came in, met with the commission,
talked about um having the restoration done under an uh a notice of intent and order conditions because there was other development plans with the property um that were going to take place. Um and so Mark submitted this restoration plan and
asked to to go in front of you guys at this meeting and he's going to uh review it with you. >> Okay, sounds good. Appreciate it. Mark, are you able to uh walk us through the restoration plan? >> Absolutely. >> You should be able to share your screen and everything. >> There we go. Thank you, Tim. Appreciate
that. Uh quick summary. So, just yeah, thank you so much, Commission. We appreciate your your forbearance allowing us to kind of take a little bit of time to get this restoration plan before you. What you're seeing before you is a is a is taken from an existing conditions survey plan of the property
including the recent wetland delineation um and shows the buffer zones which allowed us to clarify you know which trees were in the buffer zone which ones were definitely outside the buffer zone. Um, we also surveyed um any stump grinding piles, which are these circle dashed areas um because we don't have a
stump there, but we did have a circle of of stump grinding. So, we identified that to be a tree that was taken down. But we appreciate um the time that we were given to kind of put this together. Although it wasn't a rapid response to enforcement order, we think um it's still appropriate to get these trees in
in a in a reasonable season in the spring um or or this winter depending on availability of the uh the suppliers. The uh the the notice of intent for the property is going to be delayed because the engineering is still working on some stuff. So, we wanted to get this plan
before you get it approved so we can implement it um um when it's ideal um to to get in there and and and maybe if even when you get frozen conditions to be able to get in there and get these uh remaining stumps ground down so that way
we have um a field and not um exposed stumps in the middle of the field. So, just to walk the commission through these conditions, all these trees were taken down within an existing agricultural field that was used for pasture land. So, this wasn't a natural buffer zone. This was a a buffer zone
that was agricultural use. Basically, you had standalone trees, no shrubs. Um, a lot of these trees were um in in decay. Um, also leaning a lot significantly. So, in the next 5 10 years, a lot of them probably would have fallen down naturally just because of
their their condition. We did identify in the the buffer zone 43 trees that came down. um 15 of them were in the um outer uh were in the 0 to 50 foot buffer zone and then the other um 43 were sorry
other 28 were in the 50 to 100 ft buffer zone. And so just to clarify in terms of the context your no disturb zone versus your 50oot to 100t buffer zone trees in the 50 to 100 foot could have been removed under a permit. Um but the ones in the notur would have would have
definitely been probably prohibited by this commission even with the existing use of the property. The um we do have a pretty robust planting plan with some very large species um which are proposed. So, um we have uh river birch, tupula tree, um uh black, um nissa, um
and then we have also scrubs coming in as well to kind of create a a multi-layered kind of edge to um the edge of the uh the little um drainage area that's kind of along the field area here. Um so, we've got 2-in caliber trees coming in um and 7 to 8t tall
trees. So, we're very large tree species. And then we're also adding in clumps of um shrubs at 3 gallon or 2 gallon pots. And basically we've clustered them basically along the the wetland edge of the field um to kind of
do two things. One is kind of pull things further from the the agricultural use which is just likelihood of damage from even just animals. Even if the trees are are healthy in 5 years, you could have livestock damage the trees. um and and and also just kind of impacts
the whole nature of of the property. The goal is to kind of create an upland meadow here that is is robust um and and the owner does want to kind of enhance that area by creating more open field space which is a great habitat um for a
lot of wildlife species. So the the plan is to plant along this wetland edge basically to kind of create this like hedge area along here. saws existing fields as I previously stated and um again we lost 43 trees and we have um
nine verir six tupula sorry six tubula seven necess and then we've got over 20 um to 30 shrubs going in there as well. So that's um our plan. We'd like to get them again installed pre-spring time so that way they're in
able to take during the next growing season. And we do also want to grind the stumps that are remaining just so that way um the field can be kept um a field and not have stumps that could be obstacles to um um livestock just
walking around and potentially um harming them. So that's that's that's generally it. It's a it's a pretty straightforward in terms of we this was not a again natural buffer zone that was clearcut. It was all field um and pasture inside an
enclosed fenced area. Um so and the only thing that was taken down were trees. Um again, many of them being decaying and also leaning significantly. So, um, we do feel that this is, uh, a better way to protect the the edge of the wetland
and that buffer zone fringe while also kind of balancing the the ability to, uh, have a more upland meadow space in Littleton that creates um, better habitat for different species. >> And Mark, how many trees are removed
again versus your being restored? So, we had 43 43 trees were removed. Um, and we're planting back 24, >> right? Sorry. >> More than that.
>> 20. Yeah. 20. Sorry. 20. It's um I'm sorry, I'm doing I'm doing I'm doing my math wrong. So it's no 22 20 it's 22 22 trees and then you have 30 40 shrubs right? No I'm sorry I'm
blanking out this 30 shrubs 30 shrubs. Yeah 22 trees 30 shrubs. Can we go back to the beginning for a second? Mark, I and maybe this has already been resolved and I'm just late to the party. You have up to plan north
um what you've labeled as an isolated vegetated wetland and non-jurisdictional. >> Have have we agreed that that is in fact non-jurisdictional? >> Uh there hasn't been I don't think a former review. However, we're very comfortable with that being an isolated
area. So, we did soils and everything else and it's just it's just an area that's a little bit wetter. There's a little more ground water a little higher there and the soils just get better drained outside that area and that's why you don't get um your hydraology further
down. We did look at the areas pretty closely. We do know it's a field so we have to look at soils pretty heavily so we did a lot of soil um auguring to confirm that that area is isolated. Tim, have has the commission looked at
those? And do we have the um do we have your sheets on those site inspections, Mark, or on those soil characterizations? >> Um I have we've not submitted those. I know we do do have on file with the owner the wetland border report for the
deliation and I'd have to see if we did I don't know if we did a data sheet for the isolated wetlands. Uh, we probably only did one for the wetland the the the boring vegetative wetland flags. >> I I Here's why I'm asking. I I think
before we even get into what the right restoration is, we need to agree on what is jurisdictional and what is not. And I I'd really like to see the data sheets to con essentially between that wet area
and our resource areas to confirm that that truly is isolated and before in my mind sort of discussing the restoration plan although I have a lot of problems with that too. It it it's not relevant until we agree on the
delineation. >> Yeah, I agree. I agree, Chase. Um, we we need to have eyes on that. >> So, I I I think what here's how I'd like to do this if if the commission is good with this. Um, I think we can discuss
the restoration plan. I do not think that we should move forward on the restoration plan. I think we can give Mark some important comments that he's going to need to consider in any case. Um, but I would really like to see the data sheets and I would like to have Tim
have an opportunity to go out and confirm this delineation in the field um with you Mark or or one of your colleagues um whoever would be appropriate to confirm that that really is a isolated vegetated wetland
>> as as long as as long as Tim feels comfortable uh making that determination. Some of these determinations, especially in this area, can be very difficult, but that's just my two cents. >> Yeah. No, fair enough.
