everyone to February 3rd, 2026. Littleton Conservation Commission and we're being held over Zoom this evening. Um would like to go ahead and open this meeting asking if anybody has anything they would like to add to updates or administrative
uh discussions. Anybody have anything they'd like to add to the list? Okay. If not, let's go ahead and jump on to approval of minutes from January 20th, 2026. So, Tim, on that agenda, it says 25, but
>> two weeks in a row. Okay. Um, does anyone have anything that they would like to um amend? I just have one thing. Does anybody have anything? >> I >> Okay. On page two, when we talk about non-permitted uh removal of muck, we're
talking about 68 blood road. I'd like to third three approximately, let's see, four sentences down. It said math of two blood road. We should make note that the mats are two and six blood and then
Scott is eight. So just that way we're consistent. I think because work was done on six, was it? Was it not Jim? >> Yep. >> So, yeah, when we just looked down through that, I'd like to because when we make a vote, we mention enforcement
on two and six and then we do for eight. So, I just want to make sure that the narrative follows two and six combined. That's the only um edit I had. Does anybody else have anything? >> If not, can I have a motion to approve
the minutes? that the commission approve the meeting minutes of January 20th, 2026 as amended. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Ed. >> All right. Okay. >> Roll call vote. Uh Kyle,
>> Carl. >> Carl Melberg. I >> Michael. >> Um I'll abstain. I was not present. >> You can still vote. Oh, then uh I they're always well written. >> Excellent. Ed folds I
>> Sarah >> Sarah C word I and myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay, great. All right, let's carry on with administrative decision uh discussions. The first one is CPC application revisions for herbicide treatments and lake management plan at
Forge Pond and Log Lake. Um, I'd like to turn this over to Andrew just to give us a little update from the CPC meeting. Um, if you have a moment, if you want to just bring us up to date, Andrew, that would be great. >> Absolutely. So, uh, last Wednesday, the
CPC held its monthly meeting. Um on our agenda were the four applications that the commission had um approved that Tim had authored um for a lake management plan for Long Lake Forge Pond, Lake Madawanaki as well as an herbicide um
treatment plan for this year for those same lakes. Um so essentially what happened was um all four applications were considered. Uh the lake management plan for Long Lake was approved by the committee. was the first application
that was brought in. It was approved for eligibility and funding. Um the second application was the herbicide um application for this year um for aquatic invasives for Long Lake. Uh we did have some concerns from members of uh the
clean lakes committee that were present and uh that essentially carried forward for the remaining three applications. So, uh, members of the CPC did ask that we, um, essentially reconsider the wording on those applications. The main
concerns uh on the invasive side were that uh the clean lakes committee members that were present wanted u manual uh extraction included as a method uh for invasive plant control as well as uh the potential of keeping the
application um more broad in terms of uh scope like when we'd like to have the work performed. So instead of just saying 2026, it could include the three-year period that the CPA funding would be good for if approved at uh the Springtown meeting. So July 1st of this
year to potentially drop July 1st of 2029. So given that input, CPC didn't really feel comfortable moving forward without us um reviewing the applications that we had submitted and uh just kind of rethinking or um reviewing our
applications another time and perhaps returning at at their next meeting um in mid-Marchch or sorry midFebruary. I don't know what month that is. >> Okay, let's go ahead and have um conversations with commissioners. Uh I see that we have some other lakes people
here in uh as attendees, but would like to go ahead and get everybody's thoughts on this. I thought we were pretty concise with the two herbicide and then the two management. And my understanding, Andrew and Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, this is a a one-year
ask which can be done performed over a period of three years. Correct. >> Yes. So once that money is obtained, it can be uh essentially used for that stated purpose for the three-year period or you know, however long the project
takes to actually uh get done. But uh given our discussions at the last meeting, um I believe that our intention was to get this work wrapped up within the 2026 calendar year and to solely have it be herbicide. Um, occasionally we like to
have applications a little broader with the the potential of, you know, mechanical removal. Uh, but in this instance, we didn't feel that it was uh necessary because it was such a targeted uh calendar year project. >> Okay, great. Commissioners, questions,
comments? >> So, they had concerned that we didn't include that it would manually be extracted. Is that what you said? >> Yeah. essentially making the application broader than we had it just because in the past we've run into applications
that have been very narrow. Let's say just you know herbicide treatment of aquatic invasives and then for whatever reason um maybe we had to go the mechanical route or vice versa. So uh the clean lakes members that were present just wanted to raise that issue
with us that maybe maybe making it broader if you know it was a continuous project might fall into play. But given the um the calendar year approach that we're looking at um you know herbicides
just seemed like the the route that we're going to be taking, >> right? And that's what we discussed at the last meeting and voted unanimously for that. Um other commissioners with questions or comments?
