Let's go ahead and begin. Um, welcome. It's January 20th, 2026 to Town of Littleton Conservation Commission hearing and we are on remote. What we're going to go ahead and do first is approve the minutes from January 6th,
206. So, there's a error on that. Okay. Um, anyone have any uh emissions or corrections? I have a couple. Who wants to go first if they have any? Okay, I'm going to go first. Uh, on the
first page under enforcement order 359 King, uh, at the last sentence it says continue to January 20th. I'd like to say that continued to a future date. Um, underneath that 15 countryside at the
end there was no mention of a waiver. We had I'd like to add a waiver was requested and continued to the next meeting. I'd like to add that on the third page discussion of current and future land
use town parcels. The second to last paragraph, it says the commission stated that there will not be an opening for anyone to install a dock who wishes and it says there will be a finite number of docks allowed. I would like to change
will to could. So there could be a finite number. Um and those are my changes. Anybody have anything else? If not, can we have a motion to accept?
>> I'll make a motion at the >> Oh, sorry. Hey, did you get it? >> Yeah, I was just under the wire. You can say it if you want and I'll second it. Whichever you want, however you want to do it. >> You got this, Ed. You got this.
>> So, we still need a second. >> Happy to second. Okay, perfect. Uh, Andrew, can you help us with the roll call vote, please? >> Absolutely. Roll call vote. Carl >> Carl Milberg, >> Ed. >> Eda,
>> Kyle, I feel >> Chase. >> Chase Carbai. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> and myself. I It is unanimous. >> Okay, great. Let's go ahead. Does anyone have any additions they would like to add to administrative discussions?
Okay. If not, >> I would like to add just a question about Powers Road and uh um Mr. McGen. >> Okay. Finalize that. >> I will add that to that list. So,
>> okay, let's go ahead and get started. Uh first discussion, Wikim vegetation clearing. Where do we want to we is anyone here? So, so we have a lot of the the property owners here um tonight with us and let me just give a brief recap on
this. So, a couple months ago, we were alerted to some um >> vegetation that had been cleared uh immediately adjacent to a perennial stream. And I'm going to share my screen here just to make it easier for everybody to see what I'm talking about.
Um so, everybody can see this. >> Yep. >> Perfect. Um, zoom out a little bit. So, this is the stream right here. Um, and there's there's two ponds right here as well.
Um, so this is old uh Oh, sorry. I'm going to scroll down. So, here you can see this is all flood plane. Um, this is all flood plane
and this imagery from earlier last year. in in August um shows the vegetation at that time. Um and the next slide shows the vegetation that that's been cut. Um it it most mostly looks like it was just
uh brush that was cut um and and grass. Um although I will note that there appear to be some some trees over in this area that that used to be here um that were that were removed
and maybe over here as well. Um speaking with uh some of the property owners. So as you can see this this area the property lines are very funky. Um so this vegetation cutting actually spanned uh seven properties. Um, and after
speaking with the property owners, the understanding is that this vegetation has not been cut annually, but it has been uh cut many times over the course of the last uh decade or so. Um, and so
mailed a letter to the the property owners asking if they can come in tonight um and and talk with the commission about this and historically what's happened in this area. Um and so we've we've got a bunch of them here tonight. No enforcement order has been
issued uh at this point. Okay, great. For those in attendance um tonight pertaining to Wickham A, if you want to speak, um all you have to do is raise your hand and state your full name and your address. Um I would like to
thank everyone for sending in. I think there were seven that were sent in. Um, and so what I'd like to do before we take questions is I'd like to just have a discussion with conservation commissioners. Um, so that we can give feedback to those that are in in
attendance if you'd like to do so. >> Commissioners, >> is it is it wetland designated wetland or is it within certain distance? Yeah. So, it's it's flood plane. Um, and it's all buffer
zone as well. I mean, it's it's a perennial stream, so it has a 200 foot riverfront >> buffer coming off of it. >> Right. >> I I didn't see the perennial stream. What was it? Does that run through the middle of it? >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll pull it back up here. Um, give me a second. And so, and this
was um approved a very long time ago when it was put in. And so what they've been doing is >> maintenance to kind of keep everything flowing. The bridge that's there did sustain some damage that was filled. I think um Tim by asking everyone to do
the historical information was really helpful for me because you're able to see that there was kind of a path forward to help keep the invasives down as well. I know for me going forward um it's nice that if they want to keep doing some of that work just to kind of
do it through the formal channels of applying for either an NOI and keeping us a breast of that but other commission feelings on that >> is it just is it just cutting any film material >> I don't believe so I didn't I didn't see
any >> it's what exactly are they cutting out >> uh vegetation invasives trying to keep the stream flowing. >> Some based on the letters that we received as requested uh removal of
debris from the stream so that it doesn't overflow its banks and impact adjacent residences, things like that. >> So Sarah, I I would kind of echo what you were saying a little earlier. I have been able to kind of familiarize myself with the site and the situation and it
certainly sounds like what's been happening periodically over the last 20 years or so is just you know institutional maintenance uh for invasives and uh essentially just making sure that this stream is uh continuing to operate as it has been without
creating a public safety or public health hazard. Um, so like you'd mentioned, I think going forward, uh, either an RDA or, you know, some kind of mechanism to allow them to somehow keep this operational without impact any
property or, you know, harming the environment. Uh, um, I think would be our best path forward. But yeah, I'm curious just to see what everybody has to say. Andrew, I guess the big the bigger question is, do the land owners know
that they're definitely invasives and that they're not cutting native vegetation? That would be my big question. >> I I think in some of those letters they specifically stated a lot of the invasive species that was being taken out as well. >> Do do they know that they're invasive?
Are they botist? They know they can tell the difference between >> the grasses. When it gets to the grasses and stuff like that, it's very very difficult. >> Yeah. >> ID. >> Y and have um >> question
>> Steve Venudi if you're you had your hand up. So Steve, if you want to introduce yourself um please feel free. >> You hear me? >> Yep. You're all set. There you go, Steve. >> Thank you. I thank the uh board for for
having us here tonight. I think the goal of all of us in the neighborhood is basically to leave this meeting with some better understanding of what we can do moving forward in the future that satisfies not only that the homeowners here, but
but the board itself. Um, if you could see from the letter that I sent in, and I know there was a lot of other households that sent in uh letters also. Um, but I didn't see those. I can speak to what I have. Um, this goes back quite
a while. This is back to the early 2000s. Um, there was one spring in particular where there was a very heavy snowfall in that winter. The weather warmed up pretty quick and then we had this big rainfall and two of
the houses right along that stretch where the uh road flattens out, their basement's flooded because the stream overflowed. We hadn't done anything to that up to that point. Um but we knew we needed to do something.
