2026. I'd like to open the Littleton Conservation Commission um hearing and we are via Zoom. What I'd like to do is to first off approve the minutes from May 19th, 2026. There are quite a few
pages of those. Um, if the commissioners have any omissions or corrections to those, if we can discuss that, that would be great. >> I had a couple quick comments. I read through them pretty closely. Was it because I wasn't there? Um,
still not significant, but the first one was I saw that there's not that Carl arrived late, but the meeting started at 7:30. So, I assume he was there at the start of the meeting and you guys had quum. I didn't see when he arrived at any point in the meetings. So,
>> where did you see where did you see that? >> The first line where it says a member's present, they have Carl Melberg and it says parentheses arrived late. >> Oh, yeah. >> I talked to Lauren said Carl was there at the start. That was just a >> carryover or typo.
>> It might have been a carryover. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Yep. >> Just only because it says that you started at 7:30. So, if he wasn't there, you only had three members. So >> yeah. >> Um and then the only other I think the under the public hearing notice of 10
Taylor Street um kind of the middle of the paragraph minute say Mr. Scott explained the intent for the pond to function. I think that should be Mr. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else have anything they'd like to
change or add? If not, if I could have a motion to accept as amended. >> I move that we accept the main the Try that one again. I move that we accept the minutes of May 19 as amended.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Thank you, Andrew. And would you do us the favor? >> Absolutely. Roll call vote. Ed. >> Ed full time. >> Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. Okay.
>> Myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay. Fantastic. Um things that we would like to add to administrative discussion items. Tim has one or two. Does anyone have any that they would like to add? >> Okay. Tim, go for it.
>> Yeah. Um if you can add six spectacle pond um road and a bird situation we have over there. >> Yep. Okay. >> Say bird. >> Bird. Yep. >> Okay. Anything else? >> You add just a finalization on John
McGen. Yeah. Um yeah, we can add that at the end. I I'll give you an update on that. >> Okay, great. So, let's go ahead and get started with a request for minor modification. Um, this is 64 Beaverbrook
Road, lot one, DP204-1018 and three, lot three, DP204-1019. >> Um, we went to discuss this last time, but we didn't have quorum. Um, Andrew, you're recusing yourself? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, Tim, I'm going to pass it over to
you. >> Yep. If you guys remember, you guys were all on board with this um with the uh stipulation that the the stamp plan comes in before um construction and um we just didn't have form at the last meeting because Andrew had to
recuse himself. Um but this is the uh original plan called for a box cover. This is going to be a three-sided covert with less disturbance. >> Okay. So, with this, would you like a Do you want a formal request for the minor mod? Correct.
>> Yes. In a vote. >> Okay. Super. Um, is there a commissioner that would like to do that? >> I'll make a motion that we approve the request for minor modification for 64 Beaverbrook Road, lots, which is D
number 204-1018, and lot three, DP number 204-1019. >> Okay, great. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, roll call vote. >> All right. Do you want me to do the roll
call vote? >> That'd be great. >> Sure. Ed >> Ed. >> Kyle. >> Kyle. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> Carl >> Kyle Guy. >> Good evening, Carl. And myself. I'm recused. >> I had a little trouble checking in on
the website tonight for some reason. And you changed the spelling of your first name >> because I was kind of rush on and I changed I'm using my wife's computer and I kind of screwed up. Anyway, apologize.
>> All right. All good. Okay. Um, thank you for that. Uh, Andrew. Okay. So, next is the Straw Pole 55 Russell Street Con. Um, this is a construction. So, do you want to talk about this one, Tim? >> Yeah. Um, and I'm going to share my screen here.
So Casey Caldenberg, who's the um the track coach over at the high school, um he came to us inquiring about putting in a javelin approach area. Um so when they have their meets the obviously the tracks being used, uh the interiors
being used for um gosh, I can't remember. Is it discus? What whatever this event is? >> Oh, shopping. There you go. And um and so for the Javelin uh event, they've
been having it over here um on this section of the ball field. So it's actually I think outside of uh where the the uh the back fence is now, but it does get uh a little wet. It's not
wetland, but it does get wet from time to time if there's like land events. um he was curious if the commission and I didn't want to make him submit an application um for this
want to get a straw poll vote whether or not you guys thought um if the Javelin approach area which I can share a picture of that right now and what that looks like is it showing up for you guys or no
>> no okay let me try this Yeah. But he was curious if there's if it has to be within the the only area that this could be is within the the 50 foot uh no disturb area if this would be something that you guys would consider issuing a waiver for for being within the public's
interest. Um so this is the uh the material that they'd be putting down. And I'll go back to the imagery and show you. So there is a wetland. So obviously you see this is
the the core wetland there. The wetland actually extends out into this his finger right here. And so he would be looking to put it somewhere in this general vicinity um and potentially within the 50 foot. So yeah, but like I said before before I wanted before I
told him, you know, put in a uh an application. I think it's probably best whether or not we see that if the commission feels that this would uh get a waiver issued for this work. >> He can move it closer to the parking lot toward the left.
>> He he might be able to, but I'm almost positive that this wetland actually goes throughout the entire finger. So, I think uh with the the general direction of the launch uh the approach being at this area, I think >> there's not he'd be able to get it out of the 50, but I don't know that he would.
>> So, when we're talking approach, this is for the trajectory to take off, not on the landing. Correct. >> Correct. Yep. I believe they would be the javelin would be landing in in the grass area. >> Yep. Do you have an idea of I know you
saw we saw that picture, but do you have an idea of how big that pad is and is it basically hot top material >> and man I'm blanking because Casey did describe it. Actually Lauren was the one that met him out here and I spoke with
Lauren about this and caught up with her afterwards. Um I can't remember that the type of material that it is. I believe he said it's only about 10 feet wide would be the width of the um the approach.
>> How long? >> I I can't remember. >> It looks like the same material they use over on the track, >> right? It did look. >> Okay, commissioners, what are our thoughts on this? Also, I had a quick question. Is it how close are we to the
50? Are we more on the zero or are we more on the 50? you would be closer to the 50. I would say it would probably be my guess would be from the 25 to the 50 somewhere in there would be the closest point. >> Okay, commissioners thoughts?
>> Yeah, I guess I have a couple things. Um, one, that land has been used. I guess I knew that there was there, but that has always been used like for soccer. It had always been soccer fields prior to that for the younger kids.
So, I mean, we've been using it for recreational activity already. I guess I say without a permit, but like without a land use. Um, we've been letting folks go in there and do that work. I personally would rather see something like this more permanent get installed than just kids running through the
grass. And it's gonna get worn down, eroded, and turn into to bare soil by the end of a track season, which would turn into non-rowing seasons where they won't recover. Um, it'll be unstable.
So, honestly, I think regardless of it's the 50 or the 100, I think they should do something that is more stable than just letting them run the grass. So, I'd approve of this. >> Thank you for that. Any other thoughts? >> Be nice to know the full dimensions.
>> So, one thing that we could suggest is um Ed, we could ask instead of instead of going right into a formal filing, we could ask Casey to come in and just do like we're doing now, an informal discussion. >> Um Tim, would that work? >> Yeah, absolutely. What size would make
you say no at I guess like how >> I mean they're not going to put a track down there, right? So I'm just curious. I'm just I don't want to waste our time here having another discussion if we don't need to. >> So I'm just curious what >> if everyone else is inclined toward it then I'm okay with it.
>> No, I don't want I'm not don't try I'm not trying to sway you one way or not. I um we're just so strict about things and in the public interest we just drop all
the all the the I don't want to say requirements but we you know we basically throw the book out kind of feels maybe it's the right thing to do. I'm not you know I I I don't know. >> Okay Carl, do you have thoughts or
Andrew? I I I kind of agree with Ed that we're we're uh right tough within the 50 and um >> well, how about how about we do this, Tim, if you want to just gather a little bit more information in terms of
approximate distance material and really where we are. We're still happy to just potentially do a straw vote. Are we okay with that? >> That sounds good because I'm curious, you know, how big is this going to be? exactly where is it going to be and once we have a handle on that I think it'd be
I mean I don't see any problem with it but it would be nice before we you know kind of give a green light to move ahead to you know at least get a rough idea of what they're looking at doing. >> I I I can certainly reach back out to Casey uh and and get confirmation on the dimensions something and I could be
wrong and I just looked this up and it said the length of the Javelin approach area tends to be around 100 ft and that might be what he said. I can't confirm it. Um I've kind of drawn an area here that would I think it's a little wider.
Um I've drawn a little wider than it should be, but this is generally um 10 by 100 um judging on the scale down here. So this is something that you would be um looking at something similar to this area.
I guess my my only concern is access if it's fairly wet and then is it going to degrade quicker than other things because it is in a moist area. Are we going to then be having to be constantly repairing it and having to come back? So that those would be my only questions.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I can get Casey in here at the next meeting and he can answer some of those um before we ask him to put in a formal permit application. And to take that a step further, Sarah, if this is something that we think isn't appropriate, then I would question the use of that area for
this event, right? If >> Well, I guess I'm thinking and I I know where you're I think I I think I know where you're going, Kyle, but I guess I'm thinking more of like permanent inground structures that doesn't
actually allow the land to renaturalize. Mhm. >> So, I mean, worst case scenario, if we ever had overuse of this area, we could say, "Okay, it needs a season to chill." Um, but if we have a permanent structure, we don't have that
opportunity. >> Yeah. >> So, and yeah. Okay. Just Okay, >> that makes sense. >> Um, all right. Let's go ahead and um move on to the 745 which is a continued public hearing
notice of intent transmission line improvements uh right ofway DP204-10 is that 33 New England Power Company general maintenance and improvement along transmission lines.
