:30. I'd like to officially open up the Littleton Conservation Commission and it is December 16th, 2025 and we are virtual. Um, okay. Let's go ahead and start with the approval of minutes which is December 2nd, 2025
um which have been distributed to us. Does anyone have any um amendments or corrections to either of those four pages? >> Okay. >> No. >> Okay. If no one has any, do we have a
motion to accept as written? >> I move that we accept the minutes as written from the previous meeting. >> Thank you, Ed. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, Carl. And then Carl, so Andrew's not here tonight. Um Carl has agreed to
do roll call vote for us. Please go ahead. >> Okay. Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> Ed >> Edi. >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield I
>> and Carl Carl Melberg I >> that must feel weird. >> Okay. So that's is unanimous and that vote carries. Okay. Um looking at our agenda, does anyone have anything they'd
like to add to administrative discussions? >> Tim making his head no. >> I have a question about Mil Pond if possible. >> Okay. >> All right. >> The answer for you, C.
>> Okay. Great. Let's go ahead and start with uh annual approval for invasive species treatment. Forge Pond Invasive Species Control Mass D 204-872. You'll note that in your packets, uh um
Tim had sent along two pages to that is Dave Sarah. >> Yep. >> Sorry. Before you jump into that, do you want to mention the uh the continuence? You know, >> yes, thank you. Sorry, I knew about it but didn't. Um, so because we have
commissioners that are not here, if anyone's on for the APM, the continued public hearing discussion of current and future land use for town owned parcels, uh, U12-14-0, we are going to postpone that into January. Um, Chase had requested that
long where we're not all here and we want to make sure that we're all here to have that kind of discussion. So if anyone's on, we don't want to keep you on if you don't want to join us for all of that. >> And so I'm running over Dave Bar right now to talk to that. But as I you know mentioned that Sarah, I looked in the
attendees and we don't have any besides Dave. So >> I was just going to look too like shock. >> You might have to restate that um when when the time comes. >> Sure. And if you see others kind of jumping in, just tag me for that to remind. Okay. So let's go ahead. So, um
Dave, we did receive your two-page outline. Um Tim, do you want to any overview you want to give before um Dave jumps in? >> Um I I I think Dave could could probably give the uh the summary of of what he's
looking for, but um Dave came to the commission a couple weeks prior. Um it's part of the order of conditions for F forge pond that they receive annual approval um from the commission to conduct uh the herbicide treatment uh
over there and and not it's not just limited to herbicide. I think it's other uh forms of aquatic invasive control as well. >> Okay. So Dave, what I um deduced from this as a synopsis is that there's you'd like to see some amendments to C16 and
C17 of the order of conditions. Is that correct? >> Uh C16 um is unclear and uh yeah, we'd like to clarify that and uh update it.
C17. Um the commission decided that uh it wanted to uh approve um herbicide treatments every year rather than uh approving them every 3 years when the permit comes up for renewal.
>> Okay. Uh it wasn't explained as to why but um since uh it technically wouldn't we wouldn't be we would need to come for permission this year uh I was doing that.
>> Yep. So do it in now for the next Okay. >> for summer of 2026. >> Yep. So let's go ahead Dave and go through C16 so we can stay in numerical order. um can you just give a brief um overview of that and commissioners as a reminder this is in your packet as well?
>> Yeah. Uh when we um uh in 2024 when we uh u requested that our orders of conditions be amended to uh include uh herbicide treatments. Um we also uh
asked for it to be amended for some of the physical um harvesting. Uh when we had gotten the physical harvesting approval, we laid out uh various different kinds of harvesting. Uh but the only one we were planning to use was
echoharvesting. So echoh harvesting was approved uh to to be used um and report back when we did it. Uh the other forms of harvesting uh suction harvesting uh
manual harvesting um um uh uh uh automated harvesting without collection were um formally approved. what the uh condition in C16 was. If you actually want to use one of
these things at a later time, uh you won't have to go through the whole notice of intent and amendment and uh notifying of butters and all that. You'll just have to come to a regular meeting and explain that now you want to start using it and the commission would
decide if it was okay to start using it. And so that was included in the request in 2024 when we um asked to uh be able to do herbicide treatments. Um since we were coming for that and we were
expecting we were going to be starting to do her uh suction harvesting. We said uh can we get approval for that so it can come off that list of items that has to be uh approved uh subsequently. uh
and that was all done but the uh C16 was only uh amended to say amended to include implementation of herbicide use. Um so that's not clear. Uh that's kind of a confusing sentence, but our
expectation was that C16 would have been amended to remove suction harvesting since we had come back and said here's how here's how it works. here's how we're planning to do it. We'd like to have approval to do it. And uh approval was given to do it.
>> Okay. Tim, do you want to follow up on that? >> Yeah. Um if I if I follow correctly, Dave, what you're looking for is you're looking for the language of um the suction harvesting and
uh was there another method as well? >> Manual. So just just uh no just uh we would just be removing suction harvesting uh and so that we have to come if we're going planning to use manual hand pulling or cutting without collection
we'd have to come back and say here's how it works here's what we'd be doing you approve of us to be able to do that but suction harvesting would come off of that and I mean I would just for cleanness I would say that that last
sentence amended to include implementation of herbicide use uh would come off of there too because that I'm not sure what that was intended to mean there. >> Okay. Commissioner's um thoughts on this. >> Yeah. I mean I'm okay with this. I think
um agree. So just so I can I think I can clear my head. you come back in front of us with the hand pulling and cutting without collection because you have not explained to us how that would work. Correct. >> We're not intending to use that. And so, >> right. So, you haven't explained. >> Right. So, if we did at some point
decide we wanted to use it, we'd come back and explain how it works and why we were trying why we why would we want to do it and how we would actually be implementing that and see if there's agreement for doing it. >> Right? Whereas in a section, we've already gone through all of that.
