Good evening everybody and welcome to the August 19th, 2025 meeting of the Littleton Conservation Commission. We'll go ahead and open the meeting. Uh first things first, we'll start with the approval of meeting minutes. Um in front of us, we have the minutes from August
5th, 2025. Did anybody have any um edits to those minutes? >> I've said a couple of very minor things on the uh enforcement order discussion for three star Indian Way. About halfway down the paragraph, it says Mr. Dolan
stated that in June 2025, Littleton Electric removed two trees that were on Mr. Dolan's property. So, since he's saying what happened, we should probably have it say um that were on his property and had fallen. And then the very last
thing that I noticed was under the discussion for 48 Hartwell, the certificate of compliance. It says Mr. Pearson, but it's MRT. Period. And that's all I had.
All right. Well, if that's all of the edits, would anybody like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended? >> I move that we approve the August 5th uh minutes as amended. >> Perfect. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.
>> Perfect. We'll do a roll call vote then. Uh Ed, >> Edai, >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle. Oh, Kyle, I think you're on mute. Oh, I we still can't hear you.
>> I >> Oh, there we go. And myself I it is unanimous. Perfect. So, next we'll jump into our administrative discussions for the night. Uh starting with the enforcement order at 04 pond. Is anybody here to
speak to this? I will uh promote Steve and uh share the stamped plan that he has sent over since the last meeting. Perfect. >> Excellent. So there is the stamp plan.
Uh Steve, are you there? >> Yes, I am. >> Perfect. Did you just want to give us a brief uh rundown of uh everything that we're seeing here? >> Sure. Basically uh the last at the last meeting I did not have the plan in front
of the commission. Um and that was all that you were looking for with regard to where I was with um being in compliance with the enforcement order. That was the last portion of what was required of me. So, you now have it.
And I would like to get the enforcement order lifted and proceed with the um construction of the sitting area and the path. And we also had a discussion with um at the last meeting that I would show the
elevations on the asbuilt because Sarah wanted to make sure that I was slightly below the existing grade with the path. >> Perfect. And you've included that on the plan, Steve? >> Um no, that'll be on the asbuilt one once
>> Oh, on the asbuilt. >> Perfect. Thank you. All right. Would um how do the commissioners feel about this? Does anybody have any questions, comments? All right, hearing none. Um, would somebody like to perhaps make a motion?
I move that we lift the enforcement order for zero Fort Pond D 204988. >> Perfect. Do we have a second? Well, I guess we're not lifting them. >> Would anybody like to second?
>> Second. >> Perfect. All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Ed >> Ed Folks I >> Kyle >> Maxfield I. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I. >> And myself I. It's unanimous. >> Great. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Steve. Take care. >> You too. All right, moving right along. Uh, did we want to jump into the Lakeshore Drive discussion or Tim, did you want to quickly touch on 15 powers?
>> I think uh either one works. Um, >> sure. >> Whatever you guys would like. Carl here, I'm going to promote him over. >> Perfect. So, it is um we still got a good 10 minutes before our next public hearing. So, why don't we go ahead and jump into the Lakeshore Drive parcel
U12-14-Z discussion. >> Sure. And so, where we left off at the last meeting was we were going to talk to town council about all of the uh you know, docks, watercrafts, and other things that are installed on on this parcel over on Lake Shore Drive. um and
kind of develop a timeline, a tenative timeline and discuss that at this meeting for what um this topic would look like going forward and getting discussed by not only by us but also um with the select board and also with
parks and wreck. Um and Kyle was able to attend the uh the meeting with town council. Um, and I I can't remember uh if any other commissioners were also there. Um, >> I was there as well, Tim.
>> You were, Michael. Okay. Um, I've put together a tenative timeline. Um, so if you want, I can run through that and we can discuss what you guys think. >> Sure. and and I wasn't sure how much
involvement you guys wanted uh to have with the select board and and parks and wreck if we wanted to do a joint meeting with them to discuss this. Um so in addition to this parcel on Long Lake, there is also another parcel and I don't have the parcel ID in front of me, but I
know that it is located on Queen Road. So it's in between Queen Road and Long Lake itself. that parcel is not under the care custody and control of us but under um the select board and that parcel has I know of at least one dock
on that parcel from what I can see from the aerial imagery. Um so I'm assuming we would want to be consistent uh across you know all town properties with our policy on um on these issues. So, the tenative timeline that I've put together
is we can have a a joint meeting with parks and wreck and select board if you guys so choose. Um there's a select board meeting on September 8th um that we can do or we can have them come to our September 23rd meeting.
Um, we could schedule the public hearing where we actually open this up for for public input uh at our meeting on October 8th. uh or what might be a
better option um because I suspect we would be getting a lot of public input um at this public hearing would be maybe we should have a special meeting um because if we talk about this in addition to whatever we have on the agenda for that meeting we might go you
know beyond 11 p.m. Um, we do have a 3-w weekek gap in between our September 2nd meeting and I believe it's the September 23rd meeting. Um, so we could possibly do a special meeting in between those. Um, we would just need to get this
figured out pretty soon because we need to give ample time um to get something posted in the newspaper. So, we need two weeks um before the public hearing to to have the ad posted in the newspaper and then we also have to give out or send
out the abutter notification to those within the Long Lake neighborhood area. Well, I I'll just mention again that it'd be better to move as quickly as we can without, you know, being inconsiderate just as people do leave
for the uh for the winter and uh you know, if they need to have time to get the uh the things out of the water and what have you. Um I know myself that the water gets cold and uh the sooner the better.
Yeah, it's a good point. >> And to Michael's point, too, I think we want to be careful as well too to gather plenty of input, you know, before acting uh too quickly um as well. Um just to, you know, get a feel for how the
neighborhood feels and uh you know, the practicality of getting this uh you know, plan underway. Um, >> yeah. So, I think council disagrees with that and I kind of disagree with that too, unfortunately, Andrew, where, you know,
right now we're violating the WPA. Um, you know, this isn't a permitted docking docks and whatnot. And it it they were council was very careful to make sure we understood that it's not really up for
discussion um with with town input. We can have we could hold an open meeting, but we're not looking for input where it's like we pulled we did a town meeting, so we made sure we gathered everybody that affected or everybody was made aware and had the opportunity to
hear us, but more so we needed to be pretty direct and say this is what's going to happen. Um, you know, it's not really up, it's not up for discussion. They're violating the WPA by having what protection act with these docs being in place and
you neighbors are constantly asking Tim and whoever for when if and when they can put docks in they're telling them no, right? So it looks looks like there's some special treatment type stuff going on. Um so every made a council made a pretty good point with that.