Yeah, I had a quick question on it was the support and maybe we just didn't do enough due diligence. We wrote this and we wrote it as saying we had support from the clean lakes committee. Was that not the case? >> It sounds like we didn't have the case.
They didn't have that. >> It it I wouldn't say that we didn't have the support. Um they didn't they didn't review the applications after we after we um put them together. Um my
like I would my understanding was that they had already wanted to move in this direction and so we were just putting the applications in on behalf of them and and um so that's what we did. Um I didn't think it needed to go back to them for for approval
because I thought this was the work that they wanted to have done. >> Okay. >> So that's just a lesson learned for us then, right? Like cuz I doesn't feel like it doesn't look too great on us. if we came from this >> are we and we had
>> on their behalf because I Tim I thought this whole thing was because the town wanted us to b to to to do this instead of budgeting the numbers but that it was it was conservation commission we weren't doing it on behalf of anyone >> honestly it's it's it's kind of a gray
area um there's a lot of things that aren't terribly clear um right now with this process um we were just we were just asked to to put these applications together and submit them um by by select board.
>> So let's let's be clear that the gray area is not because of the Littleton Conservation Commission. It's because of the board of selectmen. So just for those that are watching or listening, we have been doing things based on a task to to do this. I'm very
concerned that if this isn't put forth for the next meeting that we're going to lose a whole another year. >> Yeah, I I totally agree with that. Um I I don't think this the the scope of this isn't looking at a long-term a long-term plan, right? This is a very targeted
short-term one-year >> very targeted and this is what we've done before, >> right? My understanding was that this was a like going to be an annual thing um and that the planning was herbicides for this year because the permit for the
dredging permit to further the mechanical removal has not been obtained yet and so that wasn't you know going to happen um >> I was going to say >> for this year >> right and I having those conversations with them in the past where they're struggling to get the mechanical and
dredging use allowed I'm totally comfortable leaving that out and proceeding with the way you have it written up, Tim, with just herbicidal treatment. >> Tim is is Tim is the mechanical is it any other type of other than dredging?
>> Well, it's it's various. I mean, I think the main one that they're looking at is eco-h harvesting, but there's other ones as well that they're looking that are included in the their order. Um, I'm not sure if if if they intend to only do eco-h harvesting or if they want
to do these other ones as well, but there's like a suction harvesting. Um, a shoot, there's one more as well that I can't remember, but there there's a couple. >> So, they're talking about bringing like a harvest harvester machine in there. >> Yep. Yeah. Which which they did I don't know
if it was last year at this point, maybe the year prior. um and they had done for a couple years but they reached their their limit and now they had to go after this uh uh water quality certification with the state to increase that limit.