Okay, Allison, I see you're here. >> Hi, good evening. >> Hi, welcome back. Um Allison Milleman, BSC Group. Um on behalf of the applicant, New England Power Company. Um the applicant is um planning to join as
well. Um but I can start and then he should be able to join uh momentarily. >> Andrew Cole. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. I'm going to move him over. Yep. >> Hey. Hey, Tim. I'm going to leave the me. My video is not up and I'm gonna come right back on. >> Okay. Yep.
>> Allison, go ahead. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, the LA at the last hearing, um, did you is Andrew, um, >> he should be. Yep, he's in. He's with you. He's just unmuted. No, he's unmuted now. >> Okay. All right. So, also with us is Andrew Cole, um, applicant from New
England Power Company. Um, at the last at the last meeting, um, it was post our, uh, field review, um, that we conducted with the conservation commission members. Um two additional items were address or brought up uh by
members of the commission. Um one was use of blood road. Um the other one was requesting time of year restrictions um for batting within the vernal pool that's located outside of natural heritage and endangered species program habitat um that was field identified by
BSC group consultants. Um, so is there a certain order in which the commission would like to, you know, hear our responses on on those two requests? >> I think we would defer to you however you'd like to approach. >> Okay. Um, I'm happy to start with the
vernal pool matting. Um, I I looked into the vernal pool report and species associated with that um that pool um that we had identified um last spring. uh species were fingernail clams, intricate fairy shrimp, and catis flies.
There were no amphibian species um that were identified, any larve or eggs. Um so based on that, I would like to propose that the commission um condition that matting be placed during dry conditions. um since all three of those
species um are tend to uh you know kind of burrow into the ground and um you know sustain themselves um during dry conditions in that vernal pool. Um I know specifically when this request was brought up by Chase I believe um he had
said March would be a no-go. Um, but I'd like to request, you know, something maybe perhaps midsummer. Um, and then anytime between midsummer and and you know, February if that's acceptable to the commission and we will add that as a note to our
plans and u make sure that that's adhered to by the contractor. Um, commissioner's discussion on that. So condition would be midsummer through February. >> Yes, please. If that's acceptable.
>> Tim, do you have thoughts on that? >> I think that sounds reasonable. >> May I say something as Spring Brook Farm? >> Yes. Thank you. I promoted you over. Yep. If you could intro if you could introduce yourself, that would be great. certainly is Irving Mat and Gail Mat
Springrook Farm. We are the co-owners with Frank Mat Jr. and um it's interesting that you're discussing this. Um they don't have any approval from us to go through our land. So all they have
is a rightaway. So at this point you can discuss what you want but there are a lot of things that we are not going to allow. Um some of that being the um the
>> mat here um I think there's a lesser aggressive approach to this. They were concerned uh maybe five years ago, somebody came over from the power company and said that uh they couldn't access the towers because it was too
steep and too high. You know, maybe like put an access road into the tower and a crane pad would be a better thing instead of ripping, you know, 30,000 yards of material around it up. And um there's
got to be a better solution than you know they're talking they 5 years ago they were talking about drilling and blasting and you know we we really don't want that impact. >> And not only that but we have an active farm and there is um one of the towers
is on a significant size what we call um an island which is up high. It's very ted in. There's a lot of deer and animals that are in there and actually we really don't want to lose that
because it provides a buffer for both wind and lights from 119. While there is a stand of trees beyond that short stand of trees after that is just an open field to 119. And we are really not
happy about having to have that ripped down. and on one side of that hill is not that steep and we would allow them to put a, you know, a crane pad in or an access. I understand that they have to service the towers. I I don't have a problem with
that. And >> they have a right away >> and we've always been the land owners. >> Yep. They're not the land owners and we have always been more than willing >> and and besides, you know, I've never had any um like email contact or
anything with National Grid about this just other than some, you know, couple of random people coming around like five years ago shooting their mouth off about it. So, you know, we're against it at the moment. We we think there's a lot less
um >> invasive >> invasive way to approach this. >> Okay. I'm glad that you were able to join this meeting. Um personally as co-chair I thought that you were part of this process. So I'm a bit taken back. I
would like >> No, we were not. >> Yeah. No. Yeah. >> We found out the last conservation meeting. I'm like what? >> Okay. So not been invited. Yep. Okay. Andrew, I see that you have your hand raised. Andrew, you should be
between you and Allison, I'd like to pause the discussion on what we're the two items that we were concerned with. Um, and then have you speak to this. Um, Andrew, do you want to go ahead and take the lead on this discussion? And Andrew,
if you could please um introduce yourself and who you work for as well. >> Sure. Can you just confirm you can hear me? >> Yes, thank you. >> Thank you. The video is not allowing me to turn it on. I apologize. >> No, that's okay. If you could for the maths, please and and for this um
meeting state who you are. >> Yep. My name is Andrew Cole. I'm the lead environmental scientist at National Grid. Thanks for for you know listening here. Um so to to Mr. and Mrs. Mr. and Mrs. Mat, I was out there with I think the
group that you're referring to, Mr. Mat, during the soil boring project, and we met with you and looked at these mounds and talked through the maintenance, the repair and replacement of them and the mounds being pulled down. If there's an
issue with the removal of the mounds, then yeah, we would meet with you out there and discuss sort of what the concerns you have and try to come to a compromise on the mounds being removed or like you said, a I had to do the new structure replacements, that kind of
aspect. I mean, that's something that can be done for sure. Our project engagement uh group, Matt Watkins, if that name is familiar to you, had been in contact with you during the soil borings. If there's been a lack of communication recently, um I apologize,
but what we would do outside of the conservation commission, these areas I think fall outside of jurisdiction, we would meet with you there, look at those mounds and try to work through how to preserve the mounds to your preference as the underlying land owner and do the
replacement of the structures to service the line. So um for the math since just to understand we for this particular hearing it's only our discussion is solely for the jurisdiction of the
wetlands protection act. So there are some things that um may be more um inclusive of your both your discussions with all the other parties that may not involve us. So, we are um com committed
to working within the wetlands resource area. Um Allison, would you like to do you have anything you'd like to add to this discussion for the MATS? >> Uh no, no, I do not. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Um it might be helpful,
Allison, for the mats to understand what your role is in this filing. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, Mr. and Mrs. Mat, my name is Allison Milleman. Um, I'm an environmental consultant. Um, that I work for New England Power Company,
specifically Andrew Cole as my client. Um, my role here is I oversaw the wetland delineations um, the preparation of the notice of intent um, and to provide uh, support for New England Power Company. Um, as far as stakeholder engagement or community engagement, um,
that that is not my role. So, I will remain silent on on this topic. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Anything else you'd like to add? >> No, I I would just plan to do outreach with the Mats following this hearing tonight and we would set up a meeting
time with them as as early as would be u convenient for them and look at the mounds and the proposed like the ER maps that we've presented in the NOI and just talk through the scope of work and try to resolve their concerns and again just get to a point to be able to service the lines. That would be the next step for
me with them. Okay. So, what I'd like to do with the commissioner's um approval is that let's go back and go on to the second article that we wanted to talk to with Allison in specific for the um
controls of Blood Road. Commissioners, would you like to do that to carry on this conversation or do you want to hold conversation? >> Yeah, I'm good with moving off. Okay. So, Allison, if you want to go ahead and proceed. >> Yes, thank you. Um, so the second uh
concern that was brought up by the commission at the last hearing was the use of Blood Road, which was identified um at that hearing as a private road. Um, and you know, we Andrew and I have uh consulted with their real estate team um and they've confirmed this is a
indeed a private road that runs through um their existing easement. um at this time, you know, uh I think our commitments are to use a similar sediment control um setup as what's out there now. So that would be, you know, toaden silk fence um with reinforcements
such as straw straw straw bales or um larger compost uh filter sock. Um and then New York Power proposes to photo document the existing conditions of that of that access road uh prior to the beginning of use. Um and then the
commitment would be to restore that access road um to the preconstruction conditions post construction. >> You're muted, sir. >> Yep. I I have questions, but I'd like the commissioners to ask questions first ahead of me because it seems like I'm
the one that always has questions. Allison, you're last, if I remember correctly, you were going to actually significantly widen the road. Um, and it's already really close to wetlands and so forth. I know you're
talking about restoring it back, but that doesn't resolve the issues or concerns of the I'm going to call it damage. I can't think of another word. uh while the work is occurring and also even though we're not necessarily
involved in that part of it, the impact to the maths field uh sounds like it would be an impact there as well. >> Well, the um the the pro the access road itself as presented in the notice of intent is not proposed to be widened.
What is proposed as shown on the plan um is for it to be uh refreshed. So that's a type R road. I think we kind of went through the road types. So that would be a refreshment of the road. Um but there is >> Excuse me. >> I'm I'm sorry, but um as far as the
road, we would need to know we we are have not been notified about refreshing the road. So we would need to know what you're going to put on the road and we would have to approve it because Blood Road is actually owned by Spring Brook
Farm. It it is a private road. It's not owned by anyone else but Spring Brook Farm. So before anything can be discussed about what you're putting down, we have to be able to approve it first. >> Okay. >> Because we growing crops.