The uh intent of the meeting then >> I think the intent would be to rather than just throwing a darts at neighbor that the neighborhood to figure out who owns these docks is to post the meeting. So we have to send out notification to
everybody that's abudding the lake there and say we're have a public meeting. We're going to tell you all at once what's going on. you know, you're going to hear from us what the problem is, what the issue is, the concern, and why we're doing this. Um, council wanted to move even faster. They wanted when we
had this say you need to get these docs out within two weeks type thing. >> Oh, wow. >> I think I would be a little bit more imable that especially with Mike's point where people leave for the winter where, you know, if it's a good faith type thing and there's a particular homeowner that leaves for the winter and they say
we'll take it out, ice out in the spring when we come back. that would be fine with me that we we had that discussion obviously with everybody else. Um, but I do think it's something that needs to get put in motion or it sounded like it should be something that's put in motion pretty quickly.
And yeah, so Tim going to your point with like select board versus us going to them and them coming to us, I'd say we go to them because who knows when they would come to us if they would honestly. >> Don't they take the docks out for the winter anyway? >> I don't know. Not you don't have to. I
guess it depends on the dock. So, I'm not sure. >> Yeah, it depends on the location. I mean, >> okay. >> For me, the ice will drag the dock away. Other locations, it doesn't matter. So, >> and I think um we should have it at our
earliest opportunity, whatever whatever that says on the calendar. It's too early or too late rather for September 2nd, then you know, we consider 9th or 16th. >> Yeah. And so it might the only the only thing of going too fast with our next
meeting would be what Tim had mentioned if we want to discuss it with um the select board and parks and wreck firsts and say you know get get their get their support maybe or let them know what's happening um so that people don't go to them up in arms you know pitchforks and
say hey what's going on what is this conf conservation commission doing here >> there's not much they can do about it right >> no I mean yes I'm not saying from a straight, you know, good to have all the backing you can get. No question. I'm just wondering
>> Well, they're involved, too, though. I think that one of their properties on the lake has uh has a dock. So, you know, we need to be in concert, >> so they would be having to remove their dock as well, right? I'm I feel like I'm
missing something here that that uh um you know, we're saying that the docks are illegal. We're saying we want them out of there. And then we get to that point and we say, "Okay, now maybe we shouldn't." >> You know, I don't think we're saying missing something.
>> No, that's why I'm asking. I feel like I'm missing something. >> So, maybe I can help clarify. So, I guess we kind of all want to be on the same page. You know, we don't want Parks in I I already made Parks and Rack and uh Mark Ronacher and Cara Morrison aware
of this is the path that we're going down now. And you know, there's likely going to be some discussions between conservation select board and and parks and wreck about this. Um, and I'm sure you know, they have things that they want to discuss regarding this. And I think that's kind of the point of of having the joint meeting with them right
now as it exists on our one parcel over there, U12140, the one that runs from Beach all the way to Aspen on Lake Shore Drive. Um, there is one permitted dock on that parcel and it is parks and Rex dock that they
installed and got permitted from us. They got an order of conditions. I believe it was last year for an additional fishing dock. Um, I believe the language said it was for fishing and for non-motorized boat uh launch access.
>> Mhm. >> All the other docks don't have permits. they were not there was no approval um from the commission for them to put it up and and so you know we get people that that have called us and said you know we asked you know a year ago if we could put in a doc you told us no well
now there's an extra dock there and you know you guys aren't doing anything about it so >> did did council do that title check is that where that's all coming from >> I meant to check with them today cuz I hadn't heard back I sent them it was only maybe a total of six or seven
including the two on on uh Long Lake. Um I sent them all those the six or seven properties or parcels. Um but I haven't heard back from them yet. So I will >> So just code rail says council was going to do a quick title check to make sure there wasn't some sort of easement
running through any of those properties that you know would lead to a permitted dock. Um they didn't seem to think so, but it was one of those cover our bases, check all the boxes we can. So, they're supposed to be looking into that just to make sure we're not overstepping somewhere that somebody does have an
ease that we don't that we're unaware of. >> Does that make sense, Ed? >> Yeah, it makes sense. How what does it mean to our to the calendar now? So, I guess the two things we should really nail
down are when we have the joint meeting, and it sounds like if we want to go to the select board and have the joint meeting at one of their meetings, their next one that we can get on the agenda for is September 8th. >> Um, I mean, we could get on their agenda. I still think what you had said
about a special meeting, a joint, can we do a joint special meeting like that? I know it's getting even more. >> Yeah, that I mean I don't see why we we can't do that. Um my thought was having the the the special meeting just dedicated to the um the public hearing that we open at at our meeting. But I
mean >> first, you know, on that September 8th and say here's what we're here's what we're thinking so that they don't find out or you know they don't have to pop in on our special at our special meeting. >> Yeah. We It's just you and the select board
talking, which I'm totally comfortable with you talking to the select board, but it'd be nice if the three entities get together and kind of discuss it first. >> Yeah. And in the name of efficiency, if we could all do it at once, a select board. >> Yeah. Get them to come to the that
September 8th meeting. I don't think I I I'll be traveling that evening, so I probably can't make that. >> I'll try to Are they all in person or they >> I believe so. Yeah. So hopefully somebody else could make that from conservation commission. I won't be able
to make that. >> And and so sorry I didn't mean to What' you say, Andrew? >> Oh, no. I was just going to say all right and kind of wrap things up. Uh but Tim, did you have um >> Yeah. So, if we can get on their agenda and have that joint meeting on the ETH,
um are you guys more inclined to have a special meeting to to discuss uh to open it up the public hearing or do you want to throw it on one of our pre-existing meeting dates, agendas with other, you know, all the other items that are going to be on that agenda?
>> If it was able to be time boxed so quickly, >> that's what I was just going to say. If we put it on one of our our normal meetings, we kind of have a a set time frame, right, where we can not necessarily be rude, but say we have to move on from this. >> Yeah. >> You know, if there's a reason to continue having that discussion again,
then maybe. But >> the only downside of doing that, Ed, would be if we do say we only have 15 minutes and then there could be some >> sure >> uproar that not everybody got to speak their mind. Again, not that it really matters. I'm willing to listen to people, but it's not it's not going to
change the outcome. The one question I could see coming from folks though would be you gave a special permit to park and wreck to put a dock. So, how do I get a special permit? That's the one question I can see that we we need to have a solid answer for. >> That's I think simple enough that that
special permit is for the town use. It's not a private privately used dock. So, I'm comfortable saying that. >> No, I'm just saying that question will come up. >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So, okay. So
would you guys want to do this on open this public hearing on our September 23rd meeting? that makes >> seems to make the most sense that way like Michael said that I don't know I don't know when people leave Michael but that hopefully will give some f and
we've we can discuss maybe at our next meeting what the what the duration of that what that time frame will be when we say hey got to get rid of these docs and that two weeks seemed pretty aggressive to me. Um, >> even if folks are leaving, we're remote
so they can dial in. >> No, no, it's about when >> just whether they find out about it or not. If they find out in November that they need to take they've already gone south, then it doesn't help. >> I was hearing it from a different view, but I get it.