Uh one of the owners, unfortunately, he doesn't live in that house anymore. um met with the conservation uh at that time there was no agent in in house. It was before Amy's time. Um I
think there was like one agent that had one conservation commission member that had hours once a week or something and he met with that person. He said in his words that he wasn't very much of a help
and we were basically on our own to do something and he went in and he cleared the stream and I can tell you that if it was my basement that flooded I'd do the same thing. Um and we didn't have a problem with it probably for the next I
don't know 7 to 10 years. things grow up very quickly in there and the stream really gets gets flooded and it's impacted where it kind of just overflows on the sides all the time. So about
2011 or 2012 or some somewhere in that neighborhood um we hired a contractor to go in and clear the stream because it was starting to overflow again. we
in the deeds that that the land owners have and I believe it was six or seven of them um it says that it's up to us to maintain that and that language is in the deeds came from the original um orders of condition from the original
builder back in 1990 I think it was with LNS construction >> um there's three pieces in that orders of condition that says that it's up to those homeowners
and I'll read the the the big one that says is applicants owners and their successors and assignees shall maintain all culverts, collection basins, traps, retention and detention ponds, outlet structures,
replication areas and other elements of any drainage system so as to prevent any fail. failure of the system andor detrimental impacts to the affected resource areas. So that was in the original orders of condition from the conservation commission to LNS builders
and that's in the the people's um deeds. So in seeing that and we didn't really get any answers from the conservation commission back then we took it upon ourselves to maintain that stream. And one of the things along the
way that we've we've done the past couple years is is trying to get rid of all the invasives that are there. I mean, it is loaded with um what is it? Autumn autumn olive trees all over the place in this development. There's
bittersweet that that just strangles everything. Um there's I don't know the name of it, but the the thorny bushes that that grow up, they're all in all in that area. Um, right along the road there's some nice trees that that grew
and that were being strangled by that bittersweet. So, I mean, as part of clearing the stream, we did take out um the the invasives that were there. Is it only invasives that were cut down? No. >> All right, Steve. Thank you for that. We've got to kind of keep going. So,
commissioners, there's an opportunity here to perhaps in the spring or when there's uh better weather and not snow covered for commission members with the agent to go out and walk with some of the neighbors and kind of pick a historic bound and going forward
um enhance the communication and figure out what type of filing you'd like to do going forward. Um is something like that amanable to everyone? What would you like to do going forward? It's my sense here, Sarah, that I I do
think we need to have a filing to memorialize this in perpetuity. One of the things that I came to understand from the letters is I my understanding is there isn't an HOA. So, everybody is in some ways working collectively, but in a legal sense,
independently. And I think having a single wetlands protection act filing that applies to all of this could make sure everybody's on the same page both with respect to us and the neighborhood and everybody within the neighborhood. I
don't have a lot of problems I would say with the work that's been done. I would argue that we we should think a little bit about maintaining a bit of a riparian corridor there of of vegetation and things. Um but that I I think could be worked out as we as we finalize this.
Otherwise I I think we need to be careful not to let's say impose current standards on something that that maybe today we wouldn't approve and and recognize that this is a project of 30 or or more years
ago. But in general I I do think we need a filing for it. >> Okay. that hey Sarah that that that clause that was briefly read it's in the deeds >> I don't think that clause relates to the stream at all I think it relates to like
it said culverts outlets man-made stuff um that's associated with the houses and not so much to do with the perennial stream. So I I think you should I think you need to keep those two things separate because I I didn't hear
anything in there in the brief reading that right >> had anything to do with the stream >> and it sounds like collectively to have a meeting with all the stakeholders and it could be council to review language of that as well. I do see um Ted that
you have your hand up so um if you'd like to go ahead and fill us in on on something that we haven't already heard that would be great. >> Yeah, thanks Sarah. I appreciate that. Um yeah, just um couple points. I I I don't we don't have to argue this point. I guess I just want to clarify that it's not according to my mapping that I saw.
It's not flood zone. There are plenty of resource areas in there, but I just don't believe it's flood zone. Um as far as the u man-made structures that um we were just talking about. Um the the stream appears now to be built up with
banks that I put in my letter that it seems that the contractor who built this tried to or did build some banks to direct the water down towards the culvert that they built and then it kind of flows more naturally. So, if you come look at it, you'll see that when you're
standing there, you can see that these banks are built up. And so, that appears to be a man-made structure, although it is, you know, a stream. Um, you know, and somebody said, "What are the uh who's out there for botist determining some of these things?" I don't know a lot of them. I put some in my letter
that I use just looking at um a directory for Massachusetts invasives and what I see out there. U as far as um you know, some some other ones. Multifflloral rose obviously is out there. I've been bit by that enough times and I've taken enough face plants on beer um out in the field from
bittersweet so I understand that. Um that's out there too. Um I do appreciate everything that the conservation commission is doing. I appreciate taking the time to meet this way. Um, as far as a filing, my suggestion would be to sit down maybe a couple of us, some of the
homeowners, and a couple um, commission members, come up with some ideas, put that together in an RDA, um, and document the agreement at that point because I feel that's an ongoing document. Um, it's not something like a notice of intent that would expire. So,
that's just my understanding of the Weathers Protection Act. Um, that might be the way to go. Um, but you know, obviously we want to move forward and we want to, you know, stay out of trouble and, you know, be good citizens. So, thanks for the time, >> Ted. One thing I do want to hit on here,
um, you had, I think, what an important suggestion, which is essentially a group of homeowners. I'm not I think that would be the ideal outcome if all of the neighbors get together and agree on who can do that. But given that there is not an HOA, I don't think the commission
could exclude someone. But if you guys collectively decided that and those were the only people that showed up to the meeting, that that would probably be okay. But we just have to be careful here that everyone who could be affected certainly has an opportunity to have a
voice here. And if you all agree to speak collectively, that's great. I think that's efficient. Um, but finding a way to do that would be would be best. Sounds good. What whatever you think. Um, you know, there are eight people who actually border this who are, you know,
kind of the group of eight, but as we all act together. So I think that um you know us getting together and you know you know a few of a small group getting together with a small group of the commission members and we go back to our two sides our our two groups and get everybody on board from the homeowners
and then we can meet with the commission members. I mean yeah whatever mechanism it is. >> Yep. So um we'll try and sort that out with him and Lauren and try and look at their kind of workload coming up and see how we can help facilitate that and we'll get some commission members. Um,
thank you all from um, WIKMA for joining us this evening. I hope that this has been productive for you all. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Um, okay. Um, we're going to go. >> So, Sarah, just just to close the loop, so we're going to take this up in the
spring when we can get out there and do a site visit, but for right now, we're tableabling it. Is that essentially the plan? Um, yes and no. I think we have to think about the trees that were removed and we have to think if there's any type of
enforcement with that. I think I'd like to not table it so much for the spring. I'd like to see when we can at least see ground and then maybe some commission members can go out to see if we need to address um tree removal.
>> Okay, that makes good sense to me. So then I would suggest that the impacted um that the the community right there if you guys can get together and decide who might make sense to participate that would be
a good task and then you know whether it's two weeks or four weeks from now presumably hopefully at some point we can get out there without snow on the ground although maybe that's March >> but to be clear no one is excluded. So if you all say you all want to be involved, then you'll all be involved.