>> So I guess my stand also from the the management plan is that that's a living breathing breathing document and so that can always be kind of amended going forward and should be looked at annually as well. Um, so if CPC has a a question
on the management plan, happy to to work through that and Andrew with your committee with that as well. So it's not I don't feel like that is something that's always set in stone. >> Absolutely. And I will mention too um when it comes to the management plan for
F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for Forge Pond Lake Madawani uh the committee did have a bit of a concern with the overall ownership of um essentially paying the full fee for the plan and not sharing costs with
Westford. So, uh, moving forward, I'm not sure how they'll react at the next meeting, um, if we don't have some Westward buyin for that, but we can certainly move forward and and see where the cards, uh, shake out. Um, but
Westford buyin would be ideal. Um, but I don't know, >> Andrew. Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but I I have tried to connect with um Matt Salem, their West's conservation agent. Um, and unfortunately, we've been playing phone tag. Um, so I I haven't been able to
connect with him, but that is something that we're trying to figure out is do we have support from them? Are they going to be matching the funds? And hopefully we'll have that answer um before the next CPC meeting. That'd be great. And it's one of those
things like this has to get done. So, I mean, if we have Westward buyin, that'd be great. But if not, letting this kind of get kicked down the road isn't ideal. So, hopefully we can maybe convince CPC otherwise if we don't have that Westford buy in ultimately.
>> I mean, is there is there a way to say if we don't get Westward's buy in, then we're focusing on a little side of lake? I I know we've seen the maps and I can't recall the areas of concern of major concern. Um >> I I mean I think that's I I think that's
definitely an option. I don't I mean obviously I don't think it's ideal, but um if that's the only way >> Yeah. If that's the only way that that CPC feels comfortable with this, then I think that's the route that we're going to have to go. >> Yeah. >> So Andrew, what's needed to get this to move forward?
So, um, essentially we're just looking to bounce this off the commission again, um, based off of the, um, input that we received at the CPC meeting just to see how everybody wants to proceed. If you want to have the applications go back to
CPC in, um, actually midmon this month, um, as they were, as originally voted, or if you'd like to include uh, suggestions offered by the C uh, Clean Lakes Committee. too many CLC, CPC by the Clean Lakes committee members that
were present. Um, so how do you guys feel? >> Commissioners, what are your thoughts? Are we should we talk about these one at a time for >> so as far as >> so I the challenge I think we at the
last meeting had thought kind of like we've spent quite a bit of time on these as as have Tim obviously we had some hiccups with some numbers that were in there but um I am concerned with the time frame if we're going to amend this I don't think you would make it to the
next CPC meeting. No. >> So, Andrew, if we left it alone, left it unchanged, would they have outright reject it? >> No. No. >> These are suggestions, but u if we just left it the way we originally designed
it, would they would we still have the opportunity to get some money? >> Absolutely. Absolutely. I think more than anything um given everything that was brought forward to CPC last week, they really just wanted us to take it all in um at our meeting and just say
you know h how do you feel given that input? Do you want to proceed as originally planned or do you want to incorporate the suggestions? So no absolutely if we want to proceed as u originally planned um there shouldn't be an issue. I I would say we we p this year anyway
we proceed as originally requested and you know next year we take keep in mind whatever things they suggested and we try to incorporate them if necessary if appropriate rather that's my thought.
>> Anybody else have other thoughts? Dave Bar has his hand raised. I'd like to get any other commissioners comments before Dave. So, someone online is Littleton meeting one. You'll have to announce who you are if you're selected. Okay. Any other commissioners have
questions? Okay. >> Dave Bar, if you want to speak, you're uh muted at this time. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yep. Thank you. If you could identify yourself, Dave, and where you reside. >> Uh my name is David Bar. I live at 49
Mad Wanaki Trail. Thank you. >> Um did um our uh suggested uh revisions uh get distributed to the commissioners? >> Yes, they were all distributed so
everyone's had an opportunity to see your red line. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks. So um the uh we had a problem uh in the past where we requested CPC funding for something
specific uh in that case it was echo harvesting and uh we went back to the uh committee uh when uh we weren't able to do ech harvesting because this DP had said they
were treating it as um uh uh dredging and we had to have a dredging permit which we didn't have at the time. And so they had to they said we would like to uh allow you to use
that funding for something else. Uh in that particular case, uh we wanted to do a herbicide treatment on Long Lake. and they said because of the way that the uh application was specifically written,
they couldn't allow that. And uh the uh CPC had uh a meeting uh that they um arranged for us the next month uh specifically uh to talk with us about
how to avoid that kind of issue in the future. And uh the recommendation after uh significant discussion was to um that we should be very specific about what the problem is that we're trying to
address but uh uh allow more flexibility in terms of the uh actions that we're going to be taken uh to uh to do the uh to to deal with the issue.