>> So, but we can have that discussion maybe at our next meeting. If you can keep this as an administrative item and just kind of firm up more of those details that way we can move on and kind of >> Sure. And Tim in the meantime if you could reach out to the TA's office and perhaps get us on the next uh select
board agenda at least tenatively then on the second we can kind of rehash this and and just uh come up with a game plan from there. >> Yep. We'll do. >> Perfect. Thank you. All right. So it is now 7:51. We'll go ahead and open up our
7:45 p.m. uh public hearing, notice of intent for 87 to Hadelon Road, construction of a two family residence. >> So, Andrew, they actually um requested a continuence. Um so, if we can open and close that and continue that to the
September 2nd meeting. >> Perfect. So, we um we did officially open the hearing. So, we'll go ahead and continue at the request of the applicant to September 2nd. So, our next public hearing isn't until 8:00 p.m. for 97 and 99 Mil Road. So,
why don't we circle back to administrative discussions? Uh, next up we've got 15 powers updates. Yep. So, um I have been in contact with uh John McGen um and been out there a
couple times in the last few weeks. Um I was out there on Friday and at that point um the whole slope and the uh the top of the slope had been lommed and seated. The slope is temporarily temporarily stabilized with uh with
straw. Um and John's timeline on the rest of the restoration, which is the planting of the the bushes along the toe of the slope, he um said he's looking to do that in September or October. So, Ed, I know you wanted an update on
on the timeline um that you requested at our last meeting. >> Cool. >> Thank you. Things are moving forward. >> Yeah, it's good to hear that there's progress being made in the slope. Okay, Tim, when you did you see it or did you just talk to about >> When I saw it, it was freshly loomed and
seated, so nothing came up. I got a phone call from John today actually saying that the u the slope is already starting to vegetate um with that that rain we got um something >> I was just hoping it was stable vegetation eventually I'm sure
>> it actually survived the um the downpour that we had was it I don't know Wednesday or or whatnot. Um but it was it was remarkably stable for the torrential rain that we received that day. That's great.
>> It's got to get through tomorrow, too, right? >> Is it heavy? I heard there was rain tomorrow. I didn't hear how bad. >> The draw. >> All right. And our uh next item is the oak um Oakill updates. And did you have a couple of updates?
>> Um yeah, so um I'm sure you guys heard there were a couple fire incidents at um Oakill last week. Um we or I I've been talking with uh Fire Chief Steel Mccertie um and he's putting
together a plan of some locations that could use some ma maintenance um to improve the uh the access on the fire roads. Um so once he has that put together, I'm going to bring it to you guys and we can discuss. Um, it sounds
like it's it's not going to be anything too uh intense. Um, but just things that probably should have been done uh but >> but that was that. >> Excellent. We are very efficient tonight. We still have five minutes, six
minutes actually before our next hearing. Look at how good we are. >> It's the >> Is it the chair? Hey, it's the board. It's the board. It's not the slightly smaller agenda.
>> It's It's been this small of an agenda. Had a busy summer. >> I know. It just doesn't feel right. It's like, "Wait a minute. Hold on. We're missing something here." >> Yeah. Uh >> Tim, did you have any other updates? Uh for
>> Let me What do we have going on? I haven't heard from Oh, sorry, Carl. You had something. >> I was going to say, was there any update on the on the orchard or is that just um is that just moving along and I haven't
really heard much on it >> about the about the parcel or about the uh like the parcel that >> the whole thing? >> Oh, yeah. I don't have I don't have any update on it. um saw something about it
was leased to some somebody or other and >> Indians uh communicated with him about the Nishoba brother. I I don't have their I don't >> Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying if anybody had untangled all that.
>> Yeah. So, Carla, I do know that the property was uh leased to uh Bransfield, I believe, is the name of the the tree. >> Yeah. Yep. So that's currently in effect. Um and I haven't heard anything more on um so Tim the parcel that was
transferred to us at the last time being >> um >> so so the main the main part of the orchard is currently leased at this point. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. And I they are meeting with the with the Indian group from what I have
read anyway. H >> what that'll end up doing. I don't know. >> Do Do we Do we know what the term lease is by any chance? >> It's been a while since I've looked at the lease, Carl. I'll have to take a look at that.
>> I kind of lost track of it though. So, >> did we come up with any more information on the workers credit union parcel? Um, I know we saw the conditions or whatever, but um, does it allow them to
build on that other side where it's all wet? >> No, shouldn't. It's expired. >> Okay. So, then how are they? I I guess you just looking to sell the land right now, right? At least the land. So, nothing will happen until they
lease it and then whoever they lease it to will have to come in front of us. >> Okay. whatever whatever their plan is, right? >> Sure. All right. >> Well, I guess in the matter of uh you know, killing time, uh not that it's of, you know, any really
huge importance, but um Oak Hill, I believe it's the crossing of the yellow and the blue trail. There is a um a ground a ground nest of yellow jackets. >> I went out there yesterday and uh
sprayed them. Um we had I think it was one of the land stewards reported the the nest to us. His dog actually got stung I think like 10 times walking over it. Um, >> and he uh actually went back to that um
that uh section and put up uh signs, little temporary signs in the ground saying that there's wasp and and to to be aware and I after so I I flagged off all the trails, all four of those trails um leading up to that intersection and
they should still be flagged off. I'm going to be going out there on Thursday to see if it was uh effective. Um but for now, that that area is temporarily uh closed off, >> as well as another section of trail that
I got to yesterday over uh the trail that runs from Wellington to Great Road. closer to Great Road behind the houses on Dean Lane, there was a uh a baldface hornets nest that I actually walked
about one foot from. Um, remarkably did not get stung, but I also sprayed that one and uh ran to the car. So, that that section of the trail is also temporarily >> just heard something else about those those particular ones. And apparently
they can remember a human. So like them like when you gone back out there they would have remembered you apparently like they >> would your door Tim >> I'll have to send Lauren out on Thursday. >> We do have a uh a hand raised
>> and uh did you have a question? >> All right. Thank you. Um, just a quick question, I guess, uh, because I'm looking on your agenda and I notice there's no public input or public anything. Am I reading that correctly that I'll need to save it, I guess, for
the next meeting? >> Did Did you have a a question or a statement you'd like to >> I'm just I'm trying to clarify from some earlier remarks um about well, two two specific ones. Um,
when will that special meeting be or was that I kind of got lost as as the conversation was going. When will the special meeting be between the select board parks and Rex and your committee about uh Lakeshore Drive in that area? >> So, tenatively it appears it's September
8th, Sam. Do I have that date right? >> Yeah. So, we're going to try to get >> right. >> Yeah. It's not going to be the the the already set meeting. Um, the next select board meeting is on September 8th and we're going to try to have a joint meeting with the select board and and parks and wreck at that
meeting >> and then it'll be raised at our following conservation commission meeting, our regularly scheduled commission meeting, >> the 23rd. >> Yeah. And did you have another follow-up question? >> Yep.