>> Exactly. Yep. >> So we're not suggesting that you have to pick a representative. >> Yep. For sure. Okay. Let's go ahead. I'm going to wait on the 745. I'm going to go ahead because we've got some other people here for discussions. Let's go ahead and open the discussion for
non-permitted removal of mucket 6 and 8 blood road. Tim, if you want to do a quick overview for that and we can see who is here. um in the attendees. >> Sure. Um and and yep, so we we've got
both John Scott and uh and Irv Menaths in here uh for this. Uh a couple weeks ago, we were alerted by somebody of um so for those who don't know, Forge Pond is in the period of the uh the draw down
right now. So the the lake levels are lower. Um, we were we were alerted by somebody um of a a front end loader um removing u what what looked like muck um what would typically be underwater. Um
it happened during a a person said that it happened during the weekend. Um so we went out to to forge uh that following week and from across the lake it was all snow covered. um it's for the most part been snow covered since um but
from uh the video that was shown um kind of gauge where it occurred and so I I reached out to to both John uh and Irv um and and I don't want to speak on their behalf but got the sense that um the the leaves uh the way that the wind blows on Forge Pond the leaves all
blowed towards that end of the lake um and so they were removing uh leaves that that piled up over time and and and and mock as well. Um, but I certainly don't want to speak on their behalf. I will uh I will promote them when you guys are ready.
>> Yep. I see first up on my list is Mr. Matson. So, if you want to I'm going to go ahead and enable you to talk. So, if you want to just introduce yourself and just let us know your address and just kind of give us a lay of the land of how this occurred and perhaps what has
occurred. >> Yep. Irv Mat uh Two Blood Road. >> Two Blood Road. Okay, great. Can you fill the commission in on what happened?
>> Yep. I I'd say what um the guy said is um was was a good start. I would like to add a few things. The other thing is that it's the uh it's the invasive leaves and stuff too. Not only uh weeds rather, not only the leaves that is the
problem. Um and they just every time you know all summer long the uh the boats and the waves, the way the wind blows, it just keeps pushing it in and pushing it in and creeping up our small beach. And um
well, the water was down about 4 feet. We thought it might be a good opportunity to go in and u get rid of the uh you know all the dead invasive weeds because they uh they all froze and stuff went cuz they drained the lake and
also the weeds and um >> clean our beach up. So you just so it's more usable. It was it's it's not very usable especially for uh small children. they get totally, you know, disgusted with le uh
weeds and leaves stuck to them. Um but I guess Go ahead. >> Nope. Go ahead. Yep. >> Okay. I guess it was a spur-of the- moment thing and u we should have
thought a little bit more and asked for permits and then and asked exactly what we could do and can't do. Um, but the water was down 4 feet, so the machines weren't actually touching the water. And as they scoop the leaves
out or whatever, it would leave like a pile in front of the machine and co and form like a what they call a copper dam so that you know there was um water free where we were actually working. >> Okay. Thank Thank you for that. What I'd
like to do is let the commissioners just ask you some questions if they have any. >> Mr. Matson, what the material that you removed, where where did that go? >> Um, that's going on the u the corn field
under the power line which we grow um for cow corn and also the the hay land uh we grow, you know, for the hay or whatever for the the cows. >> Okay. So, you're taking it completely off site
from where you removed it, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, another question. We talked about removal. Can you tell me describe for me what the removal was in terms of equipment and processes? Like I guess I I get the impression that this was
mechanical equipment, not manual. But I I just want to get clear on what we did exactly and how we did it to remove um leaves and sediment. >> Yep. Uh it was a uh a wheel loader and um six-wheeler um dump truck was not
like a uh you know a six-wheeler truck. >> How many loads did you guys take out? Um, I don't know exactly how many loads, but I would guess about 70 yards. Okay, >> I think that's all I've got for
questions. >> Other commissioners, >> what was that? Okay, Kyle, Carl, Andrew, anybody else have other questions for Mr. Mat? >> Feels like they
the only thing they maybe did wrong is not following the process, you know, cleaning out the the builtup leaves and so on and so forth. That doesn't sound bad
unless I'm missing something. >> I mean it it dredging projects usually require and this would be considered a dredging project usually require pretty extensive controls. Impact on wildlife can be extensive particularly in the winter months when
turtles are buminating in the sediment and and mud there. >> This would go beyond us in the sense of permitting for sure. Yeah, this is a core of engineers water quality core. But yeah, that's that's the big difference to me. >> So, um
this is obviously land underwater. Um I had asked him to try and connect with DP. Did you have a chance to connect? I know that was just today, so I I didn't think so. >> Yeah, I reached out to a couple folks and and I didn't hear back from any of
them in in time for the meeting. >> Okay. cuz as Kyle and Chase alluded, this this is not something that we would have been able to permit ourselves. Um, okay. Any other questions for Mr. Matson before we move on to Mr. Scott?
Okay. Thank you. If you can stay on, we may have other questions for you. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, John Scott, are you on? I just promoted you to be able to speak. >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yep. Thank you. Can you introduce yourself and let us know your address,
please? >> John Scott, 8 Blood Road. >> Okay, great. I'm sure that you were just able to hear kind of like rendition of um what occurred. Can you kind of walk us through your process? >> Uh yes. Uh and I worked together to
clean out the weeds that fill up our cove. Just like he's just mirroring everything he says. It all blows into our corner and we thought it'd be a good opportunity to clean it out while the ground was low and everything was very frozen. So all the the mud and leaves and weeds
we were scooping up was frozen material. So there really wasn't any opportunity for anything to flow away or you know silt up the lake. And there was always a buffer of material between us and the water that never got any closer to water. It was always just taking stuff
away. Do you have any pictures of that to concur of that that happened? >> No, I do not have any pictures of that. >> Okay. Whose equipment was it? >> It was mine and IV's equipment. >> Okay. All right. Commissioners,
questions for Mr. Scott. >> Are these abuing properties? I guess I How big So I guess materialize is this the same 70 yards that Mr. Matson mentioned the accumulative. >> Yes. >> Yes, it is.
>> Thank you. >> How many How many six wheel loaders did you guys or six wheel dump trucks do you guys think he took out? >> H I don't know. Maybe Well, we each have
our We had my six wheeler and his six wheelers, you know, maybe 10. So yeah, that 60 to 70ish yards. Um, quick question both for Mr. Scott and Mr. Mat. Um, the access down to the water, what it everything's covered in
snow right now. when that melts, what are we going to see in terms of getting the dump trucks down towards the water and things like um have you did you guys attempt to stabilize it in any way or are we waiting till spring? What what was your plan there?