>> Yeah, if Tim needs if Tim needs additional information, that's totally understandable. Um, I think in this situation, it should be pretty straightforward from a soil standpoint. The the colors will tell you the tail pretty quickly. >> Okay. Um, here's how we could do this, Carl,
because I'm I'm receptive to what you're saying. And I mean, there's big bold letters on the front of our website that says, you know, with everyone should presume we're going to subject them to a peer review. Um, Tim, to the extent that you go out and you feel like you're not sure,
then just let us know and we'll go down the path of actually retaining someone to do a peer review. If you think it's open and shut case and you're really comfortable with it, Tim, then I'm good with your opinion. But but I think we need to understand the delineation before we do
anything else. >> Um I would suggest we should coordinate that as a sitewalk. if any commissioners want to go with Tim on that sitewalk. Um, I probably won't, but what's the
pleasure of the board there in terms of attending this? If Tim could let us know when that's going to be scheduled. >> So, let Tim schedule with the applicant and the property owner or not applicant with the with the property owner and their consultant and then Tim, you just
let us know when it is and >> uh we may attend with you. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Sorry, Mark. I I know you're talking about the restoration plan and I I took us backwards, not forwards. >> No, it's it's fine. It's fine. Again, it's a good question. So, we're glad to
just clarify that in the field. And again, we're we we we did look at this closely. We took a lot of time actually out on this site because of just the uniqueness of it. It's got a lot of quirks to it. So, therefore, it took a lot of extra delineation time than expected um to like make sure we actually felt like we got it actually
right. >> Fair enough. >> So, um I I do like your uh your species that you chose. They're they're all they're all good species from from my perspective.
>> Carl, what do you think about concentrating all of the plantings? >> Oh, it's going to be my question >> why it wasn't spread along the entire river bank or well >> yeah I don't Yeah, I I have some
concerns about that. And the other thing is T tulip tree isn't necessarily a wetland species from >> my knowledge base unless I'm wrong. >> We're we're planting on the edge of the
wetland. So it's it's a transitional zone on the field. So it's it's moist but it's not wet and dry either. So it's kind of a transition there. So we kind of wanted to mix it up in terms of species there. um and also >> be also be um like you know animal
friendly >> and and and and and is a tulip tree even native to this area is more of a southern species isn't it? >> It it it it is still native to the area. We did talk with with um the the uh the
landscape company that that the owner works with um and we did go back and forth a little bit. Um, so they are they are they thought this was this this was a good pallet for what was available and also um they knew they could they could get in some 2in caliber trees which are
pretty large trees. I mean they're they're they're very large. They're these are two foot 2in caliber trees are typically over 10 to 12 feet tall when they go in. Just as we're talking, googling the city of Northap, Hampton considers tulip
trees to be native, right? Their languages, they're as prevalent, they're present as far um north as Massachusetts and are native to eastern North America from Massachusetts southward. So, >> okay. So, so we're on we're on the
fringe, but that's okay. Tulips tulips are back up one. So they they can be found in wetlands, but most time they're not. >> That's that's right. That's that that that's what I thought. I don't think it's a maybe not particularly
appropriate for this area, but we wanted to talk about the the plantings all online. So people should discuss that, too. >> Yeah. I mean, I think at at the end of the day, we've got to decide if we're comfortable with concentrating all of
these and however many or what types along the wetland line versus where they were taken from. That to me is a threshold question. >> So, just just just for context, the trees in the 50 foot to 100 buffer zone
could have been removed by a permit under notice of intent. So there's no prohibitation for tree removal. It's not a no disturb or anything else. So we did have a lot of trees in that area that did get taken down um that could have been removed by a permit. So we didn't
get a permit. We understand that. So that's a little bit there. And then everything in the 0 to 50 foot would have been um is is in partner disturb. So but we're also taking into account that we are within an existing fenced field. Mark Mark though I think I think
you're overstating it a little bit. Yes, they could have been taken down by a permit if we reached a determination that their removal would not have a negative effect on the resource area that there's a really important sort of qualifier to that
>> and and so I I I'll leave that that that point there. I I think we would have had a strong case. But either way, we did plant more than what we lost in in the in the 0 to 50 ft. And we are planting trees also adding shrubs to this which I think is important along this edge. And
the applicant also is planting large trees. So this is these are these are very expensive trees to install. These are 2in caliber trees. These are not four to 5ft tall trees or um little trees you get from New England wetland plants. These are coming in in big burlout baskets that take a lot of labor
and cost to install, let alone purchase. So, um these are actually good size and I think it's smart to plant this size in this field. Um because you could do small plantings and risk them even being lost after 3 years of monitoring versus planting larger stuff. So, the applicant
is expending a lot of money to propose this size planting. Um but I think it's appropriate in a balancing what um is here and what was here. Again, this wasn't a natural buffer zone to begin with. >> I I would suggest for the commission
though our question really should be if the property owner came before us and said we would like to remove the trees that were removed and we would like to replace them with these plantings here. Would we have allowed that? I mean, probably not.