And and in this case uh you know the issue is the uh large level of plant growth in the lake and the utrifications of the lake. And while we are planning to do herbicide treatments on both of
these lakes uh this coming summer, um it's uh we as we've talked about uh with you, you know, um in recent in a recent meeting, uh until we have the plant survey uh which will be done in end of
May, beginning of June, we won't know exactly what the recommendations are for the for the treatment to be. And we won't know exactly, you know, how much is going to be needed to uh to to do the
to do the treatment. And uh if it's written as uh using this for herbicide treatment and if it's written that you know it's going to be done in these months in uh 2026 then if the uh on the ground the
conditions are different than that so that they say well uh you can it makes sense to use I don't know twothirds of it three4s of it whatever and u but it doesn't make sense. to do the rest. Uh
we can't use it the next year and we can't use it for uh we can't use that part of it for uh echoh harvesting uh the next year um uh that kind of thing. So, um
the uh the changes we were requesting were to make the uh make the application be intended to be herbicide, but it could be something else if some of the money uh would was judged to be better
spent for that. and that the um uh uh time frame could be flexible so that uh for instance uh if all of it wasn't spent in 2026 and if the you know the
treatment wasn't performed in July but it would made more sense for it to be performed in June that kind of flexibility was available uh for the um lake management ment plan.
It was also uh u felt that um the specific um elements that were uh appropriate respect to a pond um was missing uh the um a watershed assessment
which is would be important for forage pond. Uh the state says that if a if a a wershed is more than 10 times the size of a lake size uh anything meaningful has to account for what is happening in
the watershed and assessing the wershed and uh forge pond lake maranaki the wershed is 70 times uh so seven times their their kind of limiting amount so um it makes sense that um watershed
assessment would be part of the um part of the lake management plan and uh that um a uh some uh understanding would uh be
appropriate to determine to what extent should should that be done and what what's actually appropriate in terms of uh the the watershed assessment. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Dave. Let's go ahead and see if any commissioners have any questions um with uh Dave's
thoughts, please. >> Yeah, I I would um I would just like to point out that um in the past the CPC has in fact guided Clean Lakes to uh make their applications slightly broader when it comes to aquatic uh aquatic
invasives control over at Forge. um just because projects can sway, you know, maybe in one direction depending on what's available. Like the dredging permit's a prime example this time around um where that wasn't available, so they had to shift back to herbicides. Um, given that
this is very targeted and really meant for a limited period of time, just the calendar year, I I'm one to just typically in this instance just think that what we have written will satisfy what we're looking
to accomplish for this year and we can certainly reapply for additional CPA monies um, you know, at the next town meeting uh, next year. Well, sorry, the next Springtown meeting if we wanted to go with a a multiaceted approach to uh
aquatics uh aquatic invasives over at Forager at Long Lake. But I think for this go around, I think we're we're good with um the uh the calendar approach with solely herbicides. And then just to touch on the watershed part, I I do agree that it's important to address the
watershed component for F forge, but I just think it would expand the scope of that lake management plan tremendously. And I'm not sure if uh the uh the sum that we're looking at um from CPC to
cover that would cover it. Um and it would certainly affect the dynamic of the um the report. Uh Tim, did you have anything to to add to that particular point? >> No. Yeah, it almost I mean in my opinion it kind of seems like a lake or a
watershed management plan would would be something I mean maybe separate. Certainly I don't know if it's feasible to incorporate that into the application now and have that meet the timelines to to get
approved. Um that's that's my two cents. Okay. Other other commissioners, I know Kyle, you had some questions early on or Carl Michael. >> Yeah, it was uh interesting that you said funding for the second one for the management plan, Andrew, cuz I had that
was my thought for the herbicide treatment where we're talking $30,000, right? Or less than that for the actual treatment itself, but maybe we had 39 up to 39. It's with the with no ecoh harvesting
allowed permitted yet to date. And then just the cost of that. I think we're putting all of this into herbicides. There's there's got to be enough level of invasive plants in that lake that will take herbicide treatment
and only herbicide treatment for this go around, right? Um for the the time crunch that we're under and if we're not going to get this in, we have a couple weeks to to get this back over to them. >> I think we keep it till we're getting to herbicides. >> Okay.