>> Yep. So that that is definitely understood and thank you for sharing that. That's good for Mr. Cole um to hear as well. What I think obviously nothing is going to be decided tonight. What I think would be helpful is for
Allison to carry on the discussion because we had concerns from the sidewalk of there are spa there are parts of blood road that if you're going to have construction equipment over is inferior
to be able to carry trucks in my humble opinion to be able to carry the trucks through there without impacting the wetlands. So Allison, if you want to kind of talk about what might be helpful for others to know is what a type RO is.
I know we spoke about the different types of roads in previous hearings, but if we could just back up a little and just tell us what a type RO is. Um and and I I guess for the point of reference for me for clarity when we're
talking about this project I I think we were originally told that it's a five sixyear project. So I'm curious we start with the road the preconstruction road now. Do we wait 5 to 6 years to then
bring it back to where it should be or I'm just trying to understand from a wetland standpoint how the road would impact um potentially the wetlands? >> Sure. I'll start with um what type R
means. Type R means um filling potholes and um adding a top layer of stone where needed to stabilize the existing road uh within the existing road footprint. Um so there would be no widening associated with that access road or with that you know that that private road. Um there
you know there there is proposed grading immediately adjacent to that associated with removal of the mounds that I understand is um is to be further discussed with the landowner. >> Um and as far as uh routine maintenance um I have to defer to Andrew on that as
far as what the company would commit to. I mean I I understand that there could be degradation. I think the you know uh routine maintenance may be needed filling more potholes throughout construction but I'll defer to him on what the company would be comfortable with committing to here.
>> Yeah, you're correct. So if they came through and did as you described that type R um and there was uh the the surface may be degraded, we would continue to do that maintenance. So those potholes would be filled. So the contractor would come through and refresh that road and just make sure it's maintained. Erosion controls would
be maintained. So that would be ongoing for the project. >> Okay. Commissioners questions, >> comments. Most of you all are muted. >> Um, one more thing to add. I'm sorry Sarah was uh I think you asked about the
the timing right for the five to six year project. So it's through multiple towns, right? And our kind of sequence of work is to get the access road work uh prepared uh complete those work pads prepared and then there's that line work and foundations work that like later. So
we wouldn't be in this area this entire time. There would be activities that would start the improvements of the road and then we would be out of the area and then they would come back in to do like the foundation work and then set structures. So it wouldn't be that full duration. And there's, you know,
activity going on in this in this location. And based on the conversations with the mats here, the mounds being graded down, it's going to, you know, further discussion on the scope of work here. So, it's probably going to change, you know, the frequency or the amount of time we're in this area.
>> Allison, can you talk a little bit about reporting? Um, who would be on site and how often reports would be generated? >> Certain times of construction and then in lay times as well. >> Yeah. So the um I think we had discussed that this project due to um the amount
of overall land disturbance through all the all the towns will require uh EPA nifty stormwater pollution prevention plan and notice of intent. Um as such you know we the applicant is required to provide inspections on a weekly at the
minimum and then post rain um which is a quarter of inch of rain or more within 24 hours the inspection needs to occur and then subsequent reporting. So at a minimum um BSD's environmental monitor will be on site on a weekly basis and then again after a quarter inch of rain
or more and we would be generating reports um making observations and as always uh we you know communicate directly in the field with contractors um to address any action items or compliance issues that we see. Um we definitely do not wait to show them that
in a report that gets issued at a later time. So, um, you know, on behalf of the applicant, we do our best to be very proactive, identify any issues and report them immediately to the contractor to address. >> Would the land owners um also with
requests receive those reports? >> I need to defer to Andrew on that question. >> Traditionally, we haven't provided the reports to land owners. We have the project engagement team have a direct contact for them. They can always call and basically voice any concerns. that could be open line of communication. We
would address items that they have issue with, but it isn't our standard practice to give them environmental inspection reports to them. We would absolutely be giving them to Tim, you know, basically weekly or at a monthly cadence, whatever the commission is comfortable with. >> Okay.
Commissioners questions. Sounds like there's nothing we can I mean we need to wait for the potentially modified plan after the mats meet with them. Um can I ask are those areas in the jurisdiction of the conservation commission is with what we've described
tonight is it possible to continue with developing order of conditions and bod that's a great question specifically on blood road one of those mounds one of those towers is in a resource area >> okay
Um >> to your point, Andrew, it we are actively working on the order of conditions, right? We always are. So it's not that um it's not that we're going to wait till the end to start to prepare those, but until we have uh a
comprehensive plan, we're not going to close the public hearing. >> Yeah. No, that that's that's appreciated. I understand that. Thank you. So, with the applicant's permission, I would recommend moving this on to the either the next meeting or the meeting
after um once you've had discussions with the land owners and the right of way holders as well. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. um just
circle back with Tim when you would like to be on for the next meeting. >> We will. >> Thank you very much. Thanks for >> Thank you. >> Thank you for joining us. >> Y have a good night. Thank you. >> Okay, we're still we're going to jump
back into one of the the land use permit request um for the Boy Scouts of America Troop One backpack trip. Um Chase, do you want to speak to that? >> Sure. And and just to be clear about this, I'm speaking as the applicant for
the permit, not as a member of the conservation commission. Um Scout Troop 1 is proposing a backpacking trip. Uh police and fire have signed off on that. We have a permit from the fire department to have a um to have a fire. The recent rains have helped. It's
actually supposed to be a little bit rainy next weekend as well. The plan is essentially to um backpack through a series of Littleton conservation lands um potentially some acting conservation lands in but Sarah Dublets OBS YAP and
then up into Long Lake Park. The permit shows an area um a general area in which um the boys would be um backpacking to and camping out for one night next Saturday. um that is as we discussed two
weeks ago off of the meadow area. It's essentially in the wood line um to the west of the meadow. Um hiked it a couple weekends ago and found sort of a nice flat area. We're looking at probably the application says approximately 15. Um
just got back from the scout meeting. I think it'll probably be about 17 people, adults and kids included. Um, and as part of that, they're also doing I'm working with Alisa to um to sort of look
at are there any service projects that the boys can do and Alisa has proposed a couple of them and it it may either be a service project in Sarah Dublet or a service project in Long Lake um either in Sarah Dublet helping um the trust close some trails or Long Lake um
helping with some invasive species management. Long story short, the point here is to get the boys um it's a younger troop sort of accustomed to backpacking in a safer environment, but also introducing them to more of their conservation lands than they've been um
sort of familiar with in the past. So, the land use permit is for one night of um of camping in Long Lake Park. >> Okay. Thank you. Um commissioners, I know we've um discussed this previously at the last hearing. Does anyone have
any questions for Chase with that permit? Just for record, we had discussed leave no trace um pack in, pack out. If there's things to be done along the way that need to be if there's felled trees,
they can move those aside. And obviously the concern for ticks as well. Yeah, that um to your point about leave no trace, that's both in the in the um permit application itself, but absolutely leave no trace. And um in
terms of sort of keeping the kids safe, one of the things we talked about tonight was sort of how to safely hike this time of year, peromethine, treated clothes and all that stuff. So, >> okay, great. Commissioners, any questions? If not, we have someone that would like to make a movement for the
permit. We also talked about staying out of the main part of the field >> board nesting birds and the like. >> Yep. >> Yeah. The only places that we will traverse through the meadow are the mode pathways. >> Cool. >> The the ticks will keep us out of that anyway, even if we're inclined to do
otherwise. >> Yeah, they'll carry you away. >> Yeah. No kidding. >> Okay. Do we have a motion? >> I move that we approve the land use permit request for BSA Troop One backpacking trip. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Thank you. >> All right. Roll call vote. Ed >> full time. >> Kyle Max will >> Carl >> come over. I >> myself I and Chase are you going to >> as a representative of the applicant I
will abstain. >> I'm going to vote too. Andrew. >> Oh sorry. And Sarah >> Sarah see I. >> Perfect. So we have one two three four five. um eyes and one abstension. Sorry, Sarah.
>> That's okay. >> Thank you all for supporting that. I think it'll be a really great thing for the for the boys. >> Excellent. Okay. Now, it is 8:12. We're going to jump into continued discussion enforcement order eight blood road.
Who is here to speak? Let me Okay, so John and you guys just got moved over. Okay. >> Hi. >> Hi there.
Okay, so let's go ahead. Um feel like we you have submitted. Tim, do you want to go ahead and call that up? Option one, two, three as well. Um, >> I can share it if you want to, Tim. Either way. >> Sure. Yeah, why not?
>> Okay. Do you want me to do it right now or No. >> Y >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Sure. >> That's perfect. Do you want to go ahead and walk us through your thoughts on the three options and then kind of we can talk about each one? >> Sure. So, let's go to this.
