With that in mind, we now have a quorum, so I'm going to open up the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting of June 23rd, 2026. Um, the first thing I want to touch on is how very packed our agenda is, so my
intention is to do my very best to keep us on it. Um, the first item we have is minutes from June 2nd, 2026. Do we have any additions, corrections, or deletions to those minutes?
>> They look great. >> Okay. With that then, maybe can we get a motion to approve those minutes? >> I'll make a motion that the commission approve the meeting minutes of June 2nd, 2026 as printed. >> Second.
>> All right. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Ed. >> Ed Foulkes, aye. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Mach, aye. >> Chase. >> Chase [snorts] Kirby, aye. >> And myself, aye. It's unanimous. Oh, did I freeze? I think I froze. >> Uh, we got you. If you froze on your
end, >> we could hear you. >> Can you hear me? I think I Let me try one thing here. Okay, and now my screen's black. So, I might be in the shadows tonight. I don't know what's going on. >> That's okay. We can hear you, and I'm comfortable going forward with that. Um,
thank you. >> What's that old office, Andrew? >> [laughter] >> Okay. Uh, we may, Andrew, though, just check in with you every once in a while just to make sure everything's good given that we're tight on a quorum, so. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Um, minutes then of June 2nd are
done. Tim, I'm going to hand it over to you then to take us through COC for one Sawyer and sort of the administrative discussion until 7:45. >> Sure. Um so the certificate of compliance request for one Sawyer.
Um if you remember Kyle, you were on that site walk with us initially. The commission had asked um that a couple of additional shrubs placed in that gravel parking area where the shed was permitted to be what was not constructed. Um the applicant or the
property owner has since installed um some native shrubs in that area. Um and that was all we were um waiting on to to vote to issue this. >> Did they I know he had mentioned or the [clears throat] applicant had mentioned
other plantings that they had lined up. Did you happen to notice if other additional plantings were >> I don't think it was any of the the additional ones that they discussed on site. Um I don't think they I think they still have plans to do that. They haven't installed those quite yet. They
had some additional um like ground cover plantings though that that weren't discussed um with the commission. Those were installed kind of over in that area uh as well. >> Yeah. >> Based on what I'd seen before we even had that walk or before we made the plans for them, it seems like they're
a lot more on the ground than they we would have required by law. So. >> [clears throat] >> Tim. So Tim, your recommendation is to issue the COC? >> Yeah, I I think it's ready. >> Okay. And Kyle, you're good with that? >> Yeah, sure. I'll make a motion that we
approve the certificate of compliance for one Sawyer and the CP number 204-739 and 204-951. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Kyle. >> Kyle Maciel, aye. >> Ed. >> Ed Polta, aye.
>> Chase. >> Chase Kurbika, aye. >> And myself, aye. unanimous. >> Very good. Tim, one thing I note saw that Mario just jumped on, so when we do get to 7:45 for the public hearing, we're going to go right to that one even if we're not done with the administrative items.
>> Sure. Sure. Um okay. Uh 55 Russell Street, if you guys remember at the last meeting, we we talked a little bit about potentially um having a javelin approach area behind
the baseball field at 55 Russell um in kind of in between the the outfield of the baseball field and the the track. Uh you guys had some additional questions that I couldn't answer, and so I asked um Casey uh Coltenburg to attend, and we do
have Casey here with us. So, Casey, I'm going to permit you uh to talk. You're welcome to join us as a panelist if you'd like to uh as well. >> Okay. Can you hear? >> Yep, we can hear you, Casey. You want to tell us what you're thinking here?
>> Yes. Currently Sorry, I can't hear myself in the meeting. I don't know. >> You're breaking up a little bit, Casey. Like uh maybe your connection isn't great. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
>> Now we can. >> Okay. So, we have 170 plus kids who are on the track team. One of the events is called javelin, which is very popular. We used to throw javelin behind left field of the baseball
before the season. Uh last season, we do with track, it just causes problems. It's not really safe for the baseball team longer. This last season, we moved the javelin
way to basically the grass with painted marks behind left field and field with top play. It was the It was the perfect dimension. But what I want to do is add a buffer runway, much like track is built right now.
And that that helps with performance, safety, and the wear on the tires. It's already a mowed area. It's outside of the fence. Uh between fence and where there's trees. Currently, it's an area.
And I'd like to put a runway there. The runway would be 100 by 12 ft wide. It's uh they do a subgrade prep, compact aggregate. Like a layer of asphalt on top of that called base.
And then they spray on this uh EPDM, which is a rubber granule. But this top half uh rubber synthetic rubber. So, it'd be just like the track is right now. >> Okay.