>> I agree. I I agree Sarah because the cost of the mechanical iss going to throw the budget because it's just going to be very too costly. >> One of the things about the lake management plan if we're going if they
if somebody comes back and says you really need to look at the water the watershed then next year we're doing a watershed management and that is it's a standalone plan. That section of that report would be three quarters of the report. >> Right. Okay, Michael, >> I was just going to say too, just from
our past experience, and Dave, please correct me if I'm wrong, even if we opened it up to have echo harvesting or suction harvesting or whatever, it's already too late to try to incorporate that into this year's
plan. uh or if we find that the herbicides are not adequate uh we wouldn't be able to get other things in at this time anyway. >> Uh so uh you know if we keep things as they
are now and anticipate you know for a future go uh maybe that makes more sense. >> Okay. Can I see a straw poll of hands who would like to go ahead and just keep this as it was presented and voted unanimously on at the last meeting?
or yeah, >> Carl, what are your thoughts? >> I think we should keep it as is. >> Okay, so everyone through a show of hands saw that. So, um Tim, your directive is to go ahead and resubmit and please keep trying to work with
Westford and see see if they'll do that. Okay, we're gonna move on. Thank you. Let's go ahead to discussion on terrestrial invasive species disposal. Tim, can you bring us up to date on that? >> Sure. Um, so me and Lord have been meeting with some folks over at LCT
talking about the conundrum that is uh disposal for invasive species. Um, not only what we have um pulled on our on our conservation lands, but also for the public. Um, one of the things we've been talking about, I mean, there's really
been two things. It's been the dumpster like one that the one that we had contracted last year over on Long Lake which was an absolute nightmare. Um and then the other option that we've been talking about is um basically
digging a a huge hole somewhere on one of our properties. um having invasives thrown there in there and then a clear um plastic tarp on top of it so that the plants solarize and die. And
it's it's not an easy it's it's it's not a clear solution, right? So, I also would need to talk to fire cuz if that thing fills up, we have to talk about, you know, if we can have burns um in that pit.
>> So, I haven't talked to fire yet, but I just wanted to to get your guys's take on on that idea of of the hole in the ground, if you had any um properties in mind that you think might be best for that. Um, we were thinking about working
it in with the weed warriors actually and saying something like, you know, uh, basically this this area is off limits because one of the biggest problems that conquered has is people throwing things that aren't invasives in their dumpster, right? So, if we have a whole, you know,
that's going to be a concern as well. Um, so we basically say, "All right, maybe once a month for like an hour, either me or Lauren would go there, and anybody who's a certified weed warrior who we can trust that they, you know, have only um uh old invasive species can
come and dump into this um into this whole for that hour, right? And do that once a month throughout the growing season." So, just want to see what you guys thought of that idea. >> So, so these are these are in individuals that would be going to this
site and draw it wouldn't be it wouldn't be it wouldn't be coordinated groups. I mean, we we could certainly use the site for um a place to dispose of the invasives that we pull at our weed warrior events, but we would also the idea would be to expand that to to
the the certified weed warriors that we could trust, you know, are pulling invasive species and they just >> don't have the area to to dispose of them and they don't want to, you know, burn them in their backyard. Fish Fish and Wildlife Service. Uh we pulled we
harvest chestnut out of like the Subbury River or something like that. Um we bring it over to a gravel pit and gravel pits, you know, seem to work. You don't necessarily have to dig a hole. You just basically spread it out on the gravel pit and it dries.