Let's >> Can you guys see this? >> Yes. >> All right. Perfect. All right. So per the last meeting, you guys uh requested that we shared a variety of plants. You also were wanting us to share how we
plan to plant them. And then you wanted to know the advice we had gotten from a knowledgeable source. So this is the first option. It's already a garden bed. When you're coming to our backyard, it was to the right. Um there's nothing really in there right now. There were
some wild flowers in there last year, which some of them are popping up now, but um nothing really is there. It's shadier in the morning and then it has that afternoon sun and then there's just the um sizing right there. I also just
wanted to point out that the property line is just like right here on the wood line. Just that's how much space we have with that. We put in a variety of plants. Um the
first whole front is like um flocks and some hens and chicks is just like a succulent that's ground cover and that would drape over and spread. Um the middle row is just more middle perennials um all native that have
pollinating attractions to butterflies, bees. Um, and then the back row is a type of dog wood just to kind of give it a wall in the back. Option two, I updated the picture since our last meeting. We added just like a
little measuring tool right here just to kind of show where that property line is that we really don't have much space. Um, this is also shade in the morning. And then it has our measurements right there with um 20 ft long, 2 feet at the bottom, and a little bit more space up
here at the top. And then there's just one more angle just showing the slope of it. What we thought would be the best is a switch grass. It has a really good rooting system. Um and let me just get
it's a switchgrass. It has a really good rooting system to stabilize any soil. It's very um adaptable to whatever soil it's in. And then just for a little color, we put some cone flour for the pollinators.
Then the third option we didn't have a picture of at the last meeting. And I just drew a line just so you can kind of see where the property line is. This is shade all day. Um, and we were hoping for something with like privacy here and
um, we were going to put mountain laurel there. It is also a native shrub and it gets rather large. And that's all I have. >> Rebecca, two things. Um, your slides are different than what we have. So if you
go back. So while we're on option three. Yep. >> You originally had the mountain laurel, but then you also had the viburnum. >> Yeah. After talking to we conversed with a site one planting person um at the site one landscaping
um and he said the viburnum that we were requesting is actually really hard to get. So he said just stick with the mountain laurel. Um, I know there are other viburnums that we could look into, but he said the one that we had listed is really hard to get.
>> Okay. And then when you scroll back to option two, >> um, you had the switch grass and the coropsis, but then originally you had the little blue stem. >> Yeah, he said the same thing. Um, just keep the switch grass all the way along.
He said it would fill in a little bit better and be a little sturdier. >> Okay. >> Sorry. changes happened today. >> Okay. Thank you for um those updates. Commissioners, thoughts for John and Rebecca and options that might um appeal
to you all more. >> I'd like everyone to chime in. >> I can go back to any pictures, too, if you'd like to see. >> Thank you. >> Um I I s I kind of like option one. I just if I mean I like the location of
option three because it's closer to the lake, but I I'm not sure if it's going to offer the treatment that we would like at that point. Um the
op option one um at least I think addresses pollinators. It's got a lot more diversity. >> Um, and that to me would be a positive.
Wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily um treat any kind of runoff, I don't believe, uh, going down towards the lake, but it would improve pollinators. I I guess that's the positive from from
my from my perspective. >> Yeah. No, that that's helpful. I think also um commissioners you can also look at um collaboratively. So you can kind of look at option one but then also help
out on option three that if they are hoping to put some you know mountain laurel in there as well. You can do it doesn't have to be one or the other. These are you know options to you as a commission. You can look at collectively
how to have different options work together. Okay. Other commissioners, >> Rebecca, would you mind to go to option one again? >> No problem. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry, numbers are hard. Uh, option
two. >> Yeah. >> Um, I I was originally a fan of option two. I think because I I I thought the property line was maybe a little further in or picked up a little bit of more of the shoreline. Um, this is a very
helpful visual, Rebecca. Thank you for providing it. >> Given what I see here, I think I tend to align with Carl in terms of option one. the I I like option two in the sense that I think in the long run bank stabilization is better, but if you
can't really get out onto that point and stabilize it because it's not your property, then I'm not sure how much value there is in two and overall prefer the greater biodiversity uh associated with option one. >> Okay, thank you other commissioners.
>> Yeah, that I completely agree with Chase. I was definitely more a fan of option two and offering some stabilization all in this bank. But if it's not actually doing that then um I would
prefer seeing the diversity out there. >> Okay. Ed Andrew, >> is there any reason one and three couldn't happen? >> Yeah, you can always do combinations. So, >> I like I like the idea of the big bush because it gives the little animals somewhere to hide
>> and obviously the other the other spot just gives you all kinds of stuff. >> I I would I would support that too, Ed. Um, one and three. >> So, Rebecca, with option three, you're looking at three mountain laurels.
>> Yeah, hoping to fit there. We do have a shed over here. So, we don't obviously and we have our some kayaks and stuff that are um mounted on the back of it. So, we do want to make sure we keep some space >> to be able to get around there. But, I'm hoping Yeah, I think we we all saw that
there was like a bleeding heart right here. Hoping that we can fit three right in a row. >> Okay. >> They do get kind of large. >> So, I would go back to my original thoughts. I like the combination of one and three and hearing you about spacing
with option three. I think you could go between two and three. >> Okay. >> Mountain laurels. So if all of a sudden three is going to be you want them to succeed so you don't want them too smooshed together as well. >> Yeah. It says it could grow to f five to
15 feet tall and wide. So we're definitely just going to kind of see >> Yeah. see how it looks once we're there. >> Okay. Commissioners thoughts. >> I think two is probably plenty there based on the size and otherwise I'm
inclined toward one and three the way we talked. >> Just one note, Sarah, Mr. Mat has a public comment, too. >> Yep. I saw that. I wanted to finish up and get um commissioner's comments first. Yep. Um Any other commissioners
have questions or comments? Okay. Um, do you want me to >> I I I did have one comment with just in terms of installation method to the extent that we're putting I assume option one is pretty straightforward
because we're planting flowers. Um, option three um are we talking about essentially hand excavating the area to put those in? Okay. >> Yeah. Great. That that makes a lot of sense to me. Just want to confirm. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. Irv, do you have a question?
>> Yes, I do. We um we have a big farm to protect a lot of forestry land. We're on the 61A >> and mountain laurel is very invasive and spreads and we are free of that right now on all our land and we would like
you to consider something else that doesn't uh isn't intrusive on us. You know what I mean? And spread and be invasive. >> Yeah. Because >> and do all due respect, I'm not trying to be argumentative,
>> right? But I've been um in foresty land before where that is rampid and you can't even walk through it. It's so invasive. >> Okay. >> It chokes the trees out. >> Rebecca, what are your thoughts of going back to a different type of viburnum? >> That's what I was just thinking. Um I
can talk to Joe at site one again and see what other types of viburnum they have. Um and happy to do that. Yeah. >> And again, I'm not trying to stir the pot or be inv, you know, >> but I don't want nothing that's going to like take over and change our
environment, too. >> No worries. >> Yep. Um, commissioners, any thoughts or other suggestions? Obviously, we look back at a viburnum, or is there something else that you'd like to suggest for the Scots for that area? It's a It's a unique area. It's small.
It really doesn't get much sunlight. We could do like an Aelia or a rodendron too. Those guests are >> No, you're >> okay. It's their property. I'm not trying to tell them what to do when they're >> No, no. It's up to them, you know.
>> Yep. We understand that. Thank you. Um commissioners, any other thoughts? >> I have a thought not so much on the plant specifically, Sarah, but on the process. What I would suggest is if um us and the Scots are comfortable with um
implementing options one and three and we're just circling around what precisely to install an option three that we essentially ratify that plan and empower the agent to approve whatever ultimately is decided on.
>> Yep. So, John and Rebecca, what that means is that you're good to go and then once you figure it out, you come to Tim and just make sure that he's online with that so you don't have to come back for another another hearing and it allows you to go ahead and start the process
with your plantings. >> Okay. And then what would be the next step? Do we take pictures of the plants and submit them to >> I think once once they're planted you just let Tim know and then sadly you do have the the kind of rate of success. So
we do know that not all of them will survive. So that just kind of stays open for a couple years. Usually we say 3 years. You just kind of come back to the commission. You can even do it in writing and just say what was the success rate or if you see that
something has flourished over something else and you want to plant more of them as well. I just wanted to make a comment that um I on your option two where you did talk about the switchgrass and that it had you know um vibrant root
structures you can still go ahead if you see an area that you want to plant that you can absolutely go ahead and do that if that's something that you want to do if you start to see different areas of erosion. >> Okay thank you. >> So it might be might be a good experiment somewhere. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um I guess and then with what the enforcement order now what what would be the next step for that? >> Right. Correct. So commissioners thoughts on that what we would like to do is to
we would again ratify the order. So it basically means that we're lifting portion of it so that you can go ahead and start to do the planting. So, it starts that ball rolling because it seems like we've been at kind of like
just the status quo for the last couple. Um, but as we've always talked about, it's a process. So, but this kind of gets you to start going again. >> Okay. But we would we need to come back onto another meeting for it to be lifted or would it be just like a once the
process is done, it's done? >> Commissioners, what what are your thoughts on this? I I I think we often look at replanting plans and as long as there's documentation submitted to the agent and everything looks good, we often lift
those. This one doesn't seem all that complicated to me. So, I would think it it would be possible as long as everything takes for uh for Tim and Lauren to tell us things look good. you know, once once they're established, once we have a couple seasons of
documentation that everything is living, it it's not obvious to me they need to come back as long as they submit documentation, photos, and so on. >> Okay. So, it was a two-part process. So, the planting was one, and then obviously we had D's comments in terms of boat
traffic, docks, things like that. I think that's just the other element that I think we should discuss tonight because that way we know where we're where we're going in terms of the enforcement order. So, there's a couple things that D originally, and Tim has
reiterated this a couple times, that D if they were left to their own devices, they didn't want anything done for ever and ever. And so, and then we thought that that was a little much. And so, and then we also talked about, well, how do we kind of allow the area to reestablish
itself a little bit? So, I look at that there's two things in question, the dock and then boating. So I think what's helpful is for you to say knowing kind of like what the superiors say in terms of D. What would you ask from us and
then what I'd like to do is to ask the commissioners to kind of weigh in on those thoughts. Does that make sense? >> So we're really hoping to put our dock in on the right side of the beach with our pontoon boat there. Um,
>> it is the right side where it usually is, Rebecca, or is it the left side? So, just so it's clear, all the commissioners have been out. So, I just want to make sure that they understand what they're what you're referring to >> on. So, if you're looking out to the
lake, that would be towards Irving's property. >> No, sorry. >> The dock is originally at the bottom of the walkway. You walk straight down the walkway right out onto the dock. We had hoped with the some of this weed clearing to put the dock on the left
side of the property because it's so muddy in that area that it's kind of unmaintainable and unsswable. We we were going to put the dock on side of the property this year was the goal, but now we'd like just permission to keep it back on the right side, which is a sandy grally bottom,
>> the original side, >> the best swimming area. That's why we didn't want to move the dock originally. Um, so we put the dock back on the right side is what we'd asked to be able to do where no work was done because it's a nice sandy bottom. >> Tim, that's very helpful.