>> So, why would we why would we allow it after the fact? >> The the way we look at tree removal, I would say probably not, Chase. >> And so, I don't believe your bylaw has any tree protection in the 52 foot buffer zone. So, there's there's
>> there is sort of the whole wetlands protection act though. >> Yes. But there's no performance for the buffer zone either. So, I mean, very close to >> we we we would then look at the the wildlife benefits that these trees we that's
typically what we start to look at what are the benefits that these trees are serving and you know we we can we can get at it from that angle too >> does I don't think I don't think your bot protects wildlife habitat in the buffer zone though
>> the wetland Massachusetts Right. That is one of the core concerns of the wetlands protection act. I can pull it up and read it to >> you. And and and and just Jason Jace, just just so you know, D has a a D guidelines about wildlife habitat and it's very specific about that wildlife
habitat is only within a wetland resource area. So the buffer zone is not a resource area. So e either way, we we have diversity. We have shrubs and trees including fruit bearing um species and flowering species that are being added to this area.
um large caliper and again if this was a forested buffer zone diverse spreading them out would have made sense. Um, I think putting them randomly in this field would just not be a a prudent result in terms of long-term longevity of the vegetation, the plantings, and
and restoration and and it kind of enhancing the net buffer zone ability to be um drawn away from the wetland line versus spreading them out and having the the the the maintenance as it is in the fields. and the potential for in the
future in 5 years someone one tree dying or being cut by or hit by a machine and then you start losing stuff over time. So this kind of creates a hedge which I think is more definitive than spreading things out and and and and creates harder for harder for policing in terms
of long-term u management of the property. So that's kind of why we thought this was actually a really prudent way to kind of manage and also restore and provide some some enhancement that here while also again allowing for you know the agricultural
use of the property um in a way that would be um better for for the the the the net resources in the state of Massachusetts which is we're losing a lot of agricultural land here and this is a prime property to be able to to use that for agriculture. But the the the reason we wouldn't we
but the the trees we probably wouldn't have allowed the trees to come down if the ultimate target was improving agriculture in that field making it or making it easier to run a tractor through it.
I'm I'm I'm yeah I'm I'm feeling like I'm we're kind of put feeling in a position I'm defending something Chase that was an enforcement or what I'm feeling in in a really
difficult situation. >> What's the ultimate use of this field? What why did I mean I I'm I'm I'm still confused. It feels like you took a whole bunch of stuff down in the field and now you're trying to to put everything on
basically a hedge in the theory that it's better for the field. But isn't there a construction plan somewhere in here? Also, >> there's there's no construction proposed in this back field. It's planned to be kept as an open agricultural field with livestock. We've got
>> So, why not put the why not just put the trees back from where you cut them? be. >> Why is there such a long winded discussion about being on a hedge or being in the field? You took them out of the field, put them back in the field.
That seems to be a pretty simple answer. >> So from from a perspective of of a few things. One is if it is one, the 50 to 100 above zone could have been permitted and and taken without without mitigation. We feel that >> you didn't.
We know we know we didn't and that's why we've we've mitigated additionally >> and and and >> you can't you can't go and say it would have been it wasn't. So there now we're dealing with >> with what you did do.
>> So so and again the use of this field is agriculture. They've had livestock in this field there. They have plans to bring in more livestock into this field to to actively use it. So there's been active equipment in this field for decades and decades um for which is
includes could have been included haying and mowing and cutting. So this is this is not a a a a tall grass meadow field. This is a agricultural field with very low grass growth that's been motor maintained interior to the fence line which um it
encompasses the whole back field area. So, this these trees were all within a a a agriculturally fenced field. Um, and so we're we're thinking about the long-term functionality of an agricultural field with livestock and everything else. You can have these trees survive three years in the middle
of a field and there's the potential of them being hit by equipment and >> the potential of the other trees being hit by equipment also, wasn't there? >> There there was. And they some of them were damaged, some of them were dying, some of them were leaning um already.
And so the sum showed definitely evidence of a lot of decay um in in a lot of the trees. So the the in terms the loss here and and again we're taking long-term functionality and if this hedge is planted as it is, it's going to
be a very definitive nature for everyone to remember. That's where the native hedge was and there should be that should have been that should be maintained as a native hedge with trees and shrubs. So that way um we have we've kind of we kind of a defined area for the field and also allowing the field to
be just more open for um the use of livestock and and the vegetation to grow in in a more open sunlight area versus shaded areas. Um so that's that's what the the owner would like as well just because I think it in functionally from an agriculture standpoint that's a lot
better than having these kind of little thickets of trees in the middle of your field. really does not improve the active use of the land. >> How many acres is the entire field? >> Six and a half. >> Uh the property I think is 6 and 12
acres. So the back field I'm guessing is probably on the order of four and and and the land to the top of your seat has already been developed. that was probably all old all old farmland. It's all been developed into single family houses and yards. And so the the
plan here is to not develop this back land at all. Um the the goal is to keep it as agricultural field and keep all the development on the front side on off King Street. So that's that's something that is rather generous for the owner at this time rather than pushing for
development in the back. >> You've talked about cows and whatnot, but I also heard you say it was going to be a hay field. It's it's been used in various ways. There's been gardens, but there's been active gardening back there. There's been livestock, hay, definitely in in
the past for sure based on the aerials. So, it's been used in multiple ways in agriculture and that's often done. They'll rotate through livestock and hay and stuff like that because of f natural fertilization and stuff like that. So there's natural um different conversions
of agricultural use which enhance the land and ensure that you don't deplete soils and stuff like that. So I I think um to the chair I think at this point I think the comments you've you've you've you've we understand your comments. We know the delineation needs to be looked at. So I think at this
point um I I think we can take this under advisement with the the owner. um and and come back with you with uh maybe some compromise here um and and and while we're doing that we can get the delineation kind of understood and that will allow us to kind of have better clarification as a whole but we
appreciate um your comment your time. >> Let me hit one one other topic Mark and I I I I just want to put this out there for another thing for you to think about and that is we are typically requiring restoration of trees on a two or 3:1
basis. Um, we are often flexible around that in terms of trees versus shrubs. Um, I think it would be important for you with your your client, the property owner to consider the rest the
replacement ratios that you are utilizing. I think at least me personally, I'm receptive to the idea that you are using more mature trees. that maybe gets you closer to 2:1 as opposed to 3:1. But I I would ask you to
look closely at that because you're also it while you're using higher uh larger caliber trees, you're also replacing a lot of those trees with um shrubs, which is good and important from an ecosystem perspective, but it is not often, let's
say, a onetoone replacement. I would also note that we have historically and and will continue to look at trees that are, let's say, not in great health as vital components of the habitat, right? Yes,
they they may be dying. We've we've even looked at dead trees as being vital to habitat consideration. So, I don't think in that process when you're looking at replacement multiples that you should discount um trees that are dying given
their important wildlife habitat considerations. So with that, I don't think we need to debate that, but that is something that has been historically very important to us in terms of restoration and I would expect if we continued this discussion would be important here.