>> It's a it's a uh actually a boat landing. So, it's a road right down gravel road right down to the lake. >> Okay. And so the equipment, it aside from I guess my understanding is aside from the
excavator that was out working in the uh in the lake bottom, the truck stayed on the gravel road. >> It was John Scott's loader. >> Okay. And there was it wasn't an
excavator and the trucks stayed on the road except for there was a truck that um cut from another driveway over from the other boat landing. So came across the beach not at all in the wet you know the
wetlands. >> Okay. How did you determine where to stop or you know what was removed? Was there a sand sand bottom? You're talking this is a beach area. So was there natural sand? How where did
you stop? There's a hard gravel bottom. So it's pretty very clear difference of where the mud and silt flows onto gravel. The sand is primarily only on the dry land area. >> And how deep do you think you went there
to get to that gravel bottom on average? I'm I'm sure it varied. Uh, four to six inches. So, if this is out of the purview of of us, where do they where does it go next?
There's nothing that we can do either to assist or enforce or whatever the case might be the right word. >> I don't know if that's necessarily true. I just think that it's >> multi- multi level
>> that if this was brought to us before it was done that would be out of our purview. So that's the only I'm going by that. >> I think to be clear Yeah. What we meant is that it wouldn't be solely an >> or sorry. No, it's a fair question.
>> Um, I I will tell you that given this, I I think there are two things that we need to do. One is it's my opinion that we need to issue an enforcement order. Um, I'm not
sure that we can begin to talk about what restoration needs to look like because we can't see it. So the second thing is and I Tim you have to remind me or maybe others now um we need to be able to inspect the sites
and understand the extent of the impacts and things and I can't remember with an enforcement order it's different than a notice of intent where the filing gives us the ability to go look at it but I I would ask Mr. Matthysse and Mr. Scott to to give us permission to go take a look
at the um site once the snow melts. >> Yeah. So, if it's before an enforcement order gets issued, you would need permission um to access the site. Once the enforcement order is issued, you do have that is the the permission. >> Okay. I Nonetheless, Mr. Mat and Mr.
Scott, I it's always easier if we can agree that we'll just come on at a time that's convenient for you all. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You can come on. >> Yeah. So first step getting back to Tim a and to Chase would be ratifying
and then simultaneously reach out to D to work with us collaboratively to know they would come out on the site visit with us or on their on their own accord. So Sarah, before I make this motion to
issue an enforcement order, are we talk are the relevant addresses two and six Blood Road? >> We had it posted as 6 and 8, but I >> I heard two and eight tonight. >> Two and eight. Okay. >> Y So up on the discussion where it was on the agenda was 6 and 8 and we're
making a change to that. So it's 2 and 8. Is that correct? Um, >> I think Are you talking to me? Um, >> yeah. Yep. >> I It's also six. So, two, six, and eight.
>> Okay. So, you're the owner of two. So, you're the owner of two and six. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. >> And Mr. Matson, I see when I look at the map that two, it looks like the um the stream runs along two before it enters
or exits the lake. Um were you guys working on the maybe this distinction is hard to sort out, but were you working in the stream? Were you working in the lake in the cove or were you working? >> Not at all. By the stream, we're on the other side.
>> Okay. So, this is the cove. That's essentially, as I look at a map here, sort of the corner of six and adjacent to eight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh, could I have a quick question? >> Yes. >> Could this be considered work under
Friends of Forge Pond, Dredge, and Lake Downs? >> Their order of conditions doesn't allow a scope of work like this. >> No, because I was reading one of them and it said that there was suction dredging allowed. or talked about. Sorry.
>> So, John, they do have one order um for the removal of invasive species, aquatic invasive species. Um and in there there's permitted removal of x amount. Uh I think it's it's only 99 cubic
yards, which I believe they they met that limit uh last year. uh through various methods like like what you said suction harvesting um and and other physical removal forms. But they were limited to that 99 cubic yards and and
told if they want to go higher than that, they have to get a an additional permit from the state uh for water quality certification. And just as a matter of technical precision, suction harvesting is a very different scope of impacts than
mechanical removal with a loader. >> Okay. Okay. Where where would we like to go? Yep. Go ahead. >> I I would move that we issue an enforcement order for the
work described at 26 and 8 Blood Road. As a as a point of order, can we separate and have two separate ones? One for two and six that belongs to the MATs and then have one for 8 that belongs to
John Scott. >> Sure. So, I'll I'll withdraw my motion. So, let me make the first motion. Um I move that we issue an enforcement order for 2 and six Blood Road for the aforementioned sediment and uh leaf debris removal activities. have a second
on that. >> Before we dive into this, I hate to throw a wrench into this. Legally moving forward, I'm just trying to look at our framework here because I know that there's a an alleged video material being removed. We've got the testimony tonight, but do we have like hard
evidence with the snowfall over the site to move forward with an enforcement order? I'm just trying to air on the side of caution here. I know we're trying to be proactive, >> but do we do we have enough to go on to >> what? That we could actually see that something was done.
>> Yeah, cuz right now if we were on site, would we be able to tell what was removed? Do you know what I mean? Like I'm just a little weavy gravy on the ground there. >> It's under testament that they removed it. It's not like it's stockpiled where you'd be able to see it. It's already
been removed and that's subject to land underwater. And the owners did admit that they removed it. So there's maybe no question about the fact that it was done, >> which to be clear was the the right choice, right? Like when the snow melts,
we'll see it in any case. So >> yeah. No, I'm not saying that. >> Um but yeah, I think Andrew, based on what we've heard, I'm comfortable in issuing an enforcement order. >> Okay. So currently on the floor, we have a motion for two and six blood. Do we
have a second? Yes. You seconded it. >> Who did? >> You did. >> You did. >> Okay. >> All right. Roll call. Vote. Um Kyle. >> No. Max.
>> Uh Sarah. >> Sarah Stewart. I >> Ed. >> Edi. >> Chase. >> Chase. Garbec. I >> myself. I. It's unanimous. >> Very good. And then I would move that we issue an enforcement order for the aforementioned sediment and debris
removal uh associated with eight blood road. >> Can I can I add something to that? >> Uh there's a motion on the table. We'll give you a chance to speak, but like just let that motion >> I just want to add invasive weeds to that motion.
>> I'm I'm happy. Well, I I don't >> Yep. >> I don't know that it was invasive weeds. I'm going to stick with the language. >> Keeping the words the same. I would make a motion to edit that they both motions need to be kept the same. >> If you look at any of the um things on
the floor bound, the draw down order of condition. >> Mr. Mr. Scott, you're out of order. >> So, currently we have to follow protocol. We have a motion that is on the floor. The commissioners would then have an opportunity to make edits to
that if they choose. >> My apologies. >> Chase, coming back to you. >> I I I think I use the same language in for both of them. I I don't remember exactly what I said, but I >> I I I don't think it's germanine right
now that we sort out these specifics. We will when we get to it. Certainly, we know that there was sediment removal. We know that there was uh vegetation removal. Whether or not they were invasives, I don't know. And we know that in Forge Pond, there are places with invasives and there are places
without. So, I'm I'm I'm not comfortable abiding on whether or not they were invasive or not. >> So, we need someone to second a motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh roll call vote. Uh Kyle >> Kyle Max. Uh Sarah
>> Sarah Seawward I >> Ed Fols I >> Chase >> Chase Gerbe I >> myself I uh it is unanimous >> I I I didn't vote Andrew >> Oh sorry sorry Carl you're hiding in my corner here Carl.