>> Yeah. >> And so, John, that's essentially outside of the area that was where sediment was removed. >> Correct. >> Correct. That's a nice sandy area. You can you can see it just walking up to it. But that's why we want to move the dock
because that's the best swimming area. So, I' I've been thinking about a comment Ed made about how it didn't feel very fair to ask the Scots to not operate their boats across there when we we can't practically control fishermen
and things like that. Um, after thinking about Ed's comments, I'm I think I'm coming around to his way of thinking. My sense would be, my personal perspective would be we allow them to put the dock out and they agree that um
anytime they're within, let's pick a distance 200 ft of shore, they're running under minimum power to bring it into the into the dock. >> Other commissioners, I'd like everyone to weigh in. >> Yeah, I I would agree with Chief. I
think that's a good practical solution. And you know, I I think it's a good um halfway point here to to uh kind of get things moving. >> Yeah, I'm I'm on board with it. I would change it to 100 ft only because on on
the big lakes, you have to be uh no weight within 100t of the docks and that's essentially minimal power. >> Yeah. >> But beyond that, this this this is what I was pushing for before to you know, >> I I I agree also.
>> Yeah. I'm on board. And just to clarify or confirm that it's the dock is going in its original place. That's what we're we're keeping it off to the right there. Yeah, I'm fully on board with that. And I really don't I I I agree that we should have some sort of note there with the power and no wake. I'm sure that
their area gets accessed, but there's no I can't see boats zipping through there. It's not a big area anyway. So, I'm not as worried about the >> the dog stirring >> the what you can do >> also navigational rules is that during
in a no wake zone, you can put a buoy out that says no wake. >> So, it'll also keep other people from really kind of flying past your dock as well. So, um that's a suggestion I would make. I I support kind of the the dock
and the boat, but I would um add for that no wake zone, but I would add for a buoy to kind of go in that area just to kind of it's it's more of a little bit of a warning to slow down and and that way it would allow that um lake bed to
settle a little bit more as well. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Feel like even a buoy just in general slows people down even if it didn't say no weight. these do. So they they tend to be tall in cylinder and they say and they say no wake. >> Um and it is permissible. So dock owners
are allowed to do that. Um other other commissioners comments >> I like the idea of a buoy and I think that helps solve the we can't control other people um as easily. I have seen those buoys Sarah in other
lakes and they do tend to uh slow people down and keep them out of those areas. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Has everyone all the commissioners have voiced an opinion? I think Andrew you have
correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I guess where where we're at is that we would look to ratify it again. And so, there would be a few
parts to the new ratification. One is that um lifting it so it would allow you to do your plantings. It would also allow you to put the dock in and the boat. Um commissioners, help me here. Is there anything else we would ratify? So,
we're basically amending the enforcement order. >> It Okay. Commissioners, thoughts from a ticking all the boxes and paperwork standpoint. >> So, what would the enforcement order have left on it?
So the only thing that would be left, which is more like an order of conditions where they have to come back for 3 years and make sure everything has planted. Um Tim, you could help me here with this.
If we lift the enforcement order, we want to make sure that we still have the ability to come back and check on these. >> All right. I don't know that you do. >> I was going to say the same thing. What
>> then? They're not on file at all with us, right? So what? There's no >> Yeah, there's no mechanism >> holding the feet to the fire. >> So we're not lifting the enforcement order, right? We're moving to amend the enforcement order to allow certain activities. Right. That
>> was my understanding. >> Yeah. I was just >> So is it is it an amendment or is it a different ratification? >> I think it would be another amendment. >> Okay. >> Cuz you'd be changing the condition that
you had um implemented on the last iteration of the uh order or enforcement order. >> Okay. >> Um yeah. >> Okay. So from a clarity standpoint, so John
um and Rebecca, this so it would allow you to go ahead and do all the work, but it still allows us to keep a mechanism in that for the 3 years you have to come back and show us that the plantings are working. >> Okay, >> commissioners, if I'm correct in that
assumption, would someone like to make a motion to that? >> I I think I have a motion here for you, Sarah. Um >> thank you. So, um I move to a amend the enforcement order associated with eight blood road
to allow for um planting options one and three as specified by the applicant um with the condition that option three plantings are ultimately to be approved by the agent to allow the placement of
the dock on the right side of um the property. uh to allow the placement of a noake buoy and to allow um traversing that area with a boat under minimum power and to amend the enforcement order
to include monitoring of the option one and three plantings for a period of up to three years. >> We need a second for that. >> Second. >> All right. Okay. Roll call vote. Of course. All right. Roll call vote.
Chase. >> Uh, Chase I >> Ed >> Ed >> Kyle >> Max >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> Carl >> Oh Carl I think you're on mute
>> Carl Mel >> and myself I it's unanimous. >> So John and Rebecca what that means is when you're ready when you have your plans and you're ready to get going just let Tim know. Okay. >> Okay that sounds good. and we'll talk with her about a plant that he likes to.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so it's now 8:38. We're going to open the 801 continue discussion enforcement order 2 and6 Blood Road. Tim, do you have pictures?
>> Yes. Give me a moment. >> Okay. So, Mr. and Mrs. Mat, this is your time to share with us what you what your thoughts are in terms of plantings. Certainly, because where the dredging
was on our side was way out in the lake. The there was never erosion. Nothing from our beach or even close to our beach. However, in the front of our house, we have had significant erosion. And this picture that you're looking at
is comes down. If you drove into my driveway, that is erosion. So, we have a proposal that we've done. We were we actually had planned to do this. In in all fairness, we we wanted to do more of these. We put
these graduated beds and we do a mixture of um both this is early obviously early but a mixture of um perennials and annuals and it's worked great. These beds this
bed is um four years old. We no longer have any erosion in the front and now if you came over now it would be so much prettier. And so we were wanting to put in two more of these beds. So you see
they're um three down and what's the dimension, hun? >> 8 by 12. >> Like 8 by 12. So we would put that um the top row would be the echgonia or corn flowers mostly because I love them. We would
have some hostess. Um >> this is open hill now. Sorry to cut in, but we're not like removing any trees or vegetation. >> No, what we do is we >> Yeah, I know. >> Yeah. What we do >> is we frame it in and then we add um our
our our soil, our lom, and then build up from there. We don't even dig in. We don't have to dig anywhere because you can't you could not on top of the ground the graduated. Yeah. 2 by8 with um I
think they're 6x6 by8. >> And so that was >> almost like stairs almost. >> Yeah, they're like stairs. If you want to drive by and look at them really nice and >> um and that has Yep. And also part of
the reason we started doing those is we have bees. So, we have one hive here at the house and then we have seven other hives going up through the farm and um hopefully coming soon. Miss G's Bees for
honey. Kidding. But yes, we we already have pollinators. >> Okay, commissioners thoughts on this. Um, I I like the idea because I if it's if it's an erosion issue,
um, and it's helping keep silt out of the lake, that's a good thing. Um, as well as protecting their shoreline. Um I guess I
instead of like I'd like to see some u make sure >> well um not to interrupt you but that is not on the shore side. On the shore side believe me there is no erosion. We have never ever mowed anything. Anything on
that side has weeds and whatever normally grows there. pine needles. We do not on the lake side. We have zero erosion. This is on the front side >> and only because you guys said we had to come up with a plan.
>> That was our worst space. >> That's our worst space. >> Great. >> Not on the lakeside. >> My my my mistake. >> Oh, that's okay. Yep. Carl, so carry on with your thoughts. Yep. Well, now I have compl
I need to rethink my whole thought process. >> Okay, let let's let's come back to you then. Other commissioners have thoughts and questions. I I don't disagree with the MATs that from what I saw the lake side of their property was
generally stable and the slope of the shoreline at their property is is I think shallow pretty much everywhere. Um I I'd be hesitant to do a project there to stabilize a thing
that's already stable. So, I I don't love the fact that this is somewhat a little bit removed from the shoreline itself. I also think that it's probably proportional to the impacts. And I'm I don't love it
because it's separate from the shoreline, but also I I don't think it's unreasonable. other commissioners. >> I like the idea that it works toward decreasing an issue of erosion.