>> Yep. Sorry, I couldn't figure out if I was muted or unmuted for a second. Um, and I guess one of you, and I apologize cuz all of your faces are fairly new to me. Uh, one of you had stated that the docks around the lake, um, the only one
public is right by the park, and I'm sorry, like by basically on the beach, right? And I'm well aware of which dock you're referring to or so, I think. Um, are I don't think there are signs for any other docks around Long Lake claiming that they're private. Maybe to
the right of the beach when it's people's property, but was that just assumed that other people um have made them private or was that a a public statement? I guess just as I clarify,
>> it was probably me. I did a lot of that talking. I guess I would assume that it would be whoever installed it had installed it for their own use and didn't say welcome town. I put a dock in for you for everybody. >> I just and then I'll stop because I know
you guys you have something at 8:00 I think I read on your agenda. I've overheard you but I know that I've seen parks and wreck use not just the dock on the beach but other docks with their programming. So, I guess I'll be uh tuning in specifically to to hear and
maybe they don't even realize that their instructors are using a variety of the other docs. I don't think I've ever seen the docks be rejected by people in the neighborhood as I'm walking my dog along the lake. Um I don't have one of the docks, but it's just a a point of
interest for me. So, just wanted to clarify. Thank you. >> Gotcha. Thank you, Ann. >> All right. So, we'll go ahead and we'll um open up our 8:00 PM continued public hearing notice of intent. Uh 97 and 99
Mil Road, DP file number 204-1022, construction of an electrical equipment area. Is there anybody here to speak to this? >> Yeah, I'm promoting over everybody right now. And Chase, good evening.
>> Hey y'all. How you doing? Sorry I'm late. >> Oh, no worries. >> You better not slow us down now, Chase. We've been on a roll. We're on time. >> Sitting on a train. I don't think anybody wants to listen to me yammer on. Anyway,
>> good evening everybody. >> Dave Ketchin, uh, AGM from the light water department. How's it going? Um, I've got with me tonight Steve Burn, Dan Severs, um, as well as Matt Silverman from the water department as well. Excellent. Welcome everybody.
>> Do did you guys want to jump in? >> Um Steve, do you want to kick things off? >> Um sure. Um, first, uh, Michael, thank you for, uh, bringing to our attention
that that Novvec 1230 was, uh, discontinued, but we've had a lot of discussions with, uh, Samsung and LS Energy Solutions. And I did forward what I tried to do was an overview um about what we had what we have learned
and what uh Samsung and LS Energy Solutions are doing um you know in case they have to uh replace any of those chemicals in the future. um what they're doing to make sure that they are compliant with um you know any
replacement solution or um materials to put in to the container if it uh were to be uh discharged. I think that was the the main question and the main issue that came from our meeting
if I understood it correctly. >> Yep. No, that was definitely something we talked about and um you know I did see the summary uh Tim forwarded that along for us. So I appreciate that. So aside from that I think um the deputy
chief is uh seems supportive um seems to really understand um what their response would be like. uh he doesn't have it uh defined but he seemed to be uh pretty well educated uh from my perspective in terms of um you know how the fire
departments are are reviewing these. So for for whatever that's worth for you guys, he seems to seems to really understand it and seem to be educated and have some uh resources behind him. So >> excellent.
Did we um did we have any follow-up questions for Steve or Dave or or Dan? >> Yeah. And Andrew, I had one. I I because I wasn't able to make that meeting last week, I had a conversation with uh Dave and Matt about the use of this chemical
which has recognized ecotoxicological effects. At least that's what the safety data sheet says. and the ability to use this chemical safely in a watershed. And Dave, I don't know if you guys had contemplated changing out the design in some way. It
looked like the alternative chemical that Steve is proposing to use is the same chemical just a different manufacturer that is the same chemical structure. So, I know you guys were looking at or thinking about, do you have or need additional storage capacity? Um, and I'd be curious to know
where you guys got to with that. Um, I'm going to have to kick it over to Steve and Matt. I missed that meeting as well, Chase. Um, so I my wife just had a baby, so I've been out of the office. So I don't know, Steve, if if you can touch on that. Was that touched on at the
meeting on the site? >> Uh, it wasn't. It sounded like Chase was asking something directly to the water, something about the water department and concerns about it. So, we're not proposing to use any alternative for for what Samsung has uh certified
and all the you know certifications that are going to be need for us to to show and uh you know construct this storage system. Um they're not proposing to change that. The FK5112 I think is what you're referring to Chase that would be something of a
replacement if they did not have any NOVc 1230. So um I think the question is more towards the >> replacement in a manufacturing. >> Yeah it I want to be clear though it's a replacement in a manufacturer context. It's the same chemical.
>> Correct. Yep. Agreed. Yeah, Steve, what what Chase, myself, and Matt had talked about was looking for an alternative that did not contain that chemical um or some sort of containment, whatever whatever, you know, solution we could
think of that that would alleviate this this issue. >> And maybe I I started on second base here. So, let me explain where I'm at. My concern is that this chemical in the fire suppression system has recognized
ecotoxicological effects and we're proposing to store it and use it to put out a fire if needed in a delicate ecological resource area. So my question was, do we need additional storage capacity?
Can we replace this chemical? I don't care who manufactures it with a different chemical that is not ecologically toxic. Um something else to I'm I'm open to alternatives here, but I'm a little concerned about using a
chemical in that has ecotoxicological effects according to the safety data sheet in an ecologically sensitive area. >> Okay. So um yeah David Dave and I had had talked through this uh before and I
I had you know stopped looking at other solutions. There are other battery energy storage systems that don't use the NOVc uh system. They use different forms of suppression or some don't have any suppression at all. Um
but though that would change the footprint and we were you know looking to continue along with with this solution. So, I I haven't reviewed any of those. We there are certainly other options out there. Um, we can certainly look at containment if we want to look
at that. Um, I I my understanding was if and I I'm not an expert on fire suppression at all. My understanding of this chemical was that once it's discharged, it actually vaporizes. So, I don't know if that changes, Chase, what you're thinking is going to happen uh
within the environment. I have no idea. And I I respect what you're what you're asking. I just my understanding from what Samsung and LS said was that if it ever if it ever leaked within the container, which is a concern, they have that containment within the within the
container itself. Um and if there was ever a a fire, then this would discharge and it would vaporize. Um so I I don't know if that would affect um if it would be sprayed afterwards. I understand
that's the I understand the design application, but it is nonetheless stored as a liquid. It doesn't instantaneously vaporize. Um, and and we're talking about using a chemical in an ecologically sensitive
area. And I think my two cents, and maybe the rest of the commission feels differently, but my two cents is we should explore what other alternatives are available here. it. I'm more than happy if the rest of the commission wants to go forward, then
>> we can just put this on a shelf. Um, but I I'm concerned. >> Just to jump in here, Tim, can you repromote Matt? Um, he was >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> Presenting the light and water department at this meeting as well.