>> Yeah. >> If there if there's something like that in town that would be accessible. So Tim, you mentioned Conquered. Are there any other communities or municipal members that you've chatted with to see
what they do? I know Carlile and Lincoln have people that can pull um you know the mustard greens and and such, but have you reached out to other communities to see what how they're working through this challenge? Yeah,
I've talked to um mainly the communities that are involved in Wood Warrior that are partners um but also some communities that aren't and it's really an issue that a lot of communities are dealing with. Um conquered seems to be
the only one that I've talked to um that has a a solid solution for their town and I can't remember how much but it is very expensive. They they have the dumpster. Um I want to say it's like like $3,000. Don't quote me. I want to
say it's like $3,000 a month or something like that to um and they have a a contract cuz the invasive has to go to an incinerator, right? Um and so they have a a special permit from the state um in in place. So that's certainly an
option. Um I don't know much more about the logistics of that operation. Um I just know my personal beyond that I just know my personal experience with Windways trying to contract that dumpster last year and what a headache that was and then you know it was 2 days
before they were coming to deliver it and they said yeah we need all the invasives bagged when our plan was to to have um DPW come and just use their heavy equipment to put it in the um the dumpster. And you know, we me, Amy, and and others had to go out there and and
and rob and bag all the invases. So, um, so if you're talking about a hole, is it a lined hole and then it's tarped for solar or is it just a hole in the ground that the material goes in and we hope
and wait? I think as long I I think either one would probably work. Um, my understanding is that with the the clear tarp solarizing everything that that you wouldn't have to worry about the regrowth as as long as it's a big enough
hole. Um, but I I'd have to do more research to to confirm that that it doesn't need a liner. But a liner is certainly something that we can look into, right? Like you could place black plastic on along the bottom, right? Do any commissioners have any experience or
knowledge? Have they heard of any solarization projects for weeds? I think it might be premature to start to throw out locations until we know that this is a valid >> avenue.
It's just been something that we've been trying to think of while we've been giving like having these discussions is all right, you know, sure, what if it's a great idea, but we don't have a location for it. >> You know, >> how big a hole are you talking about and how are you going to protect it? How you going to protect people from it?
>> Yeah. What's the liability that we'd be incurring? And you know, it just I understand why you're looking to do it, but it it just feels >> it could turn into a swimming pool. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. Or what happens if
some kid if some kid or some kid's dog ends up in the hole and god forbid now what >> you have to put a fence around it. So, okay. So, you put a fence now that invites kids to jump the fence. just this whole thing to me like a a
potential >> I won't say disaster because it's not that but it just scares me. >> No, I understand you're concerned from a liability standpoint. The the design that we were discussing was um essentially having this tarp held down by like just a row of cinder blocks on
each on each uh edge. I mean, we we and that was just, you know, this is all um hypothetical, >> right? I'm curious time frame in a perfect scenario. If there's some old parking lot that's not being used, if you lay it out and cover it, how long
does a process like this take? >> Yeah, >> that that's the whole reason we didn't we never buried stuff. We always like spread it over like I talk about that gravel pit. And um >> after stuff was dry, I think they I'm
not sure if they burnt it or but it was it didn't take long to dry out in that kind of environment. I like I think sickening in a hole is going to take forever. >> Personally, >> putting it in a parking lot at least too, it's it's it's a little bit of a hill. Somebody's not going to fall in
and, you know, get hurt, you know. >> Okay. I wonder if it would be maybe a potential ask of maybe the school department, maybe at the high school during summer break, maybe one of the lower lots if they're not using it.