>> Yeah, a section we've already gone through that, right? >> Okay. Commissioners, other questions or comments on this? >> No. >> Okay. Do we want to go through the language now or do you want Dave and Tim to come up with that language for
approval or are we just striking here? >> We should let Dave and Tim come up the language. >> Okay. Dave, do you have comments on that? >> Uh u uh re re annual approval from the
conservation commission. So yeah. So I'm asking for um permission to do it. I mean we're uh uh going to um uh the um CPC uh committees to you know uh talk about
funding for this year. So, and we're working with uh water department to uh do the bidding for this year, which they're planning to do in the next month. Uh so, I wanted to make sure we had uh the approval to do it um as part
of the process of bidding it out. >> Commissioner's questions. >> Did we have a treatment plan in place? I feel like we've we've gone over products that would be used and all that. Is that is that the case or is it depending on
the contract that's awarded? >> So the way it the way it works is um uh the contracts given uh the vendor comes to uh do a plant survey on the lake to see what level of plants are where they
are. Based on that, they make a recommendation as to what the treatment should be and uh the uh and then uh there's an agreement on on doing it. Um and and they do it. Um there's usually
not a lot of time. So they would be doing the plant survey um beginning of June and we would like to do the and we the ideal thing would be to do the treatment in June also. So, uh, there's
not a lot of time to be, um, you know, between that. Um, and, uh, I mean, in the past, um, these approvals have been given to the lakes,
not our lake, but the other lakes in town, and they were told to go ahead and they come back in 3 years to get it renewed. Um, and this time you're asking for annual reports, annual annual approvals before it's done the next
time. >> But you're also asking for CPC funding, too. So, aren't we going to have to have a And it's too bad Andrew's not here, but aren't you going to have to have a range of what you're soliciting? >> We have approval for CPC funding. We've
asked for $20,000. Okay. And who is the using the same vendor, Solitude or whatever? >> It'll get bid. >> Okay. >> I mean, if it was just our lake, it wouldn't get bid and we would use
Solitude. Uh because um Spectral Pond will also be doing herbicide treatments this summer, which uh they have a permit. They don't need to get annual renewals. Um and with the two lakes
together, the expected cost of um the treatments is enough that it has to be bid out. >> Okay. Commissioners questions, comments. The only comment I'd have I know it's a
time crunch, but I would I think we'd be interested to hear what the selected contractor puts in plan for or puts in place for a plan. Um, you know, the products being used, dosages, and I'm comfortable with
it. have sat in on some of the same webinars that you have uh with masterers and all those folks, but I think we would still feel a little bit more comfortable if they came in front of us and said or you came in front or provided us with their their plan. Is
there is there an opportunity because I do feel we're putting the carpet before the horse but is there an opportunity that we go through this process and then all of a sudden it doesn't quite meet what the conscom feels is appropriate that there is an out mechanism for
conservation >> the conditions be where you would not want >> we would need to have final approval based on and I recognize in June everything has to happen so quickly Um, but I would think that we'd be able
to have a two week window, but by the time that they come out and they sample and survey, give you the amount and their treatment that we would still be able to have a meeting in that to really be able to um authorize it.
I don't know >> if you if you want to, but it'll the the bidding will be done in the next month uh with the expectation that uh it's going to be the treatment is going to be
done and I don't know what uh the implications would be if they bid it out and and it was to be done and then uh and then it wasn't done. So, so Dave, it might be possible that the RFP can be put out with language that states that
the treatment um or the contract essentially is contingent on final approval from the the commission on the methodology of >> Yeah, I mean we have made suggestions on uh what the bid protocol should be. Um
there were problems last year with uh the pro the bid protocol which precluded us from being able to uh use the CPC funding we had for a treatment that was
less than the $150,000 that was bid because the bid protocol only allowed one number uh based on the plant uh survey from 2023.
Um, so, uh, >> we we do have, yeah, ideas of things that the the bid could have flexibility, more flexibility than that. I mean, there's a lot of things that should be done. >> I'd like to if you want to do that, we
can do that. I don't know if you're doing the same thing for spectacle pond. >> Let me just ask the commissioners if they're in support of this process. I think that's the biggest thing Dave for us is that just making sure that this process is uh acceptable to the
commissioners that are here tonight. So that's that's really where it comes from. >> And the process being u come back and get approval and then do the treatment, >> right? To give you the authorization to go ahead and request the funding and
work with the water department to go forward on this and really give you a time frame that you know that you can work comfortably in. Commissioners, any questions? We got to keep going. >> Yeah. No, I'm good with that. The only thing I would say to me to help you is that you're if you're collecting bids in the next month or you know you have
somebody lined up by February, you're pretty aware of what's going on in your pond, right? As far as invasives that exist and where they exist. >> Yeah. >> They, you know, I think that gives you a couple months or even a few months for them to get a plan together. Even if they don't go out and survey a totality of what's out there, they should have an idea of what they're going to be using,
how they're going to use it, and they should be able to you should be able to come in front of us in that gap between February and June, right? and say, "Hey, these are the chemicals we intend to use." Dosing to be determined after we do our survey, but I feel like we have plenty of time to to get more
comfortable with this. But I agree with the process there. Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh we could we could um make a proposal based on what was there last year and see if it changes this year. >> Sure. Okay. Tim, from a procedural
standpoint, what would you like from us? Um, if you can can vote on the approval of like of the timeline that the commission laid out and for this
essentially to be reconfirmed or revoted on in the spring once a work plan um or more details are are known. >> Yep. The implementation. Okay. Does somebody want to try and grasp that language to put forth something?
>> Sure. Let's go with um I move that we provide a approval for invasive invasive species of treatment for the or condition our number 204-872 uh pending final review of the implement
proposed work plan implementation. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um do we have a second? Second. >> Okay. >> Roll call. Sarah Seawward. >> Sarah Seawward. I
>> Ed Folultz. >> Folult. >> Kyle Maxfield. >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> And Carl Milberg. I unanimous. >> Okay. Thank you, Dave. >> Thank you. Can I ask one question? >> Sure. Uh
uh is is there a reason why there's a lot more scrutiny over this now than there has been on uh the uh herbicide treatments on the other lakes. >> I think what we're starting to do is that my understanding is that also some
of the changes that are coming forward for regulations that this is going to be standard for other lakes as well. >> Yep. So that they'll catch up. >> All right, we've got to move on. Okay, so >> Yep. Thank you. Good night. We're going to go ahead and open the 745 continued
public hearing notice of intent 242 King D 204- removal of existing driveway pool and walk construction of parking lot and walkway. Bruce, once you're logged in, if you can
introduce yourself. Good evening. Chris Ringwall, Goldmith Preston Ringwall here on behalf of Littleton Electric Light and Water. I'm representing the project at 240, the portion of the project at 242 King Street.
Um, good evening all. I um just looking at the numbers and the folks that are here tonight and versus the folks that were here two weeks ago. Um, I'm assuming that you guys still do the
Mullen reading in and can allow Andrew and Chase back in on a continued meeting. >> Correct. >> Or maybe several of you have mulled in for that weren't here last week, which I guess is just Sarah. >> Yep.
>> Awesome. Couple weeks ago, not last week. If I may share my screen. So the let's just go through. So um in the essence of this, Bruce, if you're going to go through where we were last
week and what you've been asked to do coming forth for tonight, correct? >> Yeah. Just um this last week, uh this is the plan that was up um that uh we were dealing with last week. And one of the
things that I mentioned, I don't know why I got that thing hanging around there. here. We'll try and get rid of that. Um, one of the things that was mentioned was that the planning board asked to have us add the driveway that's now there, but uh, the driveway in that
comes in adjacent to the property. Uh, so I'm going to I repair this. Did that change screens for you? Oops. Do you now see the driveway over here on the lefth hand side where my cursor is?