>> I think that's the biggest thing we gain there. >> So, I'm inclined toward it. >> Kind of agreeing with Chase on the uh the water side. If you don't have erosion, you don't want to do anything that
could potentially start some erosion. I was wondering if there's any possibility to put any types of plantings um on that water side. >> Would you want something like a hiblish blueberry or or something that's going
to >> I was thinking something Yeah, something like that. something that would >> actually um we already have high high bush blueberries already growing there. Um there is a section when you come down if you were going towards our dock. Um
there's already a section that already has that right by our well and there are additional smaller bushes. You know, we don't harvest them, the birds do, but there are additional on all the trees. I'm just going to say that we have no
erosion. And to plant something just to say we planted something doesn't seem reasonable because if you look at our property, we are totally shaded in. We have a ton of trees. We do nothing as far as like mowing. We never plant
grass. We have nothing invasive here. We we don't use any weed killer. We try to keep the property as natural as possible while making it pretty. Like those flower beds do make it pretty, but on the top of the hill by our house, it's
just moss. We leave it as moss and I in fact water it if it gets dry. So, I I'm not inclined to want to put more bushes just to say, well, they did this because
we said just do it even though there's not an issue. I'm happy to plant something if there's an issue. I garden all the time. I love it. But I don't want to just do something just to say, "Oh, well, we checked a box." I think
our solution, if conservation wants conservation where we have that erosion in this grally soil, I think that's a perfect solution. And I I don't know why anyone would have an issue with that. >> Okay, we're going to carry on. Other
commissioners, I'd like to hear from everyone. Andrew or Kyle was letting Andrew talk. Um, yeah, I I mean I guess I agree with what's been said that fixing a problem
that's there is beneficial. If there's no problems as far as impacts to the lake go, then we move down the ladder to the next thing that we can help improve, I guess. It's yeah I don't disappoint isn't the
right word that it's not you know lakeside or a direct impact on the the lake in that area but anything to improve those type of issues um um in favor of
anyone else want to speak to So, what we have now is three the construction of three 8 by12 uh staggered flower beds and I've heard echanatia cone flowers.
I'm not sure if I got else what was listed as well. Tim, was that on a on a list? Let me call back up here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> commissioners, while he's doing that, is there anything more that you'd like to
see or different diversity in those in those beds? Well, in I'm not sure if I'd like a bunch of annuals to be honest with you. I'd like more perennials and and um
definitely as many if we're going to get some benefit of the pollinators, if that's what we're shooting for, as well as uh erosion, um we should put as many pollinating plants as we possibly can. So, what I'm
hearing is perennials that are pollinators. >> Yes. I Okay. Yes. >> Do you want a certain number? >> I didn't hear you. What' you say? >> Sorry. Do you want a certain number? >> I don't know what the number would be.
>> Can I just pardon me? So, let's The commissioners are speaking. So what you'd want to do is to be able to commissioners as the perennials are going to grow and expand, you want to give them the breath to to grow. So >> you don't want to be too minimum and you
don't want to go over on that. So going forward with what Chase had said before in order to allow um Tim to be able to work with the Mat Mats to set the parameters of perennials that are
conducive to pollinators. Would we like to follow the same track on this as well? >> Sounds good. >> I think it makes sense, Sarah. Yep. to the extent it needs to be modified to have the agents uh approve the
modifications makes a lot of sense to me. >> Okay. So, it sounds like we're in an agreement moving forward on the three 8 by12s. What are your wishes for the MAT family for docks and boating?
>> My understanding and perhaps the mats can comment on this. The Matsens don't use a boat in and out of that dock. >> Um, actually we do. Um, the dock has been in um for about 20 years. We didn't
use our boat last year. Um, we minimally use it. It's Fourth of July, so we would probably put it in. Um, we're happy to have a no wake zone. I mean, I will personally put that buoy out there because I don't want all of
that coming into our our our area. >> Plus, it's good for the kids, too. John's got young children and also >> our neighbors do >> build rope. Kids go out there and um you know, a buoy would be good. It protect the kids.
>> We're super happy for that. >> Good. >> So, the same condition then, sir. >> Uh yeah, I think that's what I'm hearing. Yep. Yeah, I commissioner's thoughts on that. >> Well, sounds like the same. >> Yeah,
>> Chase, because you have it written down. >> Um, us I will try if you will forgive me when I screw it up. Um um I will move to amend the enforcement order for 2 and six blood road to allow for the construction
of three 8 by12 flower beds um with plantings to be approved uh by the agent um and allow the I'm going to say placement of dock by the owners of 2 and six blood road and
use of that dock with a boat um under minimum power and placement of a noake buoy that I I will say here could be placed in concert with their neighbors at 8 blood road. >> I would add to that that the plantings
are perennial and pollinator friendly. >> So amended. >> We have a second. >> You want to mention the monitoring period? >> Yes, I do. And I I'll amend that to include a monitoring period for the um placement of or for the plantings of up
to three years. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Chase >> Chase Kerbig. >> Ed >> Ed >> Kyle Kyle Max >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I
>> Carl >> Comey and myself I it's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. When you're ready to get going with your construction, Gil, just let um Tim know. Okay. Thank you. >> We'll do.
>> Okay. Thank you. It's now 8:53. We're going to go ahead and open up the 8:15 continued public hearing notice of intent 16 Pickard Lane, Cobb Pond. There was not a D number as of the last meeting. Is there one now, Tim? >> Uh we do have a D number. it came in at
the uh maybe it was Friday or yesterday, I can't remember. Um what they what DP did mention in their comments though is that the NI should have been um submitted as in uh ecological restoration notice of intent um as should and I got clarification on this
today when I spoke with the AP as should every um herbicide treatment for like going forward. Um, and so they're going to have to fill out the appendix A for that. Um, as well
as post in the environmental monitor. Do you guys catch all that? I wasn't sure if my screen was frozen. >> Um, we heard you audio. I don't know if you're going to show us a form that has an amendment. >> That has an amendment. No, no, they
didn't submit it yet. was uh this was just their comments um what's going to need to be done by the applicant. Um and so I actually sent an email to uh the the applicant today mentioning all that stuff uh and kind of simplifying it for
for her to understand and that we'd work with her if if she needs help filling out those forms. Um, so the other thing is that DP recommended that the commission ask um for a plan showing exactly where the
herbicides are going to be used. They don't want to see the whole lake get nuked uh so to speak, but they they said that 30% coverage of lily pads is is ideal. >> Okay. >> So I mentioned all this to to Jen in my
email. Um, >> so it sounds like you'll need to repost it. >> So they need to they need to post it in the environmental monitor. They don't have to uh I don't believe they have to repost it in the low sun to open up the
hearing. Um, they just need to do that additional posting in the environmental monitor. >> How long does it take to do that? Do you know? >> I'm not sure. So, am I understanding that now that we have
the D number, we're still going to wait for that posting. So, you're going to push them out to the next hearing. >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay. Commissioners, do we all follow that track? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, going forward, um Tim will
have to understand the changes of of that mechanism. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So we will carry that forward. The next one which is the notice of intent for zero Taylor that's um they have requested a continuation on that. So
what I'd like to do is to go back to our administrative discussions. We have a few more to cover. Um commission vote to return leftover peerreview funds. Tim, can you speak to that? >> Yes. So um we have a lot of peerreview accounts. I say a lot. It's probably
like six or seven. um that have some funds in them. Um so we get we typically get the initial quote from the um uh consultant. Um and sometimes they have optional um items in there like attending a a commission meeting if
needed. Um sometimes they're not not all those tax tasks are done. Um and so we'll have leftover amounts in the fund. Um and so this is just a vote from you guys. Finance asked for this um
or accounting did um that the commission vote to return the leftover amounts in the peer review uh accounts to the um appropriate uh person. And so for each of these um reviewing the accounts to make sure that all of the invoices were
actually sent out and um that we processed all of them. I did come across one um that they just the uh consultant didn't send out an invoice that they should have. Um and so we got that process that. So we're we're you know
dotting the eyes crossing the tees and making sure that um everything that should have been paid has been paid from these peer review accounts. And do most of these applicants still have order of conditions out or like are
these old filings or are they new filings or combinations? About I say two or three of them I'm familiar with. They're more rec like since I've been with uh the town. The rest of them
I think it's like four of them are before my time. Um how far before? or I can't say off the top of my head. >> Okay. >> Sarah, are you thinking that we shouldn't close it out until there's a certificate of compliance? >> I I'm curious, but I also don't know if
you can hold those funds if they've if they've met their standard. I I will say most of them um only have like a couple dollars in them and it's it's just because while they uh the money's in
there, they're acrewing uh interest. And so, you know, they pay all their invoices. Well, now they have 56 cents in there uh in interest that they accured. And that's technically supposed to go back to um the uh the applicant. Commissioners, what would you like to
do? >> Whatever Tim and Lauren tell us to do here. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Yeah. I think if there's not a high risk of of giving the funds back, I would think that you'd want to get them cleared off the books.