>> JS are waiting. I I totally agree with you. I mean, if there's an alternative that can be used that doesn't have these forever chemicals, then I think that should be explored to the fullest. Whether that's having to increase the footprint or if it means not using it to and then add in containment. Um,
it just seems like the smarter alternative for the town and for that resource area. So, >> we did talk early on, I know I asked about uh containment or, you know, something and it was basically said we don't need one because of the units that
are going to be on the slab and whatnot. Maybe this just revisits that. How do we contain it if it comes out? >> So, I I do see that Matt is um with us now. Good evening, Matt. >> Hi, everyone. Sorry, I had to rejoin because my uh camera wasn't working on
my computer. So yeah, I mean yeah, I can kind of just weigh in from um our perspective as far as what we kind of look for. Um, obviously it's different from what you guys are looking for from a conservation standpoint, but typically with any types
of um, projects like this in the water resource or outer protection district, we're looking for potential impacts to human health if there were, you know, if there was a release and it got into the into the uh, groundwater system. So, we
looked at the SDS also from that standpoint. We didn't see anything specifically concerning as far as human health, but as Chase mentioned, you know, this is this is kind of a gray area because obviously we don't want PAS
contamination, but PAS is thousands of different compounds. And as far as what what we review, um, you know, we we go pretty strictly with the town bylaw. So we kind of consider like the the six regulated compounds in terms of drinking
water standards to be you know hazardous chemicals or toxic chemicals. Um I didn't I didn't really see anything in the SDS related to ecotoxological properties. I know Chase, you had mentioned there was an SCS for either
the same chemical or similar chemical that had explained that a little bit better cuz I think it was sort of, you know, not addressed in the SCS we received. Um, but, you know, as far as the water department review, we had we definitely had some some good
conversations with Steve and with Dave. Um, we did we didn't consider it that we could classify it as a hazardous or toxic chemical use. Um, but typically for any type of concern with release, you know, we would definitely want to
have uh containment and then potentially secondary containment. So, I know we talked about having like a tight tank on site, but I think there needs to be a little bit more clarity as far as if
that compound was to be released um as a liquid and the fire department were to, you know, treat that as, you know, a uh exercise in spraying water to prevent the fire, then obviously you have a huge
volume of liquid. Um, so we'd have to get a little bit more information on how they would actually be extinguishing the fire there cuz in terms of what was proposed, I think there was enough storage for the actual liquid itself. But then, you know, if you introduce water mixing in with that, that's a
different story. >> Thank you, Matt. And I I would agree with um Chase and Kyle. I mean, that does seem like a very valid uh thing that we should perhaps be looking into for the ecological value of the site. Um, did anybody else have any comments
on this? Um, not so much on the uh chemicals. I was looking at uh just the site layout and uh researching see that there's a um guideline or regulation about
uh there needing to be 100 ft around the uh the storage systems and um you know looking at the map that's um definitely not the case. Uh so what
is it particularly it's uh NFPA 855 uh so I was hoping you could talk about that and whether you know does it apply in this case is it something that needs to be addressed in the uh in the layout.
I'm not I'm not sure what you're referring to, Michael, but the every time I hear 100 feet, it's uh basically New York City and has to do with the residential and being very uh dense population. We don't run into 100 ft uh
setbacks for anything um that that I'm aware of. Um there are setbacks that we have. I think it's like 10 ft. There's setbacks between the containers. there's setbacks to the fence, but I'm not aware of anything saying that we need to be uh 100 feet from anything. Uh another fire
department that we're working with uh referred to he wanted um they were talking to us about dry piping, which your deputy chief was not interested in. Um and he wanted it to be 100 ft from the closest Bess and that was related to
what you're referring to. Uh but there is nothing that I'm aware of as a regulation that says you have to be there has to be 100 ft uh set back from from everything. >> Yeah. Well, that's um like I said, NFPA 55 uh says it needs to be 100 ft from
any structure from uh the lot line. Uh really anything of consequence. >> Yeah, we we're NFPA 855 compliant. I can look at that, Michael, but I think it has to do with uh um like residential and New York City specific, but I can
look at that. >> Okay. Well, I you know, if nothing else, then for clarity, I I am trying to understand it myself. >> Thank you. >> Back to this this concern about the ecological hazards. You're you're right,
Steve, that the 3M SDS doesn't say anything. it it's sort of obtuse about it. It says contact 3M to get information. The globally harmonized system of classification and labeling the GHS classifies this chemical as quote harmful to aquatic life with
long-lasting effects. So that hence my concern about whether or not this is something that we can find an alternative for or we can find storage for so it's at least contained in the event of a fire.
Thank you, Chase. Uh, does anybody else have um a comment or question for the team? Do we have any uh public comment or question? See a couple of people in the audience. All right. So um perhaps uh moving
forward with this um in terms of direction for the team, it does seem like exploring an alternative for this uh chemical or um perhaps storage uh would be appropriate for the next meeting. Um so did I suppose we'll
continue this until um sorry I don't know what month it is September uh September 2nd. Is that okay with the team? All right, with your permission, we'll go ahead and continue to that date. Um,
and uh, we'll work on that uh, next time around. But thank you everybody. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> And congrats, Dave. >> Thank you. Back to it. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. All right, it is now E20.
We'll go ahead and open up our continued public hearing. Notice of intent, Frog Pond, Zero Lake Drive, and Zero Lake Shore Drive, DP file number 204-1026. Is there anyone here to speak to this? >> Yes. >> From Tyen Bond. Um, and we also have
Jean Christie from Ty and Bond tonight. >> Welcome. Good evening. And I see Steve is also here. >> Yep. >> Perfect. Did you want to go ahead and jump into things? >> Absolutely. So, we went on a sitewalk
with um many of the commission members. And based on that walk tonight, we have two different plan sets. Um, we have the kind of original design that we showed
at the last meeting with a few edits to it. Um, just based on what we had been asked about, you know, things like bringing in the specific color coding to make it easier for everyone to read.