>> Yes. Okay, good. So, this is the um the driveway that goes back to the treatment facility. Um and it's added in over here. And at the last meeting,
um, Chase had made comment that, um, he's has a hard time with single family residential properties that have BMPPS that are going to require maintenance
and that that um, if there was another way to look at this to eliminate the need to have a BMP on the property. One of the things that he had asked was whether or not we could put this additional drainage into uh the drainage
that had previously been permitted up over on the western side of the new driveway and further back. And I explained that the western the driveway is a high point and this is much lower and it would be more maintenance because it would have to be a collection
facility that would then pump the water up over to the other side. So, in request in response to their request, the commission's request two meetings ago, um we dug deeper into the
original notice of intent filing and the storm water management calculations that were submitted along with it. Um, and we found that, and I'm going to switch sheets here for
this sheet here. That change diagrams are still up for you. Perfect. Not every night does it change when you ask it to? Uh, so this is I'll zoom out. This is a
sheet out of CM uh CM CDM Smith's uh storm water package that was submitted with you. And I'm going to just blow it up so we can look at the area in question down here in the front. And then we've added onto the bottom of this
um a few notes. And let's get those notes up there to say this. So, Beaverbrook area 1 um per their calculations contains 36,600 ft² of area. It has impervious area of
4500 square ft with the existing building being 2800 square ft. the future replacement driveway, which they did show a driveway right over in here um in that area,
um is 1,700 square ft. >> Bruce, can I can I just ask a quick question? I'm just reading. So March 22 is this plan. Is this an Are we talking about an asbuilt? >> No, this is this is the notice of
intent. This is part of the drainage that was in the notice of intent that was filed in in March of 22, >> right? And I guess my questions were because we had so many challenges on this site that we made a lot of changes through its development as it kind of
morphed into this wet pool of water. >> Yep. Are we I don't know that I feel comfortable working off a plan that was proposed versus something that may have been amended because I don't know that we have the asbuilt and just I mean I I
could be wrong so the commissioners can tell me I'm wrong but >> um I'm happy to talk about Beaverbrook and everything else but I want to know that if we're talking about detention basins or things that were proposed a lot of those things changed >> 100%.
And the order conditions makes reference to these dated drainage calculations. I can bring it up. I have it somewhere in here. But well, let me just walk you through this little piece and then you can just see how much you want to go cuz
it's pretty straightforward. They had an imperous area in here of 4500 and an existing building headed for future placement of a driveway of 1,700 square ft. Under the proposal that we
were just looking at here, our driveway is larger than that 1,700 square ft. Our driveway and the sidewalks that we had coming around to the previous the side doors are at 2450 square ft.
And we're proposing further to remove the shed, uh, the the pool house, the pool decking, and the pool, which is,45 square ft, which leaves us with a net decrease in imperous area of 655 ft or
an increase in 655 square ft of pvious area. So all of that boils down to saying is that if the commission and and as Tim can tell you, we have a meeting tomorrow
morning with your consultant Tim, Lauren, Morren, and uh Cooper um and ourselves to talk about this because they have done um Green has given us their first set of comments.
ments and we have comments and we want to have a meeting to discuss those with them and we wanted all of the town staff to be part of it. Um if the commission so feels that we are
and agrees that we are in a decrease in imperous area when let's eliminate this and this little driveway can have >> over well here's the 100 foot from the riverfront and I'm sorry here's 100 foot
the red dash is 100t from the riverfront so 100t from that roughly 50 ft from here 75 from here overland land flow over this lawn down towards the wetlands and towards the brook to take care of
any imper any impurities that come off of this this drainage area. but that for the site as a whole, the CDM calculations and all of the stuff that you folks went through to granted it or an order of conditions and
a storm water permit addressed that additional drainage and additional impervious areas and their rate of runoff and volume of runoff in their calculations are
less in the built condition than they are in the pre-built condition um through all the storms. So, this is just a general question to get kind of feel the commission. Do you think that it's worth having this basin
in here? Because if we follow through with the guidelines that they want to do this, green wants to have a rip wrap spillway, which the only reason you put rip wrap
in is if you have a lot of volume that's going to cause scoring and erosion. We have this tiny little driveway. It doesn't need that. Lawn's going to work. Green would like us to make this a 4 bay
and expand out into the into the 100 ft riverfront area and up to the 50ft no build zone over here. No disturb zone over here to make yet another basin and then have a rip wrap
spillway between the forbay and then into the retention and infiltration area and then another rip wrap spillway. To me, this is ridiculous. If this was just a single Can Let me finish for one second. If this was just a single family
lot, it wouldn't fall under the storm water guidelines because be way underneath the the threshold for disturbance area and we would just have a paved driveway and then be, you know, having the water run
off towards the wetlands. So, I throw it out to you now. Sorry, Corsera, but I wanted to just bit my last >> Where's the snow storage? snow storage >> for on the drive. >> There you go. And take their snow blower and blow it off this way, this way, this way, or they can plow it straight off.
Whatever they want to do. We don't want it to go into the into the basin unless we don't have a basin. >> Okay, Kyle, thank you. >> I mean, yeah, I was as he started as Bruce was going through it and he showed us the other plans or the the original
NOI, that was the first thing that came to my mind. Why is there a basin? Why are we doing this? We already approved nor conditions without a basin there. How do we go back and expect them to approve or require a basin in here?
>> Just just phys technically speaking, I don't understand how it seems like it's more of a aesthetic thing at this point. People expect to see it, so we have to build it. And what Bruce was just describing that Green is requesting, have fun at that meeting tomorrow. But that that sounds crazy to
put in four bays and rip wrap spillways for three car driveway. >> Remind me and obvious been a few years. How on the original plan did we have three parking spots? We had the driveway there. I never thought this was going to
be multifamily hooked into the sewer. I obviously missed that. It is a it's always been a a single family home with an apartment. So, it's always been a two family and it's it still has that flexibility of being that. How Littleton
Light and Water markets it I don't know. But, you know, they want to be able to break it off and market it. We're back here because we want to get rid of the pool. We want to make the get rid of the septic, get make the connection to the sewer and expand the driveway and a
sidewalk from what they have. And I apologize that I have stripes and numbered parking spaces. They'll never have that there. It's just somebody got carried away in here. One of these spaces is just a turnaround area. I'm only looking to have four parking spaces
off on the on the site for the house. No, it's a two family home. >> It is. There is an apartment on the back. It's a It's a >> So, it's a two family home. >> No more than different than a many of these ADUs that are being proposed all
over the place today. >> What What's Was there a question there? I don't understand. Yeah, I agree. Two. >> No, it's he's trying to suggest that there's too many parking spaces. It's two family home. That's why there's four spaces. >> There's four spaces.