>> I would send the money back. I agree. >> Yep. >> Sounds like a plan. >> So, I'm assuming Tim, you don't need a vote. We're just asking that. We um would do you need a vote? >> Okay. Someone like to make a motion. >> Oh, that's where you had the word vote.
Commission vote to return. Got it. >> I move that the the uh accounts re referred have the funds remaining returned to the
applicant. Do we have a second? >> Second. All right. Roll call vote. Carl, >> come eye. >> Chase. >> Chase bag. >> Ed fully.
>> Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Sarah. >> Sarah. See where I >> myself? I It is unanimous. >> Okay, cool. We have two more discussions. Tim, um, let's talk about the birds. >> Let's talk about the birds. All right.
So, we got an email over the weekend from a land steward um who I believe is very knowledgeable of um birds and ornithology. Um and he said that he was over by Spectacle Pond Road and he noticed uh
bank swallows um going in and out of nests within the existing sand stockpile that's within the uh 100 foot buffer zone that the property owner has been authorized to
move out of the buffer zone. However, with the bird nest there, the banks swallow the nest there, um they're protected under the migratory bird treaty act, >> um and not to be disturbed. So, I met with uh the property owner, uh Mickey
Jensen, out there yesterday and we talked about the whole the situation. Um and we did observe swallows flying over the area. Um I we didn't see them going in and out. Um, but we we talked about, you know,
whether or not uh he would be able to continue moving sand out of the buffer zone, but maybe just not in this area to not um disturb the nests. So, I wasn't sure what the feds would say about that.
So, I reached out to Fish and Wildlife and unfortunately, I've been playing phone tag last two days with um a party over there. And then I also reached out to the National Heritage today and I haven't heard back from them, but I was curious um what they thought and what
what they thought would be appropriate if in terms of like allowing um Mr. Jensen to continue moving sand outside the the buffer zone, but also protecting these nesting areas. Um so unfortunately I don't have an answer from um Fish and
Wildlife on that, but hoping to get that uh for you guys by the next meeting. are there erosion control. >> One thing real quick as a point of order, we have to make sure that in the notes and in this commentary that this is a site that's under an enfor active
enforcement order. >> Yes. >> So, this does give us a different purview on that as well. Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that's on the record. >> No, that's fine. Yeah, Chase, there's erosion controls along this if if this photo were to continue this uh left side
in between the stock pile and the um the wetland. So, another thing I'll add is um doing some research on uh bank swallows and nesting. We were actually looking into them while we were on site
searching some stuff and this is consistent with their nesting habits. um they don't tend to nest on areas of slope that are um gradual, only on pretty vertical uh areas. And probably can't tell too well from this photo, but
this these are pretty vertical slopes here. I would say this is really the only area of the stockpile that is super vertical. Um the rest of it's pretty gradual. And on the rest of the stockpile, we don't see any of these holes, these nests. >> Yes. Tim, what part of the stockpile is
because based on those from last meeting, they've started moving material, right? So, >> yes. So, this perspective is looking um if if you were to continue behind where this photo is taken, it's the uh the foundation. So, it's it's the uh the
far portion of the foundation if you were walking down Spectacle Pond Road. >> Okay. And so, I imagine then they've been moving. It would be the right side of this picture. >> Yeah. So to the right has been has been they're moving outside the 100.
>> This is this is like the back of it over here. >> So >> you think of it, it is a perfect spot because they've got water right next door. It's a great place to migrate through outside of the noise next door. Well, that's I'm surprised that they
chose a spot with noise and you know, if the equipment is running to kind of relatively active equipment moving sand on a regular basis, >> is it um permanently protected or is it only protected this until the end of
this breeding season or whatever and then if that was taken away after that and not there when the next migration occurs, is that illegal? So, so they can't be disturbed while they're nesting. They're actively nesting. >> I get that.
>> Um, I don't know what the exact time period is. And I was kind of hoping to get some of that clarity from Fish and Wildlife on you know, at what point is this considered um, you know, not protected anymore? >> Carl, do you have any thoughts on this?
Well, um I I can only speak as a former uh US Fish Wildlife Service employee. Um but I know how they think and um yeah, I would say the answer to that would be, you know, obviously no disturb
um while they're nesting. Um, I'm not sure the period of time when they fledge uh from the nest, but um I would think um
that when the nesting season's over that se it would not it would not the protection would not still be there. I mean this is this is an area that's that it's that they're being um opportunistic
I guess is the right word. uh that the birds have. And um after they're out, I would think that you do not need to protect this area again. Um I don't know if this is like the first time they've come to this area or if
this is routinely a place that they come. Um, but it seems like they're just taking advantage of the loose uh soil material and um it could be a one-time thing, but yeah, let's just wait until they're done. And
then I I believe the answer the fish would give you is that then you can move the um continue moving the the material. Mass DP says that they they occupy their nests until about mid August and then
they start to make their migration to South America. >> Wow. >> Yeah. That's great. It's great that they're using it. Um may maybe um you know we should look at other areas
that we could we could do the same thing to attract them. So I I think what we're circling around here is that the we're trying to balance the impact from two different issues and
the risk to the resource area from this loose material staying in place is lower than the risk that we're willing to take to the swallows. So leaving it in place and I would say cutting a pretty wide
birth around that. I mean, this is all just sand and and stuff that's just sort of piled up there. It's not like I mean, Kyle's the geotechnical engineer, but I can't imagine you find near vertical faces of sand very easily. And so,
>> I'm impressed that that it's that stable, honestly. Is not usually that steep. >> Yeah. So, cutting a wide birth around that makes a lot of sense. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would do as much or as little
disturbance to that area. I mean sand is any sort of vibration you start touching that you you run a big risk if we let them do any more work on that pile of causing issues with those nests.
>> So I guess would you guys be okay if we just accepted the direction of what Fish and Wildlife says? Right. they're going to come back and say one of two things. Don't touch the entire sand pile or there's a section of the sand pile that you can continue removing, but once you
get, you know, x distance away from that area where they're nesting, stop there. Once we hear back on that, on their decision on that, are you are you fine with us just going forward with that and this not being brought up again at another commission or do or at another meeting or do you want to hear this
again um once we hear back from them? I'd be curious to hear the results. I don't know if we need to vote on it or anything in the future, but I would definitely want to hear the results. >> I can I can always just send out an email once I hear from them um and just update you guys. >> Right. I guess my only concern is that
they're not going to come out to the site. So, you'd have to be really graphic and specific to detail of the height and the width and the circumference of this so they actually understand the volume of that. Maybe I could pull him up there from
from Westboro. I can I could try. >> Those people at Fish and Wildlife, they love a field trip. >> Yeah. >> Um, US Fish is lacking employees right now. So, it's going to be it's not going to be easy to drag any of those guys out.
>> So, I guess the other question I have is, is it worth on the construction side to throw up some orange snow fencing or construction fencing? So people, especially if there's other people, there's there's other, you know, people
that are on that site that they know to stay away from that. >> I think that's a great idea, Sarah. And um let people know, you know, I don't they're not they're not an endangered they're not a protected species, right,
Andrew? I mean, right, uh Tim, so they don't it's not it's not like you can't you can't you can still identify. I mean, if it's protected, you're not supposed to even identify what's going on, but >> yeah, I I can't say I saw whether or not they were protected in any way,
>> but if if not, I would put a sign up nesting birds. I mean, that's what we do that all >> Well, I don't know that I'd go that far. I just >> Fish and Wildlife does it all the time. It's put this the fence up and they nesting birds. I mean, kind it tends to
keep people away. >> Yeah. or have them come in >> or attract them in. >> Well, yeah. I mean, that's what that's what I was saying about if it's endangered species, you don't typically identify. >> Well, so it says yes, bank swallows are protected under the migratory birds
treaty act, which we know and are classified as a threatened species in California. >> Yeah. So, it's not in mass. So >> I I would recommend some sort of fencing just to keep somebody away from the bank regardless of if they're of the birds
any any disruption to that area. >> You think from a safety standpoint there should be one anyways. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Keeping in mind that the more activity the more it disturbs the birds. That's what Yeah, it has to be, you
know, I'm not saying put it at the base of the pile. It should be feet, multiple feet away from the the base of that pile. >> Do we have any authority to say that to them? >> You do because Well, you're under an enforcement order
>> and it's within the resource area, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Double. Yep. it. Speaking of the resource area though, I I would also our concern was the mobilization of that material and I'm glad that there are erosion controls
back there. I would suggest that if we are going to have the property owner leave that sand pile in place for an extended period of time that there also needs to be weekly inspections of those erosion controls to make sure that they're not that that's a lot of very
mobile material there. um and and just sort of a a weekly inspection to confirm that the erosion controls are in good condition and don't need to be refreshed. >> Are you saying that Tim has to do that or that the landowner has to do that?
>> Oh, that's an interesting question. I guess I was treating it like an order of conditions and the landowner needed to do it. But >> I I I would ask that the landowner sends a video or a photo into Tim weekly or
bi-weekly or after some epic rain event. >> Yep. I'm I'm with that. Like a weekly photograph to Tim and Lauren. Yep. >> One thing I will say is um Mickey's done a good job at creating uh and you can't see it here, but I'll do my best at at
describing it. um at at keep that he created a buffer between where this sand pile is and where the erosion controls are now. Um so when we went out there initially the sand was going right up to
that rocky um embankment and and now it's not. There is probably I'm trying to estimate off of memory um like 7 8 ft of of clearance between
where this uh the sand stock pile ends and um and where those erosion controls are. So if there is some sort of failure um I I don't think it would go over the erosion controls personally. So, would
you want him to update you every other week or if there's an event? >> I honestly wouldn't mind just having that on our uh agenda of like sites that we go out and look at after, you know, big rainfall events.