>> All right. Thank you so much, >> Tim. Uh you want to take us on to the next one? >> Sure thing. All right. Um, next up we have Beaverbrook Fishing Access at 97 mil. We
have Jerry Kavalo here to go through this brief uh presentation. So, I'm gonna >> over now, Jerry. And if you'd like me to share share my screen, I can pull it up if if you have
it on yours and you want to go through. >> Yep. clearly. Uh, if >> Hey, Carl. I don't know if it's me or it's you, but you're breaking up a bunch. >> It's Carl. I'm hearing the same break. >> Chase, can you hear me? >> Yeah. Can you hear me?
>> I'm I I'm I'm having We lost We lost We lost power at our >> Oh. Oh, no. Not a good way to do that. >> Did you guys get that? >> No, we didn't really.
>> I heard that you lost power, but that was about it. >> Stay warm. >> Yeah. I I don't know, Carl, if you can hear us, but I think what we're going to do is >> we're going to let Jerry discuss this
Beaverbrook trout fishing area and then maybe we can come back. Hopefully, your connection stabilizes. Jerry, you want to run through this real quick for us? >> Okay. Assume you can hear me and see me. I'm Jerry Ad Upland's Road. Uh myself and a couple of other old-timers. Uh
Bill Schmidt and Jerry Portante have been eyeing this Harley for a while because it's so unique and as you can see the picture of it. I flashed a little uh you can see it's a quick moving stream. Um and we we would really
love to protect the habitat there and also to get access to it. Um, so when we heard that Power and Light had bought this property, we went to the Power and Light commissioners and we pitched basically the same pitch I'm going to give you now. And they were very
concerned about security. Um, they've had some incidents at their location on Route 2A and also that whole data thing. And they are really concerned about security and they didn't seem interested in having anybody close to their stuff.
So, um, let's just go into it and then I'll address some of their concerns. So, let's see. So, the objective, what we want to do is create a trout fishing area at 97 mil road, which is lot 31, which is the outside lot along the
stream. And that achieves the Mass Fisheries preferences for stocking trout. In other words, Mass Fisheries has looked at this area and it does contain trout. Now, we talked to the Lighton Water Company because they're developing
Parley, but if you look over on the right here, you guys in KCOM are really more than a Butters. You own, if we follow this line, you own both sides of the stream through most of this property. So, it's appropriate that we
talk to you about what our plans are as well, and then we come up with a solution. Uh I still think uh what I would like is for as the power and light department develops the property they make any improvements. I wouldn't be asking consom to make improvements but
if this tax map is correct following the blue line for the stream and the brown line for the property line it appears that that your property line goes over onto their other side of the brook. Um,
so that's the objective. We want to create a trout fishing area. Why do we want to do that? Uh, well, first mass fisheries. I talked to fisheries and they have three priorities for stocking trout. Uh, one is we have to put up parking signs for fishing access. Another we need access to the brook. And
the last is we need adequate trout habitat, which we are very close. We have adequate trout habitat, but it does need some improvement. And there are a couple of things here we wanted to improve on. Um, and we can talk about that a little later. Um, other benefits,
I think we mentioned this last time I talked to you guys. Um, right now the state stocks occasionally over the state highways 2A and 119. And you guys, we all know that Route 2A at least in 119, they've gotten crazy with traffic since
uh, Devon's development has come on strong and air is getting a lot of commercial areas. So, we'd like to get the people that fish there that are allowed to fish there and move them over to uh the parley property. Um, and let's see, preservation of Mill
Stream Bank. Yeah. So, I walked it couple of weeks ago on the Mil Hill side because that was one of the comments I got from you folks last time and the trail for Milh Hill goes up through the uplands. So, you have to cut down and it's a lot of lowland down there. um and
it's kind of hard to get through and even this well this time of year it's a little bit little bit soft whereas the other side is totally disturbed ecologically compromised you might call it there's concrete sticking out of the ground and um I think just running maybe a gravel path up there and and flatten
it out and cutting down some of the the smaller trees and we want to leave the shade anyway what the objective here is we want to create a plan and have the uh light and power implemented as part of the development of the property.
So, um they also talked about an alternate site and if you look on the left hand side here, it was the area we were just talking about before where the the u this treatment plant is. Once again, if you look at the lot lines, you see that the brook is encompassed
in this area by lot two, which is not part of that property. And once it comes lot line goes over to the other side that's significant wet land to get to the stream. So it would be very difficult to get access there. >> Jerry, where are we looking here? Help help me out.