>> Who who originally said this thing in the back uh was needed? >> I'm sorry. What's that? >> Who or was why when did that get put in? Who said it had to be put in that? >> Yeah. I guess why did you design a basin Bruce in the first place? >> Oh, the basin in the first place.
>> Yeah, >> we designed the based. >> I'm sorry. What's that? >> Someone must have thought it was needed. Internally, we felt it was needed. Engineering felt it was needed from the standpoint that
the whole property has this other development in the back. We did not go through it in intense detail on that previous portion of it. knew that there was a proposal for another driveway and were concerned that
because of the development in the back, it would be looked at as a larger mixeduse. We couldn't file as just a single family home and or even a duplex. We could not file for that because it's part of this whole property of land. So
under the storm water management from the state and from the town, we had to look at this whole site as a mixeduse property. And so then we said if that's the case, we need to throw in some sort
of a basin and we came up with the most gentle easy thing that we could, which was this ponding area that would collect the water from this area. Now, when it was brought up at the meeting two weeks ago, look into what your alternatives
are here, and we reached out to Littleton Light and Water and got a hold of the full filing and got a hold of the full set of plans and went through all the drainage page by page. We said, "Holy cow, they accounted for 15,700 foot of a new
driveway. Holy cow, they've already taken a lot of this into account." So hindsight, it's 2020. >> From a procedural standpoint, now that the lot has changed, I know we've added
to the square footage. Does >> what did we add to the square footage? >> Didn't we have to change the square footage of this lot? Didn't we have to carve into a little bit to make it 40,000 to make it an actual approved lot? This lot is still this filing right now
is still part of the whole piece. >> Okay. >> All right. We have not created a new lot yet. We we hope to create a new lot. The lot line will be basically between that driveway and this sidewalk, close to the sidewalk. Um, back across the property
and then forward across here um pretty close to the 25 ft setback line and down to the road carving out a 40,000t lot. >> And when would that happen? When would that happen? And upon all the approvals
getting through your commission and the planning board with their storm water development. >> Okay. >> Tim, did you >> land court filing? So it takes a long time. It's got to go to land court. They have to do their piece and then we come
back to the planning board. >> And then for the order of conditions that's going to transfer to the new owner. Um, my gut is that's a possibility, but I got to believe that Littleton Light and Water is probably going to put the
driveway in so they can sell the property with access. >> Okay. Um, >> I haven't talked with Dave or um Nick about that, so I'm not sure. >> Okay, that's something when we're doing the order conditions to bear in mind.
Tim, I know that you had been tasked to go back um when it was originally flagged for the wetlands. Did you happen to see that all of the wetlands on that other side had been walked as well? >> Uh yeah, I didn't see anything in the
file that that said that they weren't. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Bruce, real quick. So, when you were talking about looking at alternatives and Chase asked you to look into tie tying into the the larger property and
you said, "Nope, that's uphill." So, that doesn't make sense. Now, I'm wondering how did they account for storm water in this section of the property if all of their storm water features are on the west side of this property? Good
question. Let me show that to you. Go back to this page. This area had a reduction by removing this pavement and this portion of the barn.
The driveway they had was smaller than that area. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, it's not that the the site is going to be handling or the the west side of the site is going to be handling the storm water. It's that this property can handle the storm water with the
previous area that it has. >> Right? You you look at you're when you're doing storm water modeling, you look at the site as a whole. All of all of the drainage that comes into here from the drive and goes into the other basin up here, all eventually flows down into here and goes through the culvert
and off into the thing. So your your analysis point is still um Beaverbrook but you have sub catchment areas within the the site. So you look at your
ultimate end point but you look at all the collections in between. So interesting point that you mentioned that with the subcatchment areas. Tim, do you recall when we were out years I mean a year into the project
that in front of the house that we actually had to create an area for water to be diverted to? >> Yes. So that area, gosh, the the lay of that
land has changed significantly since there. >> Um, >> they've got this this whole area. I I'm circling it like I'm the one sharing my screen. >> Um, >> how do I best describe this? >> Do you want me to go to the other plan?
Is that easier? >> Um, I don't think so. Okay. It's Sarah, can you go? Can you can you restate your question again? Sorry, I lost. I I keep coming back to and I'm I don't
I mean I I I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but we're looking at a plan that I just have gone through so many changes on this property and so many modifications that I just want to make
sure that whatever we're talking about of drainage is actually drainage that is there now versus what was proposed because we made any infield changes and one of those was as
we drove in house was over to the right we needed places to put water so we changed the catchment areas and I don't know having not been back on the property since it's been done if things went back to what was proposed or going
forward if water is going to flow as it was supposed to. So I don't know if that makes sense. So, I guess I was just trying to jog your memory, Tim, or Kyle or anyone that was out there um when we had to make some of those last minute
detours for some of the water. Um, so yeah, the section towards the front when you um when you go in on the on the driveway and and look towards the left, which is now the the big detention um basin.
That that changed a little bit since we were there. Um it's >> So I'm thinking beyond that on the right as you drive in. >> Yeah. So there's still that um I don't know if it's is it a box covert deal? So, are you thinking about the culvert,
Sarah? I know they were activating that culvert before they should have been because they needed to move water. >> Is that the area you're talking about? >> Exactly. And I wanted to make sure that cuz I think we put a lot more over there than what was supposed to go. So, I just want to make sure that we're looking at
things based on what is literally in the ground right now. And if there's areas that have been altered that when we think of, okay, this is an area that's just going to have a natural flow and it may have already been an altered area or
we may have added more water into that area from other drainage. >> Yeah, I guess my my gut or my quick response to that would be I think they saw a lot more water and this is something they should have found anyway. There was no excuse, but there was that
495 tiein. >> Yes. >> Right. So that basin is receiving a lot more water. Our the property of this Beaverbrook one area is cut off from that. It's not the water would go through the culvert right and
downstream into Beaverbrook. It can't get to to this portion of the property. >> Okay. And that's what I wanted to make sure from hydrarology that really can't get to it. >> Yeah. I don't think it can because the >> more water, >> right? But the road is a high point. So
it would be in the detention base and go through the conveyance structures and often it' be your brook before it would and I'm pointing at the screen like you can see where I'm point >> I can see where you're pointing to the zone. >> Okay. >> I understand what you're saying now,
Sarah, but I I'm I'm uncomfortable with >> Yeah. It's just that I haven't been back out on that site after all that got done. Okay. Um, so the meeting tomorrow is going to start to go through Green's first round or second iterations of questions,
comments going back and forth. Correct. >> Correct. And basically I, you know, I want to be able to say or not say as the case may be. Let me switch plans here.