And then we have an option B which incorporates a few more of the suggestions. So, I'm going to share option A first just to remind everyone what that site layout looked like and then I'm going to share option B so that
we can see the differences. >> Excellent. >> So, can you see that now? >> Yes. >> Okay. So this is option A. And the primary things that have changed on this
one is that we updated this staging area to more accurately show the available space and we added this lawn area here as some staging to make up for that. Um, but otherwise we've really just added in
uh the coloring for the different resource areas to make this easier to understand. Um, so this is the forbay area that we're proposing to take the excess sediment out of. This is what we
had originally proposed for um temporary storage of that sediment. And then these are the layown areas for um walkway materials to redo the walkway. We also added in this segment of the walkway
that was previously missing. Um so that's the original layout based on the conversations during the walk. We
this one are proposing instead of having a lay down area here where there's a lot of trees and it's really hard to get over here. Um, we actually realized that this
parcel is also owned by the town and is all grassed. So, it's much easier to temporarily store that sediment over here um and much easier to restore when the sediment is gone. So we
that's that's the big difference um between those two plans is that we've moved the sediment storage over to this lot across the street. The other thing that we did is we had a a really good discussion or a really good point was
brought up about that this bay area part of the problem with it is accessing it. So, we added in um some permanent access in these two spots
so that the Department of Public Works can continue to actually maintain this for bay as regular maintenance. So those are the really primary differences between what
we had originally proposed and this. Um so with with that I think I'd like to turn it over to see if there are questions. I think our hope is that this meeting can move forward with one
of these options. >> Thank you. So, uh, just to recap for the rest of the board, um, Ed and Sarah and I went out with Lauren and, uh, Steve, uh, on a site visit a couple of weeks ago and, uh, we did walk out there with the original plan and, um, I think one
of our major concerns with option A was as you're coming down Lakeshore Drive, um, the plan involves essentially taking down a number of trees to access, uh, the top left corner of this uh, site. Um I'm not entirely even sure if the property line was where we thought it
was in terms of town land. So it was problematic um on that side as well as um you know storing material so close um you know in the wetland uh buffer within the 50oot was a little um troubling for
us as well. Um and that's how we I mean we essentially looked across the street and said hey wait a minute this is a concom field across the street. Why aren't we storing sediment over there? Um, >> but Ed, did did you have a anything you wanted to add? >> I just wanted to note that you don't
have the plan. This plan does not reflect the the property line concern. It it acts as if it's going straight out to the retaining wall when in fact we saw property markers that suggested that wouldn't be able to happen. Um,
but as for the alternate plan, um, I I am I I got on board with it with one major caveat that that be restored to its current state when they're finished. And they everybody said yes, that wouldn't
be a problem. I just want to make sure that that's in the condition somewhere. So as uh the fact they're taking another strip of of on the right hand side to for additional storage that needs to be restored back to its condition as well
when they're finished. >> Absolutely. It's it's substantially easier to restore a grass area. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. >> Definitely happy to do that. >> And Ed, that's a very good point. I mean, in looking at this plan, I mean,
it makes it look like there's a a pretty wide um area between the the existing path and the property line when on site. I mean, it was a very tight area, >> right? >> Oh, yeah. >> Perfect. Um, did any uh commissioners have uh questions or comments about
either plan or any suggestions? >> I had a question, Andrew, Maria. the sediment deatering that you're proposing to do there. What how are you going to dewater that? How are you managing the water and where is the infrastructure going to go to do that?
>> Um, so it's a pumping bypass system. So we have a here I'll I'll zoom into this to make it a little easier to see. We'll just the for bay. So there's a coffer dam that we're going to set up here where the pipe is that enters the for
bay. And we're going to put a pump right in there when we make the coffer dam with a a hose. And there's a discharge dewatering bag that will do some filtering. And then it will be redirected into the main part oops sorry
of the existing uh larger wetland. So the water is going to go exactly where it always goes. It's just going to skip this basin. I guess I'm I was more asking sorry I
should have been more clear about the sediment processing and storage area to the west. It looked like it referenced dewatering over there as well >> on the the other parcel of of land. >> Yes. So we expect that there's going to
be some water in the sediment. Um what we had proposed and what we discussed at the last meeting was that the outer edge of this um containment will have some lining in
it to keep water from just like gushing out so that the water will essentially be directed downward as far as filtering. So that's how we're proposing to manage the water. I mean there's there's >> Okay. So, you're proposing to reinfiltrate that water in that footprint?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Do you know that you'll be able to actually get that water in the ground? I The reason I ask is I know many of the septic systems in this area are mounted because the groundwater elevation is
relatively close to the surface. >> Um, I'm going to pass that question to Jean if you don't mind. >> So, no problem. um because this is happening on the surface isn't isn't an excavated basin, you know, like a storm water basin. Um I don't think
groundwater will be an issue. I we we are we are hoping that when we if we when we do this sediment removal, it is at a dry period like we're hoping that we have a solid dry period for once. Um and that you know the the sediment that
is coming here to be dewatered is isn't just like wet mud. um you know so I don't think the the volume of water we're actually looking at here is is that substantial um and it is a temporary feature so like the impact to groundwater I don't think will be there
if it was a longer duration multiple applications of wet sediment then we'd have you know a concern about maybe what groundwater impacts might might look like I I appreciate what you're saying we don't tend to approve designs based on hope
>> this isn't a storm water management system either. So, it's like, you know, it's it's it's there for a couple months. Uh it's not a permanent feature. Um and because that's the existing surface and where existing groundwater is, it's
just like having your hose running a little bit kind of just how much water is coming out. Um I still don't think that it's it's it has an impact to groundwater because of the short duration of saturation. I what's your be I appreciate that you don't think that.
What I'm trying to understand is why don't you think that? >> Because the basis for that conclusion. >> This is um you know we have to be able to take this sediment out from the sediment forbay. Um if we're if you know when we schedule this work having it
happen where we've you know pumped out the water from you know the the actual sediment for bay it starts to dry right there um from evaporation maybe not infiltration at that point as you're moving the sediment out water is also falling out at that location too. I
think I think we're trying to solve a problem, but we don't know exactly what the water content of the sediment is going to be. I don't think we can predict that uh without fully dewatering that
sediment for bay for a long duration of time to make sure that it's as dry as it could possibly be. >> But at the same time, we can't really move super waterladen sediment. It's not like we're moving the water over there. We're moving the sediment over there.
>> Is it any different, Chase, putting the the sediment, say, here using this plan versus putting it where the first plan proposes, they still they both will still have uh some amount of water in them that will still infiltrate into the
ground. Um, and we're talking what, couple hundred feet difference between the two. Um >> I I and I would have the same concerns regardless of where it's located. >> Right. I just wanted to make sure I understood. >> And and Gene, my concern here is not the
conditions under normal or ideal operating conditions. What I'm concerned about is heavy rainfall, elevated groundwater tables, and the potential to not control this sediment stockpile and
have it essentially run down the road uncontrolled. >> Chase, that's not going to be an issue. It's standard practice when you have a sediment stockpile to cover it specifically to prevent stuff like that.