>> Um, so you can see the slide with the two red blocks on it. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So Brook access on private property. I'm looking at this brown line here. And I got this from the uh the accessory >> 242 King Chase. It's >> 242. They're putting in the electric
batteries. >> Gotcha. Okay. No. No, this is downstream of that. >> This is where we were just saw property, the edge of it. >> So, the Light and Water guys last time said they might have an alternate site, and the discussion was this would be an
alternate site where they would allow people to fish, but I just don't see how that's possible. But the biggest thing, if you look over on the right, the highlighted area I have here, um, Mass Fisheries did a survey of the stream and they found the area up by Parley has the
potential to hold cold water fish. And what they mean by hold water fish is if they put them in in the spring, they can last the year in that water. And there are improvements we want to make to that water, but that's a whole different story. But right now, it holds trout year round. So, we really like the
Parley property uh for a number of reasons. This area, which they had talked about down by the sewage treatment plant, really isn't good trout water. It's not very accessible and uh I don't know if the neighbor would want people on their property.
>> So, the other thing I got from Power and Light, you know, they were talking about security. So, I did a little look and there's two other best sites that are done by municipal power companies in the area. And the one on the left is in Grten. And you can see it's, you know,
it's very close to where the 100 yard dash starts. It's And there's lots of people there. This is a school. This is the best site and lots of people around. The other one is on the right. It's in uh Wakefield. They have what's called Energy Park and
it's right between two high schools. Here's the uh athletic fields. And you can sure a lot of people are coming up and down this road and seeing it. And this is what it looks like. And when I first talked about it, I thought we were talking about like air where you go up there and the high tension lines and
things are sparking and it's nothing like that. So I'm not really sure why this is incompatible with having access to uh the enjoyment. So the plan was to talk to you folks because you're a
Butters. Um, so the next steps, the next steps, uh, we we wanted to talk to you because you're a Butters. And then, you know, remember how the select the town actually voted for the uh the Communities Act, what do they call it again? The uh, MBTA communities act.
There going to be up to 1,200 uh, multifamily families living multif family houses that were we have zoned for. And, you know, these people are going to need a place to go. They probably aren't going to have backyards. So, we really need to work hard to make more open space, which
I know is what you guys do, but this is a site that's very unique and gets kids off the streams and go for a walk and it's beautiful babbling brook and um yeah, so that's that's what we want to do. We want to put have power and light do the work. We want to jointly with
Kanscom, as the first bullet says, power and light consom and well the Littleton Fishing Club, that's me, Bill Schmidt, and Jerry Batante, figure out how we're going to achieve the improve the habitat and access. And you know what the state
said they wanted is they want some signs. Um, and they want access to it, which means you don't have to beat through the brush to get there and you're not in your ankles in in in wetland. and then have uh LA um the water department do the work as they're
improving the site and then we will notify uh state fisheries folks and have them stock it once a year and it would be a great recreational I'm not a big partaker in putand take fishing but I'm thinking when I was a kid I loved it and it would
be a great event for the kids in the spring when they put the trout in there to go over and catch some fish and appreciate nature so that's all I have for you. >> So, sounds like Jerry, what you're asking us to do is essentially be
supportive of this and potentially work with the water department or the electric department to establish access on the on the left bank of the river or of the
>> on the parley side, I would call it. >> Right. Okay. >> Where am I there? there. Yeah, right along this bank would be great. And uh >> I mean it it let me jump in with this first and that is that whether or not we
are supportive of it that may sway LWD's opinion a little bit one way or the other but we we have no authority to tell them that they have to allow public access through their property.
Um, I think if this commission was supportive of it, we could certainly work towards those ends. Um, I think you heard from us a couple weeks ago that we have no particular concern with fishing in the in Beaverbrook
there. and even a limited number of people doing it from the mill pond side of things. We would be concerned if it became um sort of degraded as the result of too many people accessing Beaverbrook from the Mill side of Beaverbrook. Um
but I just want to be clear, we I we don't have any authority to tell LWD what to do with that land. >> No, I understand that. But but every you know they are a a a local utility. They're not ever source and you are.
>> So we I just want to make sure that you know last time there was a comment why don't we just fish from the other side. Um, when we go to the select board, I would like to say that we went to uh Power Light and this is what they said and we went to Conscom and they're in a butter and actually own part of the
property and and they are in favor or not in favor of it and we'll let the select board do any negotiating with the costs of what we plan to do. >> So, Jerry, are you asking tonight? Are we generally receptive to this idea?
>> Is that essentially what you're asking for? and would we support it? >> Yes. Mainly I just wanted to, you know, tell you guys this is what we're thinking of doing and yes, get feedback from you. But because we're in a butter, I I can't just go directly to select board without telling, you know, power
and light and you guys that this is what we would like to see as residents of the town. >> So, real quick, my two cents here, and I fully support this idea. I would love to see. Do you think they >> stuck? >> Not really, Carl.
>> Go ahead, Kyle. Maybe we can get Carl. Uh, so yeah, as much as I do support this, and I appreciate you kind of doing some research on other facilities, these best facilities, I I don't think we're looking at apples to apples with that compared to what we
have here. My main concern is opening up access to this with the vacant buildings, structures, and >> potential for I mean, I get that it's open now. it would be trespassing if somebody were to come onto it and access it, but we just don't have that yet.