that you know if if what if what we're seeing is correct that this previous calculations and this previous storm water filing as part of the NOI and and the storm water filing for the treatment plant
took into account for 1,700 square ft of of a driveway and we increase it a little bit and add the sidewalk into the front door or the side doors. remove the pool and the shed. We're still in more
permeable on the site than there is was yesterday. And do you want a basin or do you not want a basin? I mean, and then do we want to go to the stream extreme of of, you know, putting in rip
wrap or even keep this ponding area that lets water recharge back into the ground. And it's an area that if there is sediment, we can, you know, clean sediment out of, but let's not have rip wrap on it. There's there's not going to
be any scoring of the grass in this tiny little bit of runoff, >> right? You're not seeing flows, right? You're not seeing extreme flows. That's >> I'm sorry. What's that? >> You won't see velocity, right? Like there's >> Exactly. There's no veloc velocity here. I mean, >> so as as part of this discussion, it
sounds like Bruce, you would like to get this get the sense of the commission of which way we want to go. Um, I don't know that we're going to put forth a vote for that um without hearing uh Greens International. You potentially
could ask for a straw comment. Um, but I would not be putting forth a vote for that without >> straw comments all I'm after. Commissioners for my opinion. I give you my opinion.
If the math was showing that a basin wasn't needed, I'm fully on board with not putting in something that requires maintenance and would cause more issues. The caveat to that is you designed one for a reason. And I'm, you know, I not
totally sure what the purpose or if it was just to do do it because we had to or we thought we needed to do it or you actually did it because you needed to do it. Um, so I'm kind of split. I'd rather not have it there is my is my opinion. As long as the math and
hydrarology makes sense that it's not required and and I would say that's probably Green's next step. like they would need to look at that as well. If we decide to say here's a new new idea, get rid of this basin. I would expect green to have to peer review that. Does that make sense?
>> When you talk about hydrarology, did we have a lot of testing in this area? And >> I have no idea. >> Yeah, Bruce, you might know that. So, like I I think Green would fall back on is there historic data that shows that
that was needed for some reason? I'm very I'm um >> if what was needed. I'm sorry, Sarah. I didn't hear you >> in terms of having that basin, you know, like now that you've kind of thrown it out there, do they want to keep it there based on what was there for hydrarology? >> Yeah, that's that's what we're going to talk with them about tomorrow.
>> Okay. I would say as of tonight, I would not lean either way. Um I'd want I'd want to hear what Green has to say first. >> Okay. >> On both ends though, right? Can we give Green that op like or are you going to present that to Green? Removing it as an option. Like I'd want
them to hear that and know that that's an option. >> What's that? >> Tim, you're there too. You can always present it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I Kyle, I'm having a hard time hearing you for some reason. I don't know what it is that we're presenting. We're not presenting as an option.
>> I just I want to make sure all the the you discuss taking this off the plan completely. >> Oh, yeah. definitely are going to talk with them about. Yes. >> Okay. Ed Carl. >> Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. I'm I'm with you, Sarah.
>> Yeah. Don't I mean, it was put there for a reason until someone with more um skill in this area than myself says, "Oh, no. It's not needed. That's not that's not vested in building it." That is um then then I'm inclined
to leave it. >> Okay. So, >> with or without rip wrap bet. >> Well, I can't speak to that. It's not on the picture now. So, >> Oh, well, okay. So, hopefully that was helpful, Bruce. We've got to keep going. Um,
>> I appreciate your time. >> Best of luck. Um, would you like us to carry this over to January 6th or do you think you're going to need some more time to work with um Green? No, we we hope to meet with them tomorrow and have resolution. Um January 6 sounds
marvelous. >> Okay, we'll go ahead and continue there today. Okay, thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. You guys have a great evening. >> Yep. Thank you. Okay, let's go back to um administrative discussions and the next on the list was the hazard trees at
Long Lake Park off uh the Harvard entrance. Who would like to speak to that? Oh, Sarah, I actually want to uh take one out of order because we got some folks here from 3:59. Um, >> yep. Whatever you want to do. >> So, we can, you know, get them on in and
out of here uh quicker. Um, so Joe and Dwight, I see that you guys are here um promoting you over now. >> Sir, there's a couple other people in the attendees. I don't if you want to remind them at 8 o'clock. Okay. Y.
>> So, for those of you that are wondering, we had an 8:00 hearing has been postponed um because we have three members that are not here tonight. So, that will be postponed to January. Unsure whether it will be the 6th or
not. So, um we apologize for you waiting. We had made a kind of comment at the start of the beginning, but we will not be having the 8:00 p.m. continued public hearing. Okay, let's go back and enforcement order for 359 King
Street. Um, so we have Dwight and Joe here. We did have a meeting the other day with Tim, Lauren, and myself to go through kind of current needs as well. Um, working on a discussion with the wetland scientist of when to go out and
um, verify the flags, also come up with cataloging of trees um, for the next meeting as well. So Joe and Dwight, if you want to introduce yourself um with the understanding that we'll um hopefully have a formal meeting on
hopefully January 6th if that if your scientist is is back by then. >> Uh yes. Uh thank you. This I'm Dwight Long, owner of 359. Um thank you for um letting us jump in here, Tim.
I just want to for those who were on the last meeting that I was on, I was sort of in the background letting the person that the wetlands professional uh speak for me and he didn't really handle it the way that
I would like to handle it. I'm I would like to work with the with the conservation committee collaboratively. I know in retrospect that I, you know, took down some trees that I shouldn't have. I didn't intend to do that. I just
thought it was my property. I could take down the trees. Um, and it was, it wasn't for any development purposes. It was to clear the pasture. I have uh some horses or a horse and a couple donkeys coming in in next summer, and I wanted
to use it as pastoral land. Um, I'm working with Joe Catalo. I'm currently working um on our notice of intent for the entire site that we will submit. Uh, I'm not sure when that will be. Um, I don't know what the timeline
on all this stuff. Um, but we hopefully Tim, you'll get together maybe next week with Andrew. I know he's coming back the end of this week. So when we reference Andrew, you're referencing your wetland scientist just
to be specific because we've got an Andrew that's on this committee. >> Oh yeah, Andrew from SAS, he actually did all the work. So we felt that it would be best for him to meet with Tim or and whoever else wanted to walk um the flagging.