Carve out a 20 by 20 spot and boom. >> That's you could do you could do something like that too, Andrew. That would that would work to fence it off and >> Okay, go ahead, Tim. Sorry. >> No, it's fine. Sorry. Um, you'd have to have designated times
when people can drop this stuff off, you know. >> Yeah. Oh, 100%. Right. Um, yeah, that that was what we were thinking. Um, another idea is instead of like going down, maybe building up, right? um
crafting crafting something of our own um that you know maybe the base is is uh gravel where you know you just go up a couple steps. You could throw your your plant material over essentially what a dumpster would be but like our own and and just an area where
people could put it and we can we can burn it. Maybe not actually >> certainly get hot enough if you put in one of those comics boxes over the summer. Shut the door. Yeah. Okay. Good feedback. No, I appreciate it.
We're going to keep >> I would keep >> keep it on for more feedback to just keep this conversation going. If anybody has any other questions on that, let's go ahead. Um 15 P road update.
Yeah, not too much of an update here other than um I I spoke with John um he wasn't able to get the plantings in when he anticipated um back in October, I think. Um so his plan right now is to get them in in the in the spring.
>> Why wasn't he able to get them in in October? And how do we know that he'll be able to get them in in April? >> I I I'm not sure if if he gave a reason. Um I'm not sure. I I I can't recall if he if he did get a re because give a reason. I don't I
don't think he did, but I don't know. >> Ed, do you want to try and put on a parameter that to have a date once we know that the soil temperature is viable? >> I feel that John that that's the only
way to close this. Every every open-ended action has required a deadline for it to be complied. >> I'm not trying to be a jerk either, but this has dragged on for how long now?
>> Yeah. >> You know, >> so commissioners, shall we you want to come up with some language or wording for for Tim uh going forward? I'm not real good at writing that kind
of stuff, but it feels to me what's what's a reasonable planting time, the end of April. Um, last year, last year we gave them until Memorial Day, to move the trailer or do something, I forget what. Um, the
planting should be sooner than that. And if he doesn't do it, then then what? That's my conundrum. >> Then we would start I mean >> you can start the tickets again. >> Start ticketing. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I I would suggest
um Patriots Day is too soon. So, by the end of April. >> That seems Doesn't does that seem a reasonable time to safely plant? I >> think it depends on the soil temperature too though, Ed. To be fair, we make sure
we have a good um >> That's why I'm asking. >> That's right. So, >> is there a better wording? >> I think Tim, you maybe want to look up what that soil rate needs to be and then it has to be in communication like maybe
to come up with give you a plan by April 1st and that it has to be done by, you know, >> whatever the right mid mid May at the latest or something. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, and then add in repercussions if if
that's not followed through with. >> So, okay. >> Okay, Dave, I see you have your hands up. I'm happy to have you talk, but we cannot entertain the CPC discussion again because it's already closed. So,
you're muted, Dave, if you're still on. Okay. All right. Does anyone else have anything else? >> Oh, I would just point out uh tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. uh we're on the agenda for the joint select board uh
Fincom budget hearing. Um we're on for 6:30, I believe. I'll be there for the cemetery around 7:40. So, I'll be there throughout. uh is Tim's backup. If uh Sarah, were you planning to go with Jace >> tomorrow?
>> I'm out of state tomorrow. I have to work on >> Ed or Michael. Um >> yeah, >> were you planning on going? >> I'm planning to be there. Yes. >> Oh, perfect. >> Yeah. Yep. I have it on my calendar. >> Okay, perfect. Great. I'll see you there. >> Excellent. >> Okay, great.
>> Be there. Dave, you are muted. So, I don't I know you had your hand up and I allowed you've got talking permitted, but you're still muted. Okay. Do we have Does someone want to make a motion to adjurnn?
>> We second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Kyle, I will ask I Michael Michael Livingston. I Carl Carl >> Melville. Ed >> Eda
>> Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> myself I we are adjourned