>> Um I if we're I would like to think that if we're bringing allowing people onto the site to fish, it's good stewards of the town, stewards of the town and of the property. >> I I'm not super excited about opening saying, "Hey, we have the town has access public has access to this property. Come check it out and do some
fishing." And then people are just going to fish. I just don't believe that that will be true, unfortunately. And then then that's going to be LW's or WD's liability concern, right? That there's just so much going on on this
property that isn't a main structured fenced off best area. Um >> just a Yeah. And we wouldn't invite anybody to go over there. It's not my place. I don't own either sides of the brook. Um,
when the time was right and we had a plan and we executed the plan, we were ready, then we would make some sort of announcement that it was open for people. >> Yep. I I totally and I I'd be one of the first ones down there to use it. >> What I'm hearing you say, Kyle, is sort
of where I'm at, which is if LWD could get could come up with how a way for them to be comfortable with access, I'd be all for it. I just >> it's just >> it's a tough parcel to work with. mute, Carl. There we go. Thank you.
>> I like the idea of people having access to fish. And honestly, I don't really care if LD wants us there or not. If it's not on their land, they don't have a say about it. It seems to me consistent with what we've been doing on other property, opening it up for people
to have recreational use. In this case, recreation is fishing. >> That is their land, right? >> Well, I know. I thought I heard uh Jerry say that we owned both sides of the river >> or stream. >> Well,
all I know is what the uh the town tax map shows. I don't know if this is incorrect or not, but this is what the town has up. And it looks like your brown line, and hopefully you can see my arrow. This is the this >> there is. So that corner to the
southwest, we do own both sides of it. Um, over by 495 because I I took a look at the town GIS as we were talking cuz that was a surprising revelation to me. And there is actually a little spur, but >> in order to access that side of the
bank, you'd still have to go through water department or light department property to get there. So to the extent that we make that sort of part of your proposal, Jerry, I think what you're hearing is we would be supportive of that little, you know, whatever it is,
5,000 square feet being part of what you're proposing. You still have the access issues to get to >> figure out a way to get to it. >> Okay. You know, our plan would be to have a path that goes along the entire brook and some of it would be crossing on KCON property. If you go there,
you'll see it's like I said, there's concrete sticking out. There's all sorts of debris from 50 years or actually ever since 495 was built, I guess, is when they moved that mill over there. But, you know, the it needs to it would really need to be cleaned up and you
wouldn't you'd be improving the habitat, not hurting the habitat by building a pathway along uh the parley side, be it on your property or their property. I mean, Parley was dumping a lot of stuff on KCOM property.
>> So, I I think in commissioners, tell me if I'm mischaracterizing this and misinterpreting silence. um that Jerry could certainly convey to the select board that we are generally supportive of the idea of utilizing conservation
property to achieve some fishing goals in this area as long as it's well-maintained, well-managed, and doesn't ultimately negatively impact the resource area. But we think that that's possible. Is that fair? Does anybody have opposition to sort of that
framework? I would just tack on Chase as well. You know, if water uh sorry, the light department, if their security concerns were met, um you know, I I would support it on the other side with that caveat that, you know, any concerns that they
had with public access would be addressed as well. Um but on our side of the the land, I think you hit the nail on the head. >> Yeah. None of that says, you know, it comes back to Jay. We can't make them give access through there. Yeah.
>> Hey. Hey, Chase. Can you hear me? >> Hey. Hey, we can hear you, Carl. >> Hey. Okay, cool. Um, not sure how long it will last. I'm on my phone now. So, >> um, I just had one point. Um, hey Jerry, you had mentioned, um, I'm all for fish
restoration, by the way. I think it's great. And then we don't have much of this going on out of town. Um, you did mention um potentially placing uh trees and twigs and rocks and things like that in the stream to improve habitat, which I which I know is something you do uh
when you're restoring trout habitat. Um, but that would be just want to let you know if you mention something like that to the select board or anarch to us that's that would require um permitting >> things like that. I just want to let you
know, but I'm completely for um you know, restoration if that's the cause you want to pursue. >> There are lots of logs. None of that would have to be done. Nature already did it. We just did not want to take them out of the water, I guess, is what I'm saying because
>> Okay, Jerry, what you're saying is dead trees laying on the ground or in the stream have important wildlife and ecological value. Is that >> Yes. >> They harbor bugs and trouty bugs. 100 for for trout restoration 100%.
>> Yeah. Also gives places for the for the trout to hang out because little deep pools. >> Well well Jerry I mean I think at this point if if you need something specific from us reach out. But I I think what you've heard is general support for this
to the extent that we can offer support. >> All right. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. >> Cheers. Thanks for uh reading us into it and good luck. >> Thanks, >> Tim. Back to you.
>> All right. Shall we? Uh let's see. Going moving on to where did the Browns Woods? So, Hazard Trees at Long Lake Park off of our wood entrance. And so this goes back a couple meetings um briefly brought it up that the church that's
directly next to the parking lot for for Long Lake off of Harwood. Um they've identified a couple trees that they had an arborist come out submitted a um an arborist determination albeit pretty
vague um saying these trees are hazards. It was unclear at that time which trees they were talking about because there were more trees flagged than were described in the arborist note. I reached out to the um the contact and and they removed the ones the flag
around the trees that you know aren't going to be requested to come down. We went out there, me and Lauren tried to take pictures. The trees are so tall you can't and and there's other trees right next to them. the pictures. You wouldn't even be able to tell from the pictures which like the health of the tree is
coming down. You have to go out there to take a look. Um, so this was more so just letting you guys know. We'll need to do a site visit if the commissioners want to actually take a look at the health of the trees. Um, and we'll need to coordinate that with the uh the property owner as well because you
really can only see them well from that side, not from the Long Lake Park side. Um, so if there's any times that specifically work better, I know it's getting it's getting dark earlier now and to the point where after after people are getting out of work, it's really not viable for a sitewalk. So, if
there's any times during the day that works well for people, let me know and I can reach out to them and see if if that works for the the property owner um because I don't think they want it to be uh included on the sidewalk. >> Tim, are these trees a danger to
people's lives? or is it just >> I feel comfortable giving my unprofessional opinions since I'm not a certified arborist. >> I get that. >> So I I >> I want to let me let me finish my question then. If not, why would we
care? >> Um they are on conservation land, >> right? So >> yep. So they would need our approval for >> No, I mean why would we take them down? That's what I should >> That's the thing. That's that's what we wanted to discuss. >> They're not if they're not unsafe. If
they if if someone wants to take them down because they maybe are concerned that it might eventually come down on their property, >> I'm inclined to say leave them. >> Even trees that are dying have, you know, woodpeckers and other animals make
use of them >> as long as they're not at risk of falling on a person, >> right? And and that's why I think we need to have commissioners lay eyes on the on the the trees themselves to to get your guys's opinions on, you know, do you guys think that a third party um
tree assessment is necessary or what? Like, you know, I I think that's why >> Okay. Yeah. I'm I tend to align with Ed here. Like a a tree by its very existence does not constitute a hazard
um necessarily. So, um, Tim, do you have dates or times that could work? How, how do you want to set this up? Should we propose some here that folks could make work and then you push it to them or do you want to go coordinate with them and say, "Give me three times that could
work and then you send those to us." >> I was thinking if if you guys had times I know there have been some commissioners that have been able to make mornings work and others that have been able to make uh kind of like lunchtime hours work. Um, don't know if if those still work for for some
commissioners, but >> So, let's do this. If if we were to do it, Tim, let's say next Monday the 8th or Tuesday the 9th, are there any commissioners trying to give you a week to set it up and coordinate and make sure everybody can
make it work? Could anybody go during the day with Tim to take a look at these on December the 8th or December the 9th? And I I chose those dates arbitrarily, but >> yeah, I could >> Yeah, make midday the eth work.