>> Okay. >> Yep. And so that's for the review of the um the isolated vegetated wetland um that was noted at at the prior meeting on the plan. >> Yes. >> Yep. So the the the wetland scientist is away. We're hoping, you know, we'd be
able to do it before this meeting. Um however, he's away, so he's not going to be able to until like Dwight said, uh I think next week. >> So going forward, we'll continue this to January 6th. >> Correct. >> Joe, anything you want to say or
>> Yes. Uh thank you board members. I just wanted to make sure that the board members understood that the intent uh that we're we're trying to develop as Dwight said a pastoral look um with uh plant material. We're sensitive to
what's going to be able to be utilized and and what was presented the last meeting was not what was intended and we certainly apologize for that. We are going to be working with a landscape architect as well as to be
working with our civil engineer to come back as Dwight said with a notice of intent to the entire property. And and what that does mean is that what what Mr. Long is looking at is to develop two
ranch ranch style homes that overlook this pasture that are uh right off of the um the property. they are within the um Tim correct me if I'm wrong. I believe there some of them touched the
50 to 100 foot um set back from the wetlands and and our our uh civil engineer oak consulting group will be coming back to file the notice of intent and and illustrate that and and I
believe that Tim does have plans that the board members can see so that they can understand the totality of the development there which is really only two new two new buildings >> and I I think we'll leave that um in
terms of those plans when you and um your engineers are on to kind of be able to show uh the commissioners the full scope of that. So I think an overview is going to be really helpful to understand that with your um which what what is
going to be um submitted but going forward with the enforcement order we're carrying on with working on the trees that were there and coming up cataloging them in terms of dimensions what they were and how they'll be replicated in
the end result of the final plan as well. Tim is that correct? That was Sarah. That was our our un that was our takeaway from the meeting with with you and Tim. >> Okay. >> And also uh Dwight did did find out that
all the trees that were removed >> were red maples. And we have a count that I believe is in the enforcement order answer which illustrated there was I and I'm and I'm going from memory. I
believe there was 13 in the 0 to 50 and the other uh 29 or 32 were in the 50 to 100 uh area of the wetland. So, but they are in fact all
red maples, but we we appreciate your time tonight and um we uh we want to come in with a our our best foot forward here moving forward. And I and I think it's it's helpful that we'll set aside some times perhaps that the commissioners can come and and walk the
land even though snow covered no decisions will be made but that way they can get a lay of the land as well. But we thank you. Sorry to keep you waiting but thank you for joining us this evening. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I know. >> All right. So Tim, let's go back. Um
discussion on Long Lake Park off Howard entrance. I know people have gone by and and looked at that. Where are we now with that? >> Yep. So, um Ed was able to to take a look and and Kyle um came out with me and Lauren um to take a look at the
trees. Um and uh Kyle, if you want to give your Kyle and Ed, if you want to give your um your opinion on the request. I mean, the request is is for them to be taken down. There's
four trees in total that are on Long Lake Park land. Um, one of them is leaning very heavily towards the road. Um, the other three
are pretty vertical. I'll just leave it at that. >> Go for it. When I saw the tree, even the one leaning a lot, looked healthy and I'm inclined to say it looked
healthy, leave it. That was that was where I came down. >> Yeah. Um I agree. Looking at them, they they're evergreens where the bottom looks, you know, they look dead and then you look up and it's all lush and green
tree. Um, what I landed on was we've g we've been given no evidence that the trees are unhealthy, right? We had a letter from tree masters or whoever that just said they're dangerous. They need to come down or something. It was incredibly vague. It was cookie cutter,
clearly pulled off of a file somewhere and just sent. Um, and that was not enough for me to approve removing these streets. if they can go back out and they do some cing and whatnot and can show us that they are in fact rotting inside and hollow or something like that
um then we can talk about it again. I know they had one fall on the property relatively recently and that one that you can see it inside was was rotten and could see why it fell but these don't show that that um that inclination to me at all right now. Okay. Kim, do you feel
comfortable just putting forth those kind of comments from Ed and Kyle and that if they want to do um some more discovery, they're welcome to come back? >> Yeah. Um and and it was brief briefly touched on during the sidewalk. We actually met the um I don't know if it
was the owner um or or who it was out there. We met somebody out there um and we were talking to them about about the trees and we mentioned that the um uh the main concern was the arborist. you know, and and that it was very vague and it didn't go into detail talking about
why the trees were hazards. So, yeah, I can I can definitely reach back out um to those folks and let them know that's the concern and that the commission at this point doesn't feel comfortable approving it based off of that limited information that we've gotten.
>> Yeah. >> Having said that, >> go ahead, K. Having said that, I still think that there's some action items for us or for the land stewards. So, a lot of those trees were fully engulfed in
invasives. Um, you know, vines are very thick and wrapping up throughout the trees. So, they will get choked off eventually if nothing is done. Um, and so, of course, that's our property, so that's something that we will be responsible for. So, we might have to either figure out ourselves with through Tim and Lauren or talk to the stewards
there. Yeah, I can coordinate with with uh LCT and they can and they'll coordinate with the land stewards um into having that area uh at least doing window cuts on the better suite that's there. >> Okay,
>> great. Okay, let's go ahead and jump into Webster Woods parking update. >> Ah, okay. So, um, last meeting we discussed, um, parking for the property, and I'm going to share my screen here.
We discussed two areas. Pull it up. Here we go. Can you guys see this? >> Yeah. >> Perfect. So, we have Webster Woods right here. It's this property. Um Carl came out with us and and Jim O'Neal, we
walked the trail system. Um we were talking about uh the parking over here on Bulkley Road as kind of like a pull-off parking area, not necessarily um official parking spaces, but just like a
pull-off area similar to um Harwood Town Forest. Um, and then the other thing that we talked about was the parking spaces over on 300 Foster and how we had been in touch with with those folks
about potentially having an agreement to have some of those spots designated as parking for access to Webster Woods because access is a challenge for this property. Um and and so we actually met with the uh
with those folks since last meeting and originally we were going to discuss the parking spaces, but it really got more into discussing access from from Foster Street. So give me a second here. I'll zoom in.
And so what what they proposed and and um we definitely entertained because it seems like it could be a very good option is there's a little section off of Foster right here and almost right where this arrow is pointing um where
there is enough space for two and if the area is the vegetation's trimmed a little bit. If there's one tree over here, if it were pruned and if there were some boulders that were moved a little bit, you could definitely fit fit
three uh spots right there. Um and then from those spots, taking this um it's this area is is mode. It's maintained. Taking this um pathway and using it as
access to get to to Webster um right about over here. So, I'll zoom out again. What this would mean is we'd probably need one more boardwalk um and an expansion of of the trail system to connect to the um the trail system
that's there right now. Uh it would be to to cross this section of of boardwalk or of wetlands right here. Um, so wanted to bring that to to you guys and see what you uh you thought of this option.
And it it would go with it wouldn't be a permanent easement. Um, that that's their main concern. It would be we'd have some sort of agreement um where we would still pay some some nominal fee um
and and uh to have the access there. >> Do we know what the do we know fee you're looking at would be the same as the parking spaces? >> We didn't discuss specifics on on the fee. Um just the idea of this um route for access as opposed to um the parking
spaces. >> Is anyone outside of yourself, Tim, familiar with this area in this section over here or just Webster? >> No, no, no. that up by Foster where that
where that parking parking would be. >> The as far as is the commission I I don't nobody uh from the commission came out with us. Okay. I've been to that. I know I know the spot you're talking about. I drive by drive by there plenty of times. >> Okay, cool.