>> I'm good with that, too. Really, I I just want to make sure that they're functioning. I'm fairly agnostic as to the mechanism they as in the erosion controls. So if Tim and Lauren it makes sense for them to do it, I'm good with that, too.
They they know the most efficient use of their time better than I do, >> right? I would say either or, Tim or Lauren. It doesn't doesn't always have to be both. So, okay. But Tim, I think you should feel empowered to direct the property owner if you need something.
>> You you are working under our authority to say, "Hey, you need to send me pictures of that." Like, >> yeah, >> cuz I can't get out there. >> I got you. Yep. >> Okay. And then yes, if you can update us if you do hear a directive from a higher being, that would be great. Okay. Bank
swallow is done. Let's go on to John McGen. >> Yep. So, um, we gave John the deadline of the end of, uh, May to get those final, um, remaining plantings in. So, I emailed John at the end of last week.
Um, and he I actually saw when I went on my email, uh, this evening, he gave me a call back um, in a in a a voicemail um, between when I left today and this meeting. So, I'll give him a call back
tomorrow and hopefully have an update on that for you guys uh at the next meeting. >> Okie dokie. So, as a reminder, we don't meet until >> there I had I not to cut you off, but I have one more cuz I thought it was part
of the agenda. Um 73 Heartwell like >> we had that sidewalk today. Um, this is kind of interesting what's going on with this. There's a current order application out there for this
what it looks like. It's on our um continuation list on our agenda. >> Yeah. >> So, Ducet Engineering had submitted a plan and I believe it sounds like it got appealed and there was questions and people were against it and whatnot. So, it just sat in limbo. Um the land is the
property has since been sold to one of the ab budding property owners apparently and now they want to of course do something with it. Um so the original plan which I I can't share my screen >> Tim can you make it so there you go.
>> Yeah. Can you see? All right. So this is the snippet of the original plan and kind of tried to trace out the the wetland flags real quick. So, what have there's a definitely a low portion down here in the site. Um, and so they called out these wetland flags and they called
out a wetland over here as well. And then there's a note that you can't read here, but there's an intermittent they've set an intermittent stream um along a car path, an old car path. Um, Oxbow is now working with a new land
owner another and identified this as the wetlander. Um, and the thought process or what people think has changed is they've done a lot of work on Hartwell have lately re regrading paving and whatnot. And so the thought process was
that drainage was probably from Hartwell was coming onto the site and created a much larger wet area. Um and now they've changed that there is just a smaller area uh local area of wet
which has hydric soil wetland plants. Um so what oxbow is thinking is that this is isolated and it's not an actual BVW which was what Ducet engineering had called out. Um I I went out there today with them and Lauren and we saw no signs
of any sort of connectivity anywhere. There is wetlands off the back side in the in the Artwell property. Um, but even this this car path is clearly a car path, but there is no indication that there's a stream that runs anywhere through here. And this is all pretty it's actually a pretty steep slope that
comes back up uphill to this. Um, so I personally was much I I got on board with what Oxbow was presenting here. Um the concern or the issue that we're that we that I ran into that I brought with
Lauren is that 73 Harwell currently has an application in place. Um, so Tim, it's going to be more of a paperwork exercise, I think, for Oxbow and and you, Tim, to to figure out how to withdraw if Ducet engineering has to withdraw their application and then how
Oxbow goes forward, if they are just going to go in for an RDA or if they even need to, >> right, on this. It's not jurisdictional. >> And and and that's Did Scott mention on site today, and I apologize, I couldn't
make that site walk today. Um, did Scott mention whether or not that um isolated wetland is he suspects it's isolated land subject to flooding or isolated vegetative wetland because that'll determine whether or not it's
jurisdictional. I mean, >> sorry. >> No, go ahead, please. Uh when I went out there with Scott a couple weeks ago, I thought it looked small enough that it would be under the threshold um of being isolated land subject to flooding. I thought it would probably be isolated vegetated wetland, but again, that's
just I not the the best on uh identifying that in the field. Um, so in that case, if it is non-jurisdictional, if you look on the approved, previously approved plan, the one on the left, that's from 2018. At the top of it, you
can kind of see um in the top right there's a 100 foot buffer zone coming off of those, I don't know if they're ponds or vernal pools back there. Um, so if they kept this work consistent with that notice of intent, they would just be um and and then they confirmed this
isolated wetland is just IVW. It's non-jurisdictional. They wouldn't be coming in front of us anymore for an application. They would just be asking to withdraw. And so that's why I wanted to get commissioners out there and get their eyes on it before um before we we followed up with the
applicant because I thought there was a good chance that the wetland changed so dramatically since that 2018 filing that there might be a case where there is no jurisdictional wetlands around where they're proposing. What I would tell the applicant now
though is that given the history of this and given the um isolated wetland, it would be wise of them to file an ANRAD to confirm that there's nothing jurisdictional there. Um
and the ANRAD may conclude just that. But then I I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with no filing just saying, well, there's nothing there now. Given what we have from 2018, I think that they need
to paper over that with some filing that documents what is or is not there currently. >> Wetlands don't just go away. Well, if if there was that much runoff where it was creating hydra conditions
similar to what you're seeing on the left plan and they fixed that runoff and and really reduced it a significant amount, it it it could have changed the h I I assume it could have changed the hydraology as dramatically as it seems to be when we
went out there, you know, nowadays. I don't really know how much runoff was coming in from Hartwell. They from what Scott was saying and what he heard from the homeowner um was that it was a very significant amount. >> I remember even when we first did
developments out there, there was always discussion of runoff on those properties. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I mean just the soil conditions were it was it was clear that there was hydric soil in this area and it's definitely the the low spot once you got away from it. There was no
indication of of hydric soil. There was maybe some plants some wild plants that were still lingering out here but the soil was didn't look indicative of hydric soil. And it certainly wasn't when we got over to this car path and um
these other areas. It it would be interesting to have Tyat's point of view on or if there's photos or something on how they delineated this originally if it was just based off plantings because I I I'm definitely not a well scientist and I know there's different ways to to identify them um
based on the soil conditions right now. It's it's pretty limited to this this area that they have flagged out. Chase, would you be comfortable if um Lauren and I went out with Scott or another wetland scientist with
Oxbow and confirmed this footprint of this isolated wetland and then they could do the calculations to prove that it's whether or not it's IVW or ILSF instead alter that's an alternative to
requesting a filing. Yeah, it it's not that I disagree with what you and Lauren have concluded. It's that I I I think we need some official filing, not just an email or something like that that documents what it is now. So, I I'm not disagreeing with you. I I'm saying I
think we need a process or some some some filing to establish that. interrupt commission disagrees. >> You know, I this is this is definitely a one-off and you're really going to have to have a lot of paperwork to ensure the
track of this. >> It would make me feel better, too, Chase. I think that's a good idea, Tim. So yeah, Tim, if it's an RDA, if it's an address, I that I'm again I will trust
you and Lauren to come up with what the right filing needs to be, but it I I think there needs to be a filing of some sort that ensures it's adequately documented and we can show to the community that we've rigorously
evaluated this. And yeah, it's very strange that we have what we see on the left and what we see on the right a mere 8 years apart, but that is what we have. >> But so much so that you would have to include the documents of the town
changing the structure of that road and the drainage as well. >> Yeah, I I would think the RDA would have to have some sort of conceptual explanation >> to justify why it's as different now as it was. >> For sure. >> As it is. Okay.
>> So much so that you'd go to the asbuilts of the road, >> right? >> So, so the question is now whether it makes sense for this to continue being put in front of you guys as an NOI or if it makes more sense for it to be withdrawn and just um submitted as an
RDA where they're questioning whether or not it's uh applicable. >> Correct. Yep. I don't think it bears on those decision the conversations that I I asked the Lauren maybe you could reach out to Amy
and see if she had any further but I don't know if it ever got to the process to this to the point that Amy went out there and looked at those original flags or if she would have remembered anything >> because I don't know if I don't I was not around I don't believe when this I mean this plan on the left was from like
2008 or something like that right or what the wetland flags were done and there's a note on the plan I I think that it was it was before my time that the flagging had done been done. Um I mean I just don't know if that's the point that they were reviewed or if >> I I think they were I would imagine they
were because there was >> quite a history with this and it actually got appealed and they got a super sort supering order. >> Confident they they were done because I know I went out >> Yeah. >> times. Yeah. I can I can ask her and see if she recollects um
the wells on the site. Okay. Anyone have anything else? It is 9:28. Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> Is June 23rd the correct next meeting? >> I believe so. Y.
>> Okay. Um, I move that we adjourn this evening's meeting. We have >> Who did the second? >> Oops. Sorry. Beef from the shadows. >> Thank you. >> All right. Roll call vote. Carl >> Kbery. >> Chase.
>> Chase. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Max. >> Ed. >> Edi. >> Sarah. >> Sarah Seawward. I >> myself. I. It's unanimous. And we are adjourned.