>> Midday on the 8th. >> Make lunchtime on the 8th. Can't definitely cannot do the 9th. >> Michael, could you do midday on the 8th? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Think you you got your time, Tim. Get it set up then.
>> Sounds good. All right. So, that's that for that one. Um the next one, discussion of Webster Woods parking. So since last meeting, um Carl Lauren and I met with Jim O'Neal
and we we walked the uh Webster Woods trail system. Um we also discussed the parking situation there or the lack of parking really. Um, I'm going to be meeting with the
landlord over at 300 Foster who owns the property that abuts Webster. They have um all the commercial parking spaces there. The ones that we had talked about possibly the idea of um basically
renting those spots for a fee, an annual fee, right? And they said it's nominal, >> right? Our our definition of a fee was a dollar. I think theirs was somewhat more than a dollar >> and and so that's where, you know, things kind of fell off. Communication kind of fell off after I started asking,
you know, what's the nominal fee that you guys are looking for? And so Mark Ronacher, uh, you know, got involved and, you know, we restarted communications with the landlord or got communications again. So we're meeting out there um, it's actually next week to
to just talk with them about that and what that would look like. when we were out there, me, Carl, Lauren, and Jim were talking about that and and Carl um I don't want to speak for you now, but mentioned, you know, concerns with
that and we talked about um potentially creating a parking area. So, I'm going to share my screen. We do have a little bit of frontage on Bulkley Road. Um and we talked about that being a better area for the
the parking. Give me a second here. All right. So, this is an aerial. This is Webster right here. You see 300 Foster up here. These are the parking spaces out back. There's This is a very steep hill, I will say.
Um, so even if if we did have parking spaces rented over here, there's a very steep hill to go down. And I kind of like the idea of it of the trail system being a little diverse, not, you know, not so flat in some areas. But if that's the only access, it's I think that might
be a problem. It would also we discussed it would also take signage for people to know that these parking spaces are here because you'd have to, you know, get in through um this entrance over here. I don't know how willing the landlord would be to have signage installed.
Again, something that we're going to talk about next week when we meet them out there. Um, so what Carl mentioned was, you know, can we can we make something work over here on Bulkley Road where, you know, we don't have an a fullon parking
uh lot there, but maybe just, you know, gravel put down, create parking spaces along here. So, I'm going to zoom in a little bit. So, this is the vernal pool over here. There is another wetland that's not showing up over here. It's it's back in
this area. And so I think the if if we put a gravel parking area right along the road here, maybe enough for like two or three cars. It's questionable whether or not it will be within the 50. Just, you know, throwing
that out there. Um >> I don't know if we can make it work outside the 50. have to go back and and delineate that wetland and take measurements. But just wanted to, you know, throw this information out there for you guys to discuss. I know Carl, you probably have some other things to
to add to this. >> Can you hear me? Can you hear me now, Tim? >> Yep, we could. >> All right, cool. Um, yeah. So, two two points. um with the uh the steep hill and the park and the renting the parking spaces.
Um they they've done they've put in a couple trailers back there in that back parking lot. Um I'm I'm just not like Tim said, I'm not so sure how conducive that would be. It definitely wouldn't be a main entrance. It might be an auxiliary
parking lot or something. But this front one that we're talking about, I was just trying to think of how could we um allow some parking if we wanted to use that as the main access we have where we're going to have the kiosk and that kind of thing. I'm not even sure if it's going
to take any gravel, Tim. It might just be um especially if it's like within the 50. Um it might just be a matter of just designating uh with signage along Bley
uh that we have, you know, this parking and just have it parallel basically. >> Um >> something like the how the town forest is set up, Carl? Like is that what you're thinking? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just something very very simple. A place people can pull
off. um designated parking area, you know, so people know that's where you park. Um, you know, and that that would be it. I think that's Yeah. And then we I mean, who knows who who even knows uh what the
traffic what the foot traffic's going to be uh coming by car, you know? We don't know that. >> Yeah. I think lately it's probably been a little higher than it's typically been just because and maybe not so much very recently, but for a while um part of
Foster was was closed off, so they were using this as the detour. Um but I don't know how much it typically gets without all the foster uh work going on. Do you think there would need to be any grading in that area, Carl, to
to even >> I'd have to go back I'd have to go back and take a look at it. I think we just kind of wanted to throw this out there to the commission um as an potential
parking as opposed to making the main our only other option having that main parking up behind um you know that factory and I'm just I'm just not that that didn't seem very conducive to me with that big hill.