>> I thought this was a non-starter though. I wasn't this one of the first options we talked about and then >> Yes, this is actually where it all started, Kyle. >> But I think it and now we're back. It all started with the idea of a permanent easement here right now to Okay, maybe
this area works, but just uh you know, an agreement, some sort of licensed agreement. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I don't like the idea of having to pay for people to access our property.
>> Well, it could be, and I agree with you with that. It just depends on what if it's a nominal fee, but it could give us some time to then really sus out the parking and the trails over on the property. So, we would be getting kind of access
potentially a little faster, but I agree. We would have to see what that would look like. >> Yeah. The other problem is what happens if people being people, you know, they're maybe not as clean as that, you know,
somebody's just drops a whole bunch of stuff and and the person the owner of the property gets angry about that and we put all this money and effort into the boardwalk. A lot of money to put a boardwalk in and and then they say, "No,
you're done." You know, >> I like the idea of the the the pulloff similar to what we have on Harwood. It works for Harwood. I think we can fit two vehicles there at the moment if I remember correctly. >> Um, and you know, minimal impact. It's
ours. We're not paying somebody for the right to use our propert. I say our, it's not mine, of course, but uh, you know, uh, it just feels like to me that that's a better short-term option and we can do it without anyone's
permission and we don't need to put a boardwalk. At least I don't think we do. >> Tim, your thoughts on that? You've spent a lot of time on some of these. Um so the the access from Bul Bley you know there is the the existing trail head
there. I don't know how many people will be visiting this um property at a time. I will say I think every time I've gone out to it I don't think I've seen uh anybody there but I think that's kind of the goal is to to get people more interested in in using this property
that we recently acquired. Um, so I think having a I mean we could see the park the pull-off parking on Bulkley is certainly in my opinion not ideal. It's something that I think if we'd have no other
options that that we really should have. Um, but I don't think it's ideal and with the the essentially annual agreement, right? um for the the access
from Foster Street. There aren't many I don't I don't think we're putting a lot into the to making this happen, right? It's really just the fee and and highway department if if the the landlord's okay with us making those minor adjustments
to pruning the tree and and moving some of the boulders that are there. You know, we're not putting a lot of effort into um resources into making that happen. >> I think it's low risk. We would need a a
boardwalk. Um >> that's far from low. >> Oh, it's a legal project. I mean, how many boardwalks have been done for free in this town so far, right? There's plenty of people looking for >> if this is one that you're concerned about, then this is the one that we throw out there for a project.
>> But even if we even if we did put the extra boardwalk in there, it's and for whatever reason at some point in the future, we revoked access from that um that entry from Foster. It doesn't mean that we'd have to, you know, we could still keep that section
of trail and that, you know, that boardwalk viable, >> right? It just ends. Yeah. game >> going to Foster Street versus Bokeley where Foster said two maybe three vehicles Bokeley we said two anyway two pulloffs
>> two what do we gain one versus the other or what do we lose you what I'm saying I'm not saying it well >> yeah no I know what you're saying um I just think the parking situation at Foster is is definitely superior to what would be over on on Bolt
>> in what There is it's it's room. Okay. >> If you're pull parking off of So, I shouldn't have compared I compared it to Town Forest uh the hardwood pulloff.
>> And that pulloff is quite nice. >> It's significantly bigger than the pulloff on on Bulkley. Like if you're pulling off on Bulkley, your car might be rubbing up against one of the the small trees over there.
It is pretty tight >> and we don't know where the rightway is for the town road either. Yeah. Like how how far does the rightway go? Where the cars would would the cars be parking on the town right away?
And if the highway department, the highway departments right away, >> it sounds like >> if there's time to kind of when weather's a little more appealing to kind of go out and just look at the two,
three spots because we can really talk about this and look at topos, but until you actually try and get there with your car, uh, if there's no snowbanks, I would encourage commissioners to we can kind of try and do some of those sidewalks if if you'd so inclined or you
know Tim you can drop us a pin of where where that other location is if we have permission to walk on the property offer. >> What what's the current use of that other area off Foster? What are they doing there? Is it just mode? That's it. >> It's Yeah, it's mode and some of the
employees that um that in those office in those offices walk around. They'll they'll take lunch and they'll walk down to the pond. So >> it's like a like a walking Kids are sliding down the hill yesterday. >> Cool. Okay. >> Tomorrow.
>> Let's let's carry on with the next discussion if you're okay with it. We're going to talk about the conservation budget followup. >> Sure. Um so Ed, uh Michael, myself, and Lauren met uh yesterday to talk about
the budget. um and and I don't want to I don't want to speak on your behalf, but I think for the most part um comfortable with it except for the the one
the lake management stuff. So, it was asked of us to submit um originally to put together our draft budget and include lake management items being funds for herbicide treatment at Forge
Pond and Long Lake and then lake management plans for Forge Pond and Long Lake. basically taking it off of the um Clean Lakes Committee's responsibility to request it and putting it to a town entity um to do it.
Met with the finance department, treasurers department um to review our our FY27 budget request. and we got to the like measurement items and they reiterated how, you know, we're in a huge deficit
and they're looking to to find other avenues for for funding things or make budget cuts. And so, um, they asked if these items can be funded through CPC instead. And they can. Um,
and so the goal was then to for us to to put in applications in the spring for the herbicide treatments and um the lake management plans at at those two water bodies. >> So tell tell the rest of the story
though. The plan the plan was to put them on the our budget at $0. >> Yeah. So the what was essentially asked was for them to to not be requested in our budget and and uh be requested as
CPC items in the spring. >> Yep. >> So we would be responsible for these items with no money, no guaranteed money allocated. And I told Tim as far as I was concerned, the answer for if if I'm
making the decision, the answer is no. that that you know I'm okay with putting them on there with the money saying we'll offset that money with grants that we can get uh or if they say it has to be zero then I would put the the caveat
that said if we can't get grants we can't do it but I'm not comfortable with us taking on a commitment that was a to the tune of $158,000 wasn't around the number >> around there y >> um for for for the commitments and I'm not comfortable with us committing to
something with no money allocated to it, >> right? >> You know, so >> I mean that seems reasonable, right? You can say that we're going after grants or CPZ funding. If we don't get it, it gets pushed till next year. >> Yep.