>> So um going forward I think uh it's understood that you'll be receiving something in the mail. We just ask that no additional work be done to this area. Um Tim will be in contact with you
when the weather is a little bit more favorable to be able to see the grounds and the property and um we're under obligation to try and connect with D um to follow through as well. Sarah, can I add to that that I think
one of my core expectations here is that um we empower Tim once you get eyes on it and the weather starts to clear even enough to put sediment and erosion controls out there that we do that and that the applicant not the applicants
that property owners um are expected to stabilize the upland areas. That can mean depending on the timing, that could mean straw, that could mean uh eros erosion mats. It sort of depends on what the impacts are, but I'd like to
empower Tim and Lauren to sort that out with the uh >> Okay, we have to move on. >> All right. Thank you. All right. So, we're going to go ahead and open. It's now 8:15. We're going to go ahead and open
the 745 continued public hearing notice of intent 0 Wickcom AB DP204-1031 Habitat enhancement project. This was brought forth to us again carried over because they did not have the D number. So they do have the D number and so
we're looking to um finalize this notice of intent. Tim, all yours. Uh >> yep. So, like like you said, Sarah, uh my understanding, and I wasn't at the last meeting, although I did watch the
video, um is that there was the commission was comfortable with this, just waiting on on the D number. >> Okay. >> And my recollection is we told the applicant that they didn't really need to be here either. >> Yeah. M Matt was or Scott uh wasn't
going to be here, but but Matt said he was going to try to be here, but he uh he had somebody come up, so he's not here. Um but he said if you guys had any questions and you know for whatever reason he couldn't close he's fine with if it gets continued oneonone did they reach out about the dock by
chance the the dock the dock on site am I looking at the wrong property >> this is zero >> oh I'm sorry >> yep so zero wick and when we had all the commissioners at the last hearing we
didn't have questions on that and had a fa a favorable review to issue this. So, going forward, if we have someone that would like to make a motion, >> I move that we close the public hearing and issue the order of conditions for
Zero Wickham Road, Mass. EP file number 2041031. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh, Carl, >> Tom, I >> Ed >> Ed, >> Kyle,
>> Max, >> Chase, >> Chase, I >> Sarah, >> Sarah Seward, I >> myself, I It is unanimous. Carl, I got you first this time because I'm like, oh, he's in the corner. >> I figured that was the case.
>> Okay, we're going to go ahead. It's 8:17. We're going to open up the 8:00 continued public hearing. Notice of intent 242 King Street, DP204-103. Removal existing driveway, pool and walk construction of parking lot and walkway.
Um, I see that Bruce is here. Anyone else that would like to be promoted to panelist? Bruce, you're mute. Bruce, anyone else joining you? I'm >> trying to get my video to work, but uh, no.
12. Hang on one second. I just got to make sure everybody's plugged in. Don't know why my video is not working. There we go. Hi, technology. Good evening, folks. Very sorry about two weeks ago.
>> Too much going on that evening. I apologize. >> Yeah. in um for the commissioners just reminder in the previous meeting um Green International had submitted the memorandum which Tim forwarded on to us. I don't know if people still have their
notes but okay Bruce it's all yours. >> Okay. Um did you all have a chance to read and review the Green International? Um did it raise any questions? you uh
good to go. Bottom line is we had multiple um me uh discussions with Green International. Um as that shows, we had a Zoom meeting with both Tim and Lauren
and Warren and Cooper um folks from our office and uh James SA from Green International. Uh we reviewed through the the approved drainage calculations
and designs from CDM Smith for the wastewater treatment property which is part of this property whereby they had um prepared for their drainage basins
were oversized in size to accommodate uh 1 in times the impervious area for the site. Um, based upon those reviews, Green International agreed that the ponding the addition of the review, the
removal rather that we're asking for under this notice of intent of the pond of the pool and the pool house and decking. Um, further brings the uh sizing of the drainage on the adjacent
property um into more compliance. And there's even more uh free space available. And Green International agreed that uh putting a ponding drainage area adjacent to the driveway was unnecessary.
Um and by having not having that there, we're doing less disturbance on the site. And um we have from a standpoint of vegetated overland flow in most areas 80 to 90 some odd feet from the edge of
the proposed driveway to the edge of the wetlands. And with that um we hope that the commission has had a chance to review the plan. I can bring it up on the screen if you like with the basin removed. Um, but the same as the drive
before except we've taken the basin out and the contours just grade right back gently to the lawn and um hoping for approval to do the above. Thank you. >> I I'm generally good with it. I I
appreciate the time that everybody spent both um Bruceio and your team and and Green um sorting this out. Couple very I think minor nits. My understanding and I wasn't at the December 2nd meeting, but my understanding from the minutes was
that there were a couple things that we were asking for in the revised plan set. One was demarcation or specification of a snow storage area. And if it's there somewhere and I've missed it, I apologize, but I didn't see that called out. I would suggest that we make that a
condition if we approve it that the applicant needs to specify a snow storage area to the satisfaction of the agent. >> Um, can I ask a question relative to that? >> Sure. >> If if they're plowing it, it's very easy and straightforward. if they're using a
snowb blower, it's going to be evenly spread around the yard. >> But fair enough. Um I think our bigger concern is not so much with a snowblower because it is spread around, but if it's going to be all plowed into one place in a consistent manner.
>> Fair enough. I would suggest to be plowed right off the straight end of the drive. >> That That's what I would think too. And I think but I think making that clear rather than plowing it off towards uh Beaverbrook probably makes the most sense. Probably makes the most sense from
>> happy with that as a condition. >> Condition. Do you want to note it on the plan or sign? >> Chase. >> I mean sure. If Bruce can I put it on the plans that's that's great. I mean I
think it's it's got to be on the as belts too. So, >> okay, >> that the asbuilts are what's really going to control in terms of >> I was just going to say, why don't we put it on the construction record plan? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Make it a condition. We'll show it on the construction record plan. >> Okay. Any other commissioners have any
questions, comments? >> Time to add one more thing. the planning board chose to um have us withdraw from the storm water management because of the this review as well.
>> Oh, interesting. Okay. I mean, if we're good, I'm happy to make a motion. >> Are you looking for one, Sarah? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um, I've moved that we close the public hearing and issue an order of conditions for 242 King Street, Mass DP
file number 2041030. >> Second. >> All right, roll call vote. Uh, Chase >> Chase I. >> Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Sarah Sarah Seard I.
>> Edi. >> Carl. Oh, Carl, you're on mute. >> Uh, com >> and myself. I It is unanimous. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Bruce. >> Thank you, John. Good night.
>> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Um, before we jump into the next hearing, I'd like to start to tick off just one more on administrative discussions 15 countryside. Uh, that was the looming and seating. The only thing we were waiting for was the waiver,
which you'll see was submitted. um by Mark Arnold. Tim, anything else we need for that? >> Uh not that I know of. Um Mark isn't here tonight, but um I think in the
attendees um we have someone named John. I think that is John Reese. Um who's the the property owner. Uh if there are any questions, >> I think what we based on the last meeting when everyone was in attendance with this, we all agreed that this was
the final bit to move forward um with this. >> Yeah, I have a quick question on the waiver. So I see the letter that Mark, did they fill out our actual waiver? Is this acceptable for our waiver? What I I'm just crossing some tees here. >> Yeah.
>> Went through more of an effort >> that that was what was submitted for the the waiver request. Yeah, you're right. It's not the the the standard waiver um for >> As long as you're comfortable with that. I doesn't matter to me. It seems to seems to have the appropriate information in. I just want to make sure
it doesn't wrinkle. >> We could if there's a motion that someone would like to make, they can state that the waiver is accepted in this format and that a new one another one will be
filed in addition to it. So, this was the property that I meant to ask about the dock for. Tim, has anything Sorry about that earlier. I don't know what I was >> No, it's all good. They had based on the minutes that they
were going to go through with they acknowledged that they were going to go ahead um Mark Arnold said that and John that they were going to go through and get the dock peritted with the help of Tim and Goddard. >> Can we make that a condition? should be
a condition for sure. >> Perfect. >> Then that gives them some time to sort it out, but also it'll eventually get done. >> Yep. >> If I might where where do we condition that >> like in
just a letter of approval? >> This isn't right. What are we what are we doing here? >> True. There there really isn't any teeth. It's a discussion. >> I I mean, these folks are our neighbors. Like I I I guess I'm comfortable enough
here that people who are going to do what we said that that they're going to do. >> Well, to be fair, well, I mean, if you want to split hairs, if they start doing the work and they don't have the dock permitted, you can stop you can stop all the work, >> right? Sure.
>> You can do a cease and desist and make them go through everything. So, you do you do have, you know, an arm to fall on it if need be, but I don't anticipate that. >> Yeah, I just don't see that being a problem. >> I can write it up in our administrative approvals that we um document and just
and write it in there as well >> um and provide a copy to to John. >> Okay, perfect. Great. >> Sounds good. >> So, do we need a vote? >> Yeah. Still not sure what we're issuing. >> I I >> I would because we're I would because
you're issuing a waiver. >> So, we're issuing a waiver, but not a notice of intent or Okay, cool. >> I >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm with you. I think that's the right idea. I I move that we issue uh approval for the property owners at 15 Countryside to proceed with
the proposed work under the um local waiver. Do we have a second? >> All right. Roll call vote. Carl, >> Carl, you're muted. >> Carl Melber. >> Ed. >> Ed. Edi.
>> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> Chase. >> Chase Car. I >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawword. I myself I. It is unanimous. >> Okie dokie. All right. It's 8:28. We're going to go ahead and open the 8:15 continued public hearing notice of
intent 87 to Hadawan DP204-1027 construction of of a two family residence um to be noted on this. Chase, you can comment but you cannot vote. Okay. Um let's see. Brian, you are here. if
you can introduce yourself and fill in all the gaps of where we left from the last meeting. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, Brian Maretti here engineering um John Clifka from my office was attended the uh last meeting.
Um but we've gone over all the outstanding items and the questions you guys had and we have provided an updated plan uh to the commission. Um if you want me to share that can show you.
>> Then Brian when you are referencing the ticket items that we had there were five of them. So are you prepared to kind of like talk through each one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Great.
>> All right. Can you see the plan? >> Yes. >> All right. So um the items that we've addressed here um you can see the erosion control line was
so here was was moved outside of the 50oot buffer zone. So this dash line here is now completely outside of the 50 foot. So we don't require a waiver for that. Uh we just modified the grading slightly pulling it back. Um
we've added uh modified the note from a duplex. Uh it's now post single family with an ADU unit. Um boulders here have been placed as a demarcation line outside of the 50oot.
So which will prevent future encroachment from uh the residents here on the property into the 50 foot. Um the notes on the site plan here have been u modified.
So we have uh pertaining to the evergreen trees. So where is it in here? So one tree approximately 12 in DBH will be removed between the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer zones and a minimum of five native evergreen trees will be planted on the
property. tree shall be a minimum variety of two of the following species. So, eastern red cedar, eastern hemlock, white spruce or balsam fur. Um they're all native species that readily available. Um and uh it would be much
bigger, more substantial trees. Um, and I believe last time in discussion you guys were opposed to, you know, we didn't know if a homeowner would plant arborites or something like that, but these are these are much bigger specimen of trees.
Um, and then the final change was note number seven. Uh, snow storage will be provided on the northern side of the driveway. So that just references it won't be on the wetland side of the driveway. It'll be on the the northern side of the driveway here.
So, I believe those are all the all the questions that were brought up that were we addressed on the revised plan. >> What mechanism? I'm sorry. Sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have shut up. >> So, is there was there a specific
question? >> Yeah, I've already started. I'll finish. Uh what mechanism do you have to ensure that the snow doesn't go on the wetland side of the driveway? >> I there is no mechanism. I mean once once somebody lives there, it's it's
kind of you know I think that's a that was kind of a hard request to put on the plan. You could always make it a condition but um you know short of you know short of just notifying the abutters that that's what they're supposed to be doing. I don't know how
that's something you'd ever be able to police. Uh >> I I apologize. Did I just miss this? I was just looking while you were speaking. Um >> Brian, the fifth order was boulders added to demarcate an undisturbed area
in perpetuity along the buffer line. I are they so there's a note here. Proposed boulders placed 20 to 25 ft apart to demarcate the 50 foot buffer. >> Okay. Super. I'm just trying to read the notes and listen to you at the same time. Thank you. Yeah, those are there.
>> Ryan does raise a good point. I I tend to like to see things like snow storage also memorialized as a condition because the condition will get attached to the deed and at least there's >> it's a little easier for a homeowner to
see it compared to a note on a plan. Um, >> no, I understand. I I've got a problem with this project anyway since they kind of went around the the backside to get this thing in. So, >> okay. So, we're we're only here for the
the wetlands. >> Any other commissioners have any questions um for Mr. Marquetti? Um, Mary Ellen, I see that you're here. If you have any questions, just raise your hand. Hold on just one second.