>> Yeah. um that you have to get to and then with the contain containers, whatever they're putting back there. Um >> I mean I' I'd still really like to explore that as an option. I think that's worth running to ground. Um but I
I hear what you're saying, Carl, that even if that does work, it may not be a solution for everyone. Well, it's not it's definitely not a solution for everyone, Chase, because you'd have to have signage that people going to have to follow, you know, to get follow
through the parking lot to get to that area. Um it's just it's not going to be obvious to people. That's all. >> Sure. I I'm not opposed to like a um parking along bulky that is similar to how we've
got the town forest set up. I'm I'm even comfortable with that even if it is within the 50oot no disturb zone. I mean there there is a public benefit waiver there and and it's exactly for situations like this that that there's a
public benefit waiver. though I in concept I I think I would be most worried about inviting people to trapes through the vernal pool that that's my much bigger concern than proximity to a wetland. >> So we already have an existing trail
that actually the existing trail system that that Lyall had done himself you know or his family had done years and years ago. There is a trail head that actually goes all the way to Bley. Yeah. Pops right out. Right. And it sort of runs right along the edge of that vernal
pool, right? >> Yes. Correct. >> So, and the other thing is there's not a ton of room between the edge of the road and where there is some vegetation, um, some trees there.
So, I mean, maybe it's worth um having other commissioners drive drive by and just lay eyes on it and we can redisuss this at a another meeting after um I meet with the landlord over at Dur Foster.
>> Yeah. But it just like I think it's worth running to ground the options up the hill. I I think we should in parallel definitely run down these options to along Balkley. It's a big enough parcel that having access points on both sides is not going to be a bad thing.
>> Yeah. I don't know. I think I think having access on both sides be would be really good. I'm not saying I just don't think the one the one up above is is should not be a primary access. That's all. >> Sure.
>> All right. So, unless any other commissioners have anything to add, you want to one one thing to add to that, Tim. I I I don't know what would be viable to to access the Webster property from Foster,
but you know, you we've got the the industrial facility up on the hill, but then you've got that pond down on the bottom of the hill, and like if if they were willing to
uh allow some sort of trail to go from Foster through the the sort of at the toe of the slope. I don't know if that's something that they would even entertain, but there's another avenue to access the backside. It would probably require some some boardwalks or
something once you get to the Webster property. >> I think that was actually the direction that Amy was going last year when she was talking to the landlord >> and I I brought >> It's not the first time I've been more than a year behind Amy. So, >> no, no, I I'm not sure if she mentioned
this to the commission. Um, but I actually started my conversation with with the landlord talking about that because I thought that's where it left off and and they didn't want anything to do with easements um going in that direction from that direction to um to
Webster. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. So, they they threw back at us the idea of the parking spaces as an alternative. >> True. >> Okay, cool. Well, keep us up to date. All right, we'll do um
the final item uh FY27 conservation budget follow-up. So, I wasn't in yesterday, so I we had to reschedule our meeting with uh with Michael and Ed to to go over the budget. However, there is one thing um that I
would like to talk about right now and that's because uh the accounting department needs some sort of vote from you guys on so we have the operating budget then we have the the the wetland fund that that's revolving right and
they need um to see the minutes where the commission voted on the the wetland um fund budget being approved. I don't have it in front like to share with you guys right now, but I can tell you it's not changing from what we're proposing is not
changing from this current fiscal year. Um, it's a total >> and it's just a revolving fund anyway, right? So, >> okay. Yeah, it it's, you know, we have the wetland uh we have the dues and memberships, which is 1,500. Um wetland
postage, which is 1,200. Um wetland office supplies, which is 250, and wetland other expenses, which is a,000. Staying consistent with with this current fiscal year is what we're going to ask for next fiscal year. Well, like you said, it's a revolving fund, so
>> we've never had to do that before, and I'm I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but >> yeah, I couldn't recollect that happening in the past, but it's just something that came up during my um initial uh budget review with with accounting
and and treasures a couple weeks ago. Anybody have any concerns with 2500 2737 3,950 worth of revolving fund budget being approved?
>> Sounds great. >> Is that the same that's the same amount as last year? >> It is. Yep. >> Yeah. Go for it. >> All right. And then we'll we'll reschedu our our meeting, Michael, and and Ed for sometime the next couple weeks hopefully. Mhm. So,
>> well, before the holiday. >> Tim, tell us exactly the motion that you need. >> Uh, just vote for the commission to uh approve the FY27 wetland fund um
being requested by the agent. >> So, fund amounts. I Yeah. I move that we approve the wetlands revolving fund for in the tune of $3,900 as requested by dear Tim.
>> 3950. >> Sorry. And there $3,950. Why can't we just make it nice round numbers? >> Second. Okay. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Ed full
time >> Kyle >> Kyle >> Michael >> Michael I >> Carl >> I >> Chase >> Chase I >> myself I it's unanimous. >> That's all I have.
>> Hey uh Tim. >> Yep. >> Did you talk about the castle in the trees trail? >> I haven't. Um, no. I I didn't want to put that on this agenda just
>> or sorry, are you saying did I talk to Mark about it? >> No, the the commission. That's I don't know if I missed it. Okay. >> Nope. Didn't have the agenda. I wasn't going to include that in tonight's meeting. >> All right. Another time. >> This is the longest one item agenda meeting that I think we've ever had.
>> The same thing. >> I I I wasn't trying to I wasn't trying to make it any longer than it has been. All right, if we are all set, I move that we close the meeting. >> I'll second it.
>> All right, final roll call of the night. Ed >> Edai, >> Kyle, >> Max, >> Carl, >> I'm >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Chase Carme
>> and myself. I We are adjourned.