And uh commissioners, my my understanding, Tim, is we we pulled Casey in cuz there were some questions about sort of the nature of this. Uh what questions did we have on it, I
guess? >> Uh what ones? >> You're muted. >> Sorry. I know one of the big ones was is there an alternative location for this, or is this really the only um logical
area where this could be? >> You're asking me? Yes, other logical locations. Well, this is during baseball season, so the outfield would be great except for the ICB games during the ICB time practice. Um another location would be, which is
not featured on your map, but I guess north end the north side of the track. Okay, keep going a little higher. Do you see a triangle right where your arrow is? But, that would be the runway and then
throw into that I think it's like White Street extension that area that's only parking actually. That would take way more work flattening the ground out, raising it up, and solidifying with
um subgrade and all that, but that would be a really nice spot, too. I assume that's probably what lands as well. >> Okay. >> And so, I I I think the discussion tonight with the conclusion that we were hoping to get to
is, you know, we haven't seen a filing for this yet, but I I wanted to get the commission's sense of, you know, there is a wetland that goes back here um and there is I I think it's likely that if you guys permitted it to be in this area, it
would be within the 50 ft, so it would need a waiver. So, is this something that you guys feel um comfortable with giving kind of like a a straw poll vote on, you know, this would um get a a waiver issued if there was a an application in front of you.
>> So, essentially the basis for the waiver would be or the question is really would we find this to be in the public interest or yeah, in the interest of public safety. >> Correct. >> What about that strip of grass between the ball field and the parking lot down
closer to Russell Street? Down No, down. Yeah. This one right here? Yeah. >> There's actually a better map right now on parking website as it shows the dimensions of what birds and fields are created, but right where your finger is. There's now
uh it's a pen. >> Yeah, there's that There's a batting cage there. I would also say there, Ed, um >> Next to a parking lot? >> Yeah, that That might be a good spot for that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it might be a good spot for for
wetlands perspectives, but the challenge here is this comes during track season and baseball season at the same time. I would I would not want to see someone >> throwing javelin right there during a baseball >> Oh, no. We mark so super safe cuz that would be a bad
spot. You have to remember we need the 100 runway. Which not everybody really uses 100 ft, but that's the requirement if you do have a runway. And they throw the javelin about 150 ft. Uh we don't, but our opponents are really good at javelin right now. They
could throw it 100 107. So, you figure that one may be back in 100 ft. Um but we have a palace. I feel with the exception of the meeting right there. >> Are you saying that the javelin and
baseball would be happening at the same time? >> Yeah, I mean right now. So, this last season when they finally put the field up, we were javelin cuz actually the outfield fence is the perimeter, the right hand number
of javelin um vector, if you will. >> Mhm. >> It's got 5-ft buffer off fence. Um so, it's super safe. I'm out there all the time. >> And there's no chance that someone's going to hit a home run into the javelin
throwers? >> [laughter] >> Let Let that be the baseball team's problem. >> Yeah, I think that's a safe I'm worried about safety on both sides, so. >> No, it It's a good question. This is where the middle school team plays. The high school team, who's actually in a
position to potentially hit home runs, is playing up at the high school. I don't >> Okay. >> No, I I >> I don't think that middle schoolers I saw a ball get within 50 ft of the home run fence this year. So. >> I I see. This is where all teams play now. >> Yeah, I was just going to say that high
school field is not a good place >> Oh, okay. >> I assume this is where everybody plays. >> [laughter] >> big change recently. The only thing that happens at the high school now is soccer. Um the varsity soccer teams have the day behind my everything else would be this
huge or just called at this point. Everything's down here now. >> Like so if you've got a high school game going on when you've got a javelin event javelin event going on don't we now have a potential problem? >> No. I mean you we could say yes we have
a problem but we've had multiple meets this season and practices during their batting practices during their games. I saw no conflict at all. >> That's where I was just going to go. They just shared these fields for an entire season, right? So that was kind of the concern that I
raised was that this area is being used whether we've given permission or not, you know, for for field for soccer in the past, for track now apparently. >> Okay. >> So I prefer to see it stabilized to runway rather than it getting worn down
to dirt after a season. I think Sarah's not push back but does advocate was that it would have a season to to regrow we will have a post track season but Casey what kind of what kind of use does this area get as far as we looking year round you know other than winter?
Or is it just one of one season? >> For javelin? >> Just the three months. So the season just ends last the last month. Um we it's just three months using this area. It's mowed. It's part of the whole maintenance area.
We use it. We run on it. The problem is after you have a meet, you have 40 some javelin and it's really slick. They all of a sudden wear soccer cleats. And somebody who doesn't have a soccer cleat and you throw the javelin it gets slick.