>> Yep. So be it. So >> So I'm not sure, Tim. So, and how you actually >> when we left it, I left it with Tim that I thought if you want to leave it on there with the money and let them
actually formally say no, you can't have it. At which point then we tell them, well, then we can't do them, >> right? >> You know, I I I wouldn't selfedit. If we can get the money, we'll do them. If we can't if they don't want to give
us the money, then we don't take the projects. And it stays with Clean Lakes, I guess. >> Well, is that true? Is how is Clean Lakes still a thing or going to be a thing? >> I think there's a lot of uh
unanswered questions at this point. Um, >> I think that's kind of like a TBD. So, >> okay, let's let's carry on. I I support Ed and Michael if that was what their last um kind of like consultation was to
Tim. I don't want to take the fall for money we don't have. >> Okay. So, so leave it in there and you know at Super Saturday if they tell us they're not going to fund it um through the budget, >> right? >> Then okay, so be it. then we drop it,
take it off the budget >> when I would encourage So Tim, when is that meeting? So to see if Ed or Michael could go to that if possible. >> Um I don't have that date in front of me right now. I I want to say last year it
was in was it January? Um >> can can you try and I mean with the most amount of notice possible? >> As soon as I as soon as I get that date, I'll send that over. It's either January or February. I I can't remember which one. Okay. >> So, what what happened? I mean, I I I
definitely agree with what you were just saying, but we being told that we can use CPC funding for this, too. Like, why would we not try to get that? >> So, it's it's unfortunate that Andrew is not here because I think that there's
you can you can do kind of like a oneandone, but it can't be a long-term maintenance that you ask for this. So the information that was conveyed to me was that this would not be determined to be maintenance if we
>> it would be a plan, right? Yeah. It's a one time plan. >> Yeah. um the the herbicide treatments um I mean the real concern is other towns CPCs have determined after you know x amount of
years all right this is still being requested we're going to consider this maintenance and not fund it >> I was told that >> not maintenance >> how how is it not maintenance you're most likely going to be doing the herbicides every year >> and that's the thing like these these
These aquatic invasive plants that are being treated are presumed to be uh there forever. They're non they're classified as non eradicatable. >> The best you're doing is kind of holding them back a little. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's let's see how this kind of
shakes out. But if you can get us the dates for that meeting, that would be great. >> Yep. >> Let's carry on with um Cloverdale ADA trails. >> All right. Um, so this was just to update um update you
guys. We Lauren and I walked uh Cloverdale with Diane Fry who is the uh the chair for the disability um commission. And the disability commission through the town has received a grant from the state for designing an ADA self
evaluation and transition plan to address barriers to accessibility uh in programs, services, and facilities. And so as as part of that, what they're looking at, what they'd like to look at is essentially making the whole Cloverdale
uh loop ADA um compliant. And so what that would mean is going from the parking lot down to the main boardwalk. We had the Mass Trails grant um for that accessible
trail, right, to get down to the boardwalk. Um, I was told that that boardwalk isn't actually entirely ADA compliant. Um, and so the entire boardwalk
plus the area going through the the the trail going through the forested or the upland area would also need to be boardwalk all the way out to the field um right next to grade road.
And there might have to be some grading um over in that field um to make the grade not as basically compliant with with ADA standards, not not terribly steep. Um I just wanted to update you that's
something that they're looking into. >> So reason Tim they chose Cloverdale is because of the parking >> I believe. So yeah. >> Okay. All right. Is that something >> that that and we already have the the
ADA trail to get down to the boardwalk? >> Well, obviously it's cumbersome for us in Littleton because we have so much wetlands and water bodies and hills that it's not like we have a place that can
be a little bit easier to manage if we were to go total ADA. It's that would be a long trail for sure. Is that longer than Brownwood? Brownswoods. >> Uh, >> I don't know where we're going to get
the parking. >> I don't know if it would be. I don't know if it is longer than than Brownswoods, >> but but is it something we normally do digging into a a field and with the interest of flattening it out and so
forth, essentially sculpting it? Um, doesn't that kind of go against the maintaining the the wildness of it? I guess I don't know what the word is I'm looking for. I'm not I'm not against ADA stuff. I'm just
asking. >> No, but we'd be making impact. We'd have to Yeah, it would there would be some impact areas on that particular property. That's why I just I was curious why they chose that one because there could be other properties we could look at that might be a little easier
>> to facilitate. Okay. So, you're going to get back to us on that? >> Yeah, that was just an update for you guys that that's the property that they're they're looking into right now. Um, and there might be others. I'm not sure, but that's what their eyes are on. >> Okay. Um
Um, and then Kyle, you had a question on Mil Pond that you wanted to chat about. >> Yeah. So I saw an article in in through work um with the dams work that I do. The state is releasing funding for
engineers and owners to do I guess we've like feasibility study engineering work on on dams for removal andor rehabilitation primarily focusing on removal. Um, the article stated that there's seven currently being evaluated and that Mil Pond is one of them.
>> And Tim, you're smirking like you kind of knew that, but I have not heard anything about that. So, >> I was made aware of this today actually that >> Well, okay. Same day I was because I >> Yeah. So, >> when I was over at the water working part time at the water department, this was one of the um the things that I
helped uh one of the applications I helped submit, right? And um I'm not sure if it was last year's submission or if there was one this I don't know how I don't know the timeline. Honestly, I can't even remember if I submitted it last year or earlier this year. Um but I
knew it was is out there. I thought for some reason that they didn't get chosen. Um but yeah, I I confirmed with Matt, you know, they this was from that application um that was put in. Um, and so yeah, they they they've received uh
or they're going to be receiving funding to have the uh the study done and I think it's to completely remove the dam. >> Yeah, I'm pretty sure I submitted a proposal on it at work ourselves because it was seven dams and you assumed you
have $50,000 to to design, you know, a very very rough 30% design or something like that. I just was Yeah. didn't realize that um little pond was gonna be one of them. And I the only reason I well one of the reasons I brought up is I think it ties back into the conversations we had a couple weeks ago Ed with like the fishing that directly
ties into Beaver Brook, right? And so I'm even more reluctant to go ahead and put public access onto that partly lumber plot if I guess you take a further step back. This isn't going to happen next year. That the that dam is not getting removed
for another probably five years at the earliest. the way things it's just that's just how it works with permitting and evaluations and design and everything like that. But so that I'm aware of but I don't know it conversations worth having them then they'll obviously that will be pretty much kept in the loop will have a pretty
big say in how that looks and what goes on as they pursue it. >> Cool. All righty. Um, it is 8:57. If no one has anything else to chat
about, if someone would like to make a motion to close this hearing. >> Then we close there. >> Second. >> Okay. Carl, roll call. >> Uh, Sarah Seawward.
>> Sarah Seawward. I >> folks Ed. Kyle Maxfield. >> Hi Maxi. >> And Kelber. Hi. We have you.
>> We will see everyone in the new year.