um when when it has to stay in place for a little while. Um so you're not going to have things running down the road. Part of why we are lining the edges of it. Um, as well as it will be covered as part of standard practice when it's just
sitting there, when it's not being actively added to I I will say I I run dredging projects all over the country. I I I just disagree with you. Um, this is not how I would design it,
but I I understood and if the rest of the commission is happy to go forward, then so be it. >> Out of curiosity, Chase, what would your alternative be? >> I I would want to know that we can
infiltrate the amount of water that would be expected to be in the sediment. I would make an assumption about how much water we're expecting uh to be in the sediment. I would want to know the elevation of the groundwater table. I would do an infiltration calculation to
show that this pad could accommodate that amount of water and a 100red-year storm without discharging that water. I I wouldn't design this based on hope. >> Mhm. Honestly, I had assumed there was going to be some kind of bottom to this, that
it wasn't just going to be open to the ground when we were talking whenever that was. I didn't realize it was just going to be open for the water to, you know, go to the groundwater. >> That would be the alternative option here, right? that you can containerize
the water with a frack tank and have a pumping pumping mechanism to to draw this down. >> Marie and Jean, would that be something that you could potentially do on site? >> It's a potential I'd want to talk to
Steve about it separately, though. >> I I'm not, to be clear, I'm not opposed to infiltrating the water. What I want to know is how much sediment are we going to have? How much water do we expect to have? How quickly do we expect it to infiltrate? And how do we know that we're not going to overwhelm this
capacity? >> I think that's a fair question that Chase is asking, especially with the largest storms that we get unexpectedly. So, I would agree with Chase on his line
of questioning. In terms of the amount of sediment, this has been designed to rem remove approximately 99 cubic yards, less than 100. Um, because we're trying to make sure that we're staying under
certain limits so that you don't need additional permits for this. Um, it's also essentially the amount of sediment that needs to be removed anyway to get it the for bay to original conditions.
So that's your amount. Um, as far as the open bottom, we had discussion about this at the first meeting that the open bottom was really kind of necessary, the infiltration, in order to get the sediment to dry out because it can't
really be moved until it's dried. So, there's a balance between doing some lining to keep things from going where they shouldn't and allowing it to dry out. Um,
is are there any other concerns about this? Because it it sounds like there's some discussion that needs to be had before we can move forward u
with other stuff. So, I would just like to make sure that we are addressing everything that needs to be addressed. How are you covering the stockpile should it rain to keep more water from getting in?
>> Absolutely. It is standard practice on construction sites to cover stock piles. >> Cover what? With just putting plastic over it essentially. >> Uh yeah, you you generally put polyure poly plastic over it and you know put
weights on top of it to keep it from Yeah. So, I think just to circle back um to the very beginning of the um the hearing, um we we do have two alternatives in front of us. Um option A with um access u over by the existing
path and sediment storage and dewatering in that same area on the side of uh Lakeshore Drive um versus the um sediment storage on the field. Did we want to determine which one we want to move forward with um to start and then we can kind of build from there?
[Music] >> Andrew, I just had one question. I'm just wondering what the impact on the neighborhood would be with the stockpile there. I mean that that's going to be pretty close to others properties and I
I mean sorry but is it going to smell or you know will there be you know uh will the neighbors complain? I guess that's uh what I'm wondering. >> Both locations are close to neighbors. They're essentially the the same if you
will. I don't know the smell though. That's a very good question. We did talk about that when we were on site. Michael, that that was my other concern. And I just think that we need to specify that during construction, they maintain on site a biodegradable
um foaming system or odor suppression system. They're pretty standard for managing dredge sediment, which can smell pretty bad sometimes. >> Okay, good. Okay, great. Um, but that that is sort of a minor concern that I had that I I do think we
need to make sure we're clear about particularly the odor suppressant needs to be something biodegradable particularly because we've got infiltration going on here. >> Very good point. >> Accommodate that.
>> Andrew, you asked about which we prefer. I very much prefer on this property. I prefer option B. I I don't disagree with Jean's assessment that this is probably fine. I I just want to make sure we know >> that we're not going to wash a bunch of
sediment nutrient laden sediment right down into the lake down the road. >> And I think we should know that other than >> um specul. >> We did talk about also and it needs to be written out um the catch basin.
there's at least one there um protected so that none of this can go in the catch basin. >> Mr. Chair, ask just make a quick point. Um >> absolutely. >> So we're looking at 99 cubic yards of sediment removal. So about 300 cubic
feet if my math is right. Right. Um that dewatering area that we're showing is about 30 by 40 feet. So it's about 1,200 square feet. So, if you take that 300 cubic feet over that 1,200 square f feet, you have about 3 in. If my math is right, I did do it really quickly. So,
I, you know, I'm just want to uh just get that expectation of what that looks like, the volume might look like um kind of out there so that people can justly understand like what that actually could look like. You know, when we're talking about odor, I agree odor is is a
potential here with organics and such. Um, but just sharing information if my math is right. >> Thank you. >> So, how are you getting it out of there? It's It's only a couple of inches high.
Uh, you're going to end up digging the ground under it to get rid of it. >> You mean in the stockpile storage area? >> Yeah. I mean, >> no, it's going to sit on the ground so it can be disposed of elsewhere. It's not going to be disposed of at this location. No, I know that. But you're
going to How are you? In my mind, I had assumed it was going to be this big mound and you're going to dig out with a with a tractor and, you know, when you get to the bottom, you're just kind of careful about, you know, not taking too much, but something that shallow. >> It's Yeah, it's not not a big machine
work. It's a small machine work at at at best likely hand work. >> Okay. All right. because I wouldn't want you digging up soon all the >> also realistically like you can spread it out so that it's that flat within the
stockpile area but it's not going to be perfectly flat probably going to be a pile in the middle of that. >> So then I if we're only looking at 99 cubic yards of sediment, why do we need to keep that on site for
up to two months? I'd rather see it go off site sooner rather than later. >> We are saying that it might be that long for it to dry out enough to move it. Um Steve might be able to explain this better than me, but there are special
handling procedures that he has to follow for moving it because it's from the storm water system. >> You're already moving it across the street. Can it be moved into a truck instead?
No, this was discussed at the sitewalk. Um, as I said, Steve can do a better job explaining if you don't mind, Steve. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. In order for me to dispose of it, it has to dewater. Um, mostly, you know, I got to treat it
dredge material like catch basin cleanings almost. Uh, so the catch basin cleanings when we clean a catch basin, the, you know, it's full of water. So, it goes it dewaters before I can then dispose of it. Um, so this is being treated exactly the same. So, it's got
to dry out a little bit before I can then load it in a truck and and remove it from the site. [Music] >> I'm I'm struggling with that's going to take a couple months. Um, >> here's here's what I'd like to see.