Hi, thank you very much. Marielle and Lion, 79 Tatawan Road. I know the last time um because it still had said duplex you someone had raised the question about the permitting and uh like I'm not
sure what the square footage is of that ADU now. Um, but I know there was a lot of discussion at the last planning board meeting about, you know, ADUs and the definition and half the size of the main. I know they're working on verbiage
to to get it um, you know, at the town meeting in May, but I guess I would just ask like I'm I'm not sure that actually meets the definition and I know you had said it a couple of meetings ago that if this plan was going to change at all,
then it wouldn't be approved. Alan, I'm sympathetic to you. I think I've made that pretty clear. Unfortunately, as has been reminded, we're only here to protect the wetlanding house that doesn't belong there. >> Yeah, I I thank you. I ju I just wanted
to I know you had said that if it was going to change at all, even slightly. So, just just wondering if it had been a I think you guys were looking for some sort of permit last time or I thought on the affordable housing trust meeting previously they said that you got uh
they were going to meet with the uh building commissioner or something like that. So, I didn't know if that happened. That's all. Thank you. >> I I will note here Mary Ellen there's there's nothing about should should the conservation commission approve this. There's nothing about that that
prejudices other boards from taking whatever action they need. And if the commission conservation commission approves it, that doesn't mean that there are approval from things like board of health or zoning or something like that. I guess like my the biggest
concern is because they, you know, they're saying Habitat can't move forward if it's a single family and if somehow this this land like were to end up with somebody else like is that does that waiver then like transfer over to whoever else may like have this
property? That's the, you know, the concern is just that like this plan won't as as it is currently, uh, you know, how it looks right now, that they wouldn't be able to sell a a single family with an ADU to two different families, which is what they
were saying they would need to do to make this financially viable. So, I was just concerned then they're going to sell it to some builder and they're still going to have these waiverss. That's all I was just concerned about that. >> So, Marielle and the changes that might happen if if this were to change, right? and and what we're permitting is what's
in front of us. If this were to change to, let's say, two family, um, this is just me guessing here, but most likely things like septic systems change, although this may have already been designed for a a larger footprint, but
you'll notice that the septic system is up to the top left of the plan, which is outside of the resource area. So, okay, >> we have jurisdiction within, in this case, within 100 ft of those. see those WF flags there. So to the extent that
the change that they might propose is outside of that and it doesn't have a corresponding impact within 100 ft, there's um there's not a lot that we look at. Like in this case, we're not really we're not looking at the septic system because it's that's
>> on the other side. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I I know that's not a very satisfying answer. >> No, it's fine. It's fine. It's fine. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for your question. >> Thank you. And with that said, where do the where does the commission stand on this? Does someone wish to make a
motion? >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing for 87 the Hadawan Road D file number 204-1027 and issue an order of conditions. >> Okay. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Ed >> with reluctance and folds eye. >> Kyle sealed. I >> Carl.
>> Chase. >> Chase. Abstain. >> And myself. I. So I've got one, two, three, four, five. Sorry. One, two, three, four, five. Uh, in favor and one abstension. Sorry, I had to count screens.
Okay, thank you. So, the vote carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Okay, so now we're going to jump back to administrative discussions. Let's jump um into the CPC applications for herbicide treatment um and lake management plan for F forge Pond and
Long Lake. Um there were four separate um items that were sent in your packet. You'll see those two referenced for each lake. Um Tim, can I pass this over to you?
>> Sure. Um so CPC meets tomorrow night. Um which I'll I'm guessing I'm going to see you there, Andrew. >> I'll be there riding along. >> I'll be tuning in uh remotely. But um yeah, we submitted those those four
applications. Um I spoke with Carolyn Mueller. we're going to be because we have I think it's seven or eight separate CPC applications that we're going to be submitting um this spring for for you know all these lake items and then boardwalks at Webster, boardwalk at Castle in the Trees,
another one for terrestrial inv terrestrial invasives. Um she recommended spacing them out and and doing the lake ones earlier um since they're they're they may be more likely to be under scrutiny. Um, and and
so we submitted those. Although, if if you guys have any suggestions on on changes or things that you want to see um edited, by all means, we can we can um we can amend them or I can discuss them those changes tomorrow night.
>> The only thing that I would potentially adjust on a couple of them cuz I noticed it was consistently, you know, 32,000 32,000. I'm thinking we might want to go a little bit higher on a couple of those just in case, you know, the project runs over a little bit. Um the only other
thing that might be a potential issue, I don't think it will, is um when CPC has a project before, I didn't notice this until today, um but um the way a project is approved is first its eligibility as a you know eligible project is um
approved. That's a separate application. um because we just have straight up funding applications. Um I think we'll be all right. I don't think it'll be an issue. >> So, I did submit um eligibility uh applications for all these as well. >> Oh, perfect. Then we're we're golden.
But yeah, I would >> I didn't send them over to you guys because I thought there was not really a lot of meat to those things. Um >> Oh, perfect. >> I didn't think you guys would would really want any changes on them. Uh but yeah, I did I did submit those, Andrew. Yep. >> Excellent. Excellent. So yeah, other
than that, um I would just bump it, you know, um I think let me take a look here. >> So that 32 number that I got for um that the lake management plans um that was
that was based off of Spectacle Pond has a land a lake management plan that was done last year and it cost them 291. And so I went what I thought was conservative and said, you know, about 10% will account for 10% inflationary
costs on each of those items. They they itemized it. Um and that's how I ended up with the 32 number. Um is the I don't have it in front of me right now. Is the 32 also on forges invasives? So I did
originally have that one at 52. However, the the Clean Lakes Committee um let us know they already have 20,000 that that can be allotted towards herbicide treatments over at Forge. So, I originally had a 52 and I and I I took
it back to 32 um because Forge does have more than than Long Lake. So, that's why it started out as more requesting more um for Forge, but that's why it's drawn back to to 32. >> Great. And that's noted on page three under your budget item. You do have comments on that.
>> Okay. I couldn't remember. >> No. Okay. Thank you. I know that is a lot of work to do those filings. Um, do any commissioners have any questions on either for >> Can we pause for one second? >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Not to be crass about it, but we just had a member of the CPC tell us maybe we should ask for a little more money. and we can always give it back. Um I
I'm in that case willing to ask for a few thousand more to make sure that we can do it the right way. >> I I would suggest we push them up each up, you know, $3,000 to account for uncertainties and contingency. Essentially a 10%
contingency. I'll have to I'll have to do a little revising because, you know, we're requesting the funds under CBC, but we're also requesting these funds under our budget as well. >> Okay. >> And so, I'll have to do some revisions there as well.
>> And Tim, I I don't think it'll be an issue in terms of paperwork for tomorrow night. As long as we, you know, just you'll do an amazing job presenting. These are very well put together. I don't see any issue with, you know, hey, uh, CPC, we're revising the amounts, you know, that we're asking
for. We're bumping it up another 3,000 for contingencies. I I don't think that'll be an issue at all. >> Okay. >> Somebody want to do the quick math so we know what these totals are because we have to have that in our vote. So, Forge, we're at 32,000. You said you
wanted to add three more. >> Yeah, about a 10% contingency is usually, right? >> So, we're going to go to 35,000. Uh, amendment for F for Forge and we're at 42 for long. We're going to add another
three. So, we're going to go to 45. So, we've got 35 and 45. is the 45 >> lake is different than for >> lake is 30. >> I have them on the exact the identical and the stuff that Tim sent >> one
forge in my hand that says 32 and I've got long that says 42. >> I think that's for the management plan. >> At least one more >> mine say herbicide treatment. >> The management plan should be the same. Okay.