>> Might take a couple months. >> And I think that's worst case scenario. >> Yeah. Worst case scenario. >> That's our worst case scenario because we want it to be conservative. >> As shallow as you're talking about though, I it's going to dry out fast,
isn't it? >> Most likely. I mean, I I can live with this as is given that we've only got 100 cubic yards of sediment. I I don't know how we would condition this, but I'd like to see it offsite as soon as we reasonably
can. That again, my primary concern is we're right next to the road. If we do have an overflow, it just flows right down the road, ends up right in the lake. All that's not good. Um if if we can just keep the timeline to a bare minimum, I think we have a lower
likelihood of a storm event that washes it away. >> Infiltration problems. >> We did talk about side barriers and what have you to keep it protected and and contained. That was definitely a discussion that we had. Um this isn't
going to just be dropped there and and and allowed to go wherever it wants to go. As I understood, That is correct. >> No, but and my concern is that we we need to not just plan for the water that's in it. We need to plan for storm
water as well. >> We're creating a bathtub. >> Well, yeah, I I hear you there. >> No, I I have the same concern. I when you said it, I was like, well, how can the dirt go anywhere? We're going to contain it. >> But the water going through the dirt,
that's a parable. So Chase, we condition it that they have, you know, backup equipment on site and, you know, any day before an anticipated event of an inch or more, whatever you think is appropriate, these pumps are put in place and they have to pump the water
either back into that their splash pad or or back into the forbay, you know, and that's somebody's there to monitor and run it. Um, >> that seems like a reasonable middle ground, Kyle. something with a soap bag on it and an ability to pump it back across the road into
>> for bay. >> How does the board feel about that? >> Sure. >> I know. It seems reasonable. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Marie and Jean and Steve, is that something that you could incorporate? I think logistically during construction
absolutely it can be included. Um but as a reminder we do know the stockpile is covered with some sort of plastic covering. Um so that the idea is that water is not even getting into there from storm water. it would just shield
off into, you know, the either the road to the right or to the surrounding grass area around the >> Sorry, so to clarify that when you cover it, you're talking about covering your entire containment area, not just the stockpile of material.
>> No, I was just talking about the stockpile area. >> All right. So, even if you cover the stockpile, it's that water will sheet off and still go inside of your containment area, doesn't it? Or are you creating a tent top over the entire containment area? That's even if it sheets off, it's still going
to flow into the containment area. Right. >> Can you go back to the picture of the containment area that you had that one on the bottom? >> Sure. Are you doing the container the cover rather as just on top of here or are you
taking the cover all the way to the outside of the outside uh bales and so forth so that nothing gets into that space at all? Yeah, >> usually you just co cover the the pile of dirt with a little bit extra around
the edge. Um so so that you have, you know, enough um sheeting on the side so that you can put weights around it to to keep it from lifting up, >> right? Which means that that area could that s that straw bear and silt fence
area could still fill up with water. Again, it would probably take an extreme event for that to happen, but it could still >> it it could. If I understand correctly what the request was, the request included um that really what we're doing is we're
paying attention to when a big storm is coming. So I I think that the request is that like we check daily once there is soil in there what is expected and if a storm of over a
certain size is expected then we could bring such um equipment. >> I would say I wouldn't say bring I would say have available already. >> Well well sure have have available but in terms of setting it up so that it's not across the road unnecessarily of
>> course. But it it not to beat a dead horse here, but it we're going to have a pile of fine grain sediment in here that is covered and not infiltrating water. >> That whole area is going to accumulate. Let's say it's a 100red-year storm,
which is like a 6 in storm, right? >> That that's going to be 6 in of water over that entire footprint, which is all going to push to the sides. It's not going to infiltrate quickly because our stockpile is both covered and it's fine grain material, which means we risk
blowing out our containment. Like that. That's what we're trying to get at here. Like we we have to be prepared for that, especially if we're going to capture all of the storm water within this sediment
management area. >> I understand the concern and the intent. and we are trying to make sure that that we are understanding what you're asking of us and that it's doable. And I think that
what we've discussed is having the equipment available so that we can control water if we happen to have a large storm that comes while this is being dried out. um and that we are
agreeing to monitor what the weather is so that we can make sure that it's set up in a timely manner when it's needed. I think that you know we've also discussed that the stockpile is going to be moved
as soon as it can be. there's a, you know, worst case scenario that we've discussed, but realistically, I think what you're really wanting is that we check it, you know, every few days to say, "Hey, this is still too wet to move or no, we can
move this now so that it can get moved as soon as possible. >> Is that not your plan?" And that would do >> to that end that that's where you're going to have to balance covering it and uncovering it. You I'd rather frankly
see it uncovered as long as there aren't odor issues during the day so we can dry it out and and maximize our chances of getting it off site as quickly as we can. But I I can live with this. So in terms of when we do condition this
uh chase we'll have it mainly uncovered a a heavily monitored site I suppose maybe every other day checking for um for water and have and to Kyle's point having the infrastructure in place and
machinery rather in place that if there is you know standing water within this little pendant an area that's um it can be removed. >> Seems reasonable. >> Perfect.
So, um just circling back, it sounds like option B is the winner here. If if I don't want to just engaging the board. Um, and I think we've given uh our team from Ty Bond uh quite a bit of direction
already tonight. Um, was there anything else that um the board's concerned about or do we have any suggestions for the team u when they come back on September 2nd? >> I I'm confused. I feel like we've
discussed things and we made kind of agreed on conditions that would address the concern. So was is there not a reason that we can't vote on this with those conditions? >> Yeah. The same thing, right? If we agreed with this layout and if our only
concern was really controlling that water, then we're hoping to take care of that with a couple conditions. >> Perfect. Yeah. If the board's comfortable moving forward, absolutely. Let's do that and then we can just take care of conditions. >> Yeah.
>> Two weeks from now if we really need to. Otherwise, we can let Tim and Lauren write them. >> Perfect. Does that sound like a plan? Is is the board comfortable uh moving forward with perhaps closing the the hearing tonight? And
>> as long as whatever gets finally approved has the required conditions that we talked about. >> Yeah. I mean, Tim would be willing to share those with us before it gets finalized if if needed like Jason discussed in two weeks. That's fine.
>> Yeah, I'm fine with that. >> Yeah. Excellent. >> Perfect. Well, with that said, would anybody perhaps like to make a motion then? >> Yeah, sure. Make a motion we close a public hearing and issue an order of conditions for uh the frog pond property
zero lake drive and zero lake shore drive deep d number 204-1026 with a waiver as conditioned. >> Perfect. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Ed >> Ed Boltai Michael
>> Michael >> Kyle >> Maxi >> Carl >> Kyle Mel >> Chase >> Chase I >> myself I it's unanimous.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, I do believe that was actually our last item of business for tonight. Is there anything else uh that anybody would like to bring forward
before we take a motion to close? All right. With that, would anybody like to make the final motion? >> I move that we close the meeting. >> Do we have a second? I'll second. >> All right. Final roll call vote of the
night. Uh Michael >> Michael. >> Ed Volzai. >> Kyle. >> Carl Mel. I >> Chase. >> Chase Car. I
>> and myself. I Great meeting everybody. We're adjourned. >> Thanks everyone.