>> Okay. management plans are both 32. Yeah. >> Okay. So, what I would like to put forth is that management and for management and herbicide treatment for forge both reflect the number of 35,000
and then both for Long Lake the herbicide and the management plan both reflect the term of 45,000 for consistency. Is that correct? >> Nothing. Um, I think the Long Lake herbicide is 32 if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah. Oh, no. So, it says 42 at the top. >> It says 42, >> but then at the bottom it does say 32. I think that's what was throwing us off here. >> Um, >> oh, was there a uh an inconsistency? >> Yeah, at the bottom for the breakdown it's
>> Oh, on page Yep. On page four, Tim, >> for on page four it would be 45. So you just have to you have to amend the first page and the fourth page for long >> probably said but is the management plan
452 or is that that's just the 32 right? Yeah, both managed. >> And Tim, uh, just out of curiosity, have you approached MAPC or any like Magic or any of the groups to see roughly what a plan like this might cost just in case? Because I know when we did open space,
it was in the mid30s a couple years ago. No, the lake management plan that I went off of was was based off of um well, initially I had actually spoke to um somebody over at at Solitude to just
kind of gauge like you know what are the costs for these for these things cuz at that point I think I had two days to put together the budget when this was asked of me um >> right >> before submitting it and and so I was kind of scrambling
and I didn't have any at that point any data to go off on the last few years of herbicide treatments done in in town. Um there were older ones. Um so I was trying to use those costs from the older ones as well as talking to the solitude
uh representative and then I had the so I had those initial costs and then um I found out that that Spectacle Pond had uh the herbicide contract from last year from from 2025. And so those costs were
were taken from from there. So I having worked to the water department off doing the invasive stuff. Um Forge and Spectal Pond are pretty similar um with how bad the invasives are there. Um I know that
Long Lake is is definitely in a much uh much better shape. Um Oh, sorry. We're talking Are we talking about I'm losing my train of thought. Are we talking about the herbicides or the lake management plan? >> That's okay. The management plan. Sorry, it's late.
>> Apologies. Um so lake manage plan. Yeah, that those numbers were taken specifically from Spectacle Pond's lake management plan. um were proposing to to put together the same items as that one except taking out they had in there a
line item for a um herbicide monitoring program since they had the well over at Spect. We took that out. That was the only one that was taken out. All the other ones are come directly from that lake management plan and all those costs as well. Um and the extra 10% for the
inflation. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Okay. So, can we come back to the hard numbers and have someone make clear and concise motions? Let's do them one at a time
for the acceptance of Forge first of the two. Somebody want to do that and then >> Oh, yeah. I'll make a motion that we approve Tim's uh application request for CBC funding for for 2026 forge pond herbicide
treatment. the price over the a total value of $35,000. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seard. I >> Ed Fols I. >> Kyle.
>> Kyle Massield. I >> Carl >> Kyle Milberg. I >> cheat >> Chase Carbig. I >> and myself. I It is unanimous. Okay, Kyle, you're on a roll. >> I will make a motion that we support the
application for CPC funding for the 2026 Forge Pond Lake Management Plan with a total value of $35,000. >> Do we have roll call vote? Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Ed >> Ed Fultai
>> Kyle >> Kyle Maxi >> Carl >> Kyle Moberg I >> Chase >> Chase Carbag I >> myself I it is unanimous. Okay. Now going on to Long Lake. >> Okay. I will make a motion that we
support the application for CPC funding for the 2026 uh Long Lake herbicide application. Total that has a total value of $45,000. >> Second.
>> All right. Roll call vote. Sarah >> Sarah Seard. I >> Ed folks I >> Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Coral Mber I. >> Chase I >> myself I. It is unanimous.
Okay, I will make a motion that the conservation commission support the CPC application for the 2000 funding application for the 2026 Long Lake management plan with a total value of $35,000.
>> Second and roll call vote. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Ed >> Edi >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxul I >> Carl >> Kyle guy >> Chase >> Chase Kerig I
>> myself I it is once again unanimous losing my voice. >> Okay great we're going to now move on to North Bridge groundwater monitoring sitewalk. Tim, >> uh, we actually have one before that if you want to. >> I added it on the Boy Scouts. Just go
ahead. >> Um, yeah. So, I think it was, you know, maybe a month or so or maybe two months ago at this point. um where I sent out an email out to you guys asking the folks at North Bridge around the idea of
having a sitewalk and discussing the groundwater stuff out there on site. Um and I think I heard back from maybe it was Kyle who was in favor of it. Um but really just want to get a consensus from you guys. Is that something that that we
want to schedule once the you know conditions are favorable? Um or or do you only want to see them back here at at a meeting? >> I'm on board if we can make something work. >> Yeah. I think anytime we can get out,
it's helpful. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we can we can just try and circle around to some more dates. That would be great. >> Sure. >> Okay. Boy Scout land use permit troop one. Uh that's me uh as the applicant, not as
a commissioner. Uh scouts have done this the last couple years, probably 15 boys or so at the top of New Town Hill. Um this year's application is for one of three dates. Either um lost my calendar. Either I think it's
uh the 31st of December, the 7th of February, or the >> January. You said December. >> Uh January. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um or the 28th of February and that'll be weather dependent. Uh police and fire
have signed off on it. The boys will follow leave no trace principles and so on. In an ideal world, I'd have one of them here with me, but they're actually at their scout meeting tonight learning to use snowshoes. So, um I get to represent them.
>> All right. Do we have a motion for that approval, please? I move that we approal approve the land use permit request review for uh scout troop one camping on New Town
Hill for either January 31st or February whatever the February date was >> 7th or 28th. >> Yeah, February 28th. Thank you. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> All right. Roll call vote. Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Ed >> Ed fully. >> Kyle >> I Carl >> Mber I >> Chase >> Chase Carbick abstain >> and I
>> hoping that this weekend was not one of those dates because you would teach them what to recover from frostbite would be. >> Yeah. No kidding. >> Um okay let's talk about Powers Road. Um Ed had requested an update. Tim, I don't know if you have a name.
>> Yeah. And uh so I reached out to John McGan, gosh, back in I think it was mid November to see if those those plants ever went in because I think his timeline was they were going to get in by the end of October. Um and
he actually called when I was out of the office on Friday. um and and uh ask Lauren if I can give him a call back. So I I'm not sure what he wanted to talk about. Um
but I mean I I'll get an answer whether those plants are in for you, Ed. I mean for everybody, but um >> we'll have a better update at the next meeting or future. >> I just don't want this to drag. I want to find the end of this story.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Um it it is on my list. I just I couldn't get around to it today. had other you're you're busy. Okay. Um I think that is it. If somebody else can peer down the agenda, see if I missed anything. I don't think we had any other
added discussion. >> Think we're good. >> Okay, great. Do I have It is 8:58. Do I have a motion to end this meeting? >> I move that we end the meeting.
>> Second. All right. Final roll call. Sarah >> Sarah Seward. I and good night. >> Edi >> Kyle Max. >> Carl >> Carl Melberg and good night.
>> I like that. See, we should all do that next time. >> Chase. >> And finally, myself. I And good night. There you go. >> There we go.