You can't get anything right. You're not going to get your what's called block up to throw. So we need to do something. I mean, we don't have to. We can live with it like it is now. I just want to have an area
for for safety, performance, and whatnot. >> So, in the interest of how much we have on our agenda tonight, I think I I'd like to move this to understanding is this something we would be willing to contemplate for a
um for a waiver. At the end of the day, if it is, their case is going to have to come in with a filing. We're going to have all these discussions again. So, I think what he's trying to understand is is this dead on arrival or not. >> Yes.
>> From my perspective, if they can't go on the other triangle section which is away from the baseball field then I guess I'm okay with it. I'm not thrilled with it, but I'm okay with it. >> I'd be fine with it under the public
interest section of the waiver process. >> Yeah, I I would entertain it. Casey, I would tell you two things with it. One, I think you're still have to make an argument for why it can't be on that other area that is not within resource area that we know of, but I think Tim and Lauren can look at that
with you and just determine if there might be resources up there. And the other thing is, I would want to see it within the existing mode field area, not an expansion of the field. But >> But that would not There would be no extension expansion. It's already mode.
We don't go beyond the current mode area. >> Okay. >> So, I understand that that may a get moved to the true line. What location are you talking about? Where we should going into the White Street extension? >> Yep. >> Yeah, I can walk that with Tim and anyone who wants to walk there.
You know, I'm all about traffic. I'll be out there right now or tomorrow, whatever you want. >> Okay. Yeah, I I think, you know, Tim and Lauren can help you with the process, but I think you've probably got what you need now. You you will have to come back with a a formal filing. Um
>> Okay. >> So, we're going to move on from this then. Um Amber, could we pull Matt Morrow over for We're going to move on to the 7:45 public hearing for the notice of intent for 136 Mill Road. Um we to those who
are here for other administrative items, I do in particular want to get this hearing done on time. So, um we will come back to those other administrative items uh as soon as we can. Matt, are you here?
>> Yes, I am. >> Okay. >> Uh it's good to see you all. >> How you doing? >> Very good, thank you. Um really quick before we start, I just want to let you guys know um my mom is not doing too good. Um it could be anytime. So, the nursing
home is on the override for my silent. >> Yep. >> If they call, I'm going to excuse myself. >> 100% Matt, and that's why I wanted to pull you in as soon as we could here so we could hopefully move you and your client through this and then we can let you go back to more important things.
>> Thank you very much. Um do you want me to share? >> If you would, yes. >> Okay. Can you see that okay? >> Yep. >> Yep. So, hopefully this is actually as straightforward as it looks to me. Um I went out, I delineated a wetland over by
Beaver Brook. We do have riverfront on the property. That was quantified even though the the state tends to be a little bit more um flexible with septic systems. Um there is work in the 100-ft buffer zone, but there's nothing within 50 ft of the wetland.
It is an existing leach field. It's the leach field only that is being replaced. The leach field that was previously approved by this commission and installed failed. Um there were various reasons for it, which I couldn't enumerate right now if you asked me, cuz I'm not really a septic
designer, but in talking to Mr. Carloni, he said the reason why we were replacing is because it failed. This new system should work adequately. Um and yeah, there's no 50-ft buffer zone on
either side. Um there were other wetlands on the opposite side. There was areas I didn't go up to in certain sections because it was right in somebody's backyard and I didn't want to spook them, but um we were able to approximate and give you a good 50-ft buffer. We're definitely not within it.
We're just tailing the 100-ft buffer on two different sides. Um we are out of the inner riparian zone by just a little bit. Um we're in the outer riparian zone, but we're not in the inner riparian zone. It's obviously it's it almost in the
same place as it currently is. You can see the dotted line showing where the existing system is. So, it's going to be replaced in kind with a better with a better field system. That's basically it. It's been issued a DEP number 204-1037
with no comment. >> Tim, have you taken a look at this yet? >> And and the finally, yeah. Yeah. >> Good. >> Yeah, I have no comments. >> Commissioners, what comments do you all have? >> Does this have a pool or hot tub as well? No? >> Yes, um
I >> always try to not file a notice of intent with the Board of Health has approved. Um in this case it was contemporaneous, but yeah, they've already approved it. >> Did they have There was no concern of the prior failed
system because I guess that's I'm assuming this is a different system, right? That's not knowing anything about this, but >> Yeah, but it's a diff- it's a different I'm not sure what the leach field is there now. This is a different type of field. Um I mean, they must not be too concerned because my client tried to get
them to give them a like an emergency status to replace it and they said, "No." So, we're here now. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Your outline shows the existing field which looks like it's out of the
100 even more. So, any reason that you didn't just pull that back? Looks like you have an abundance but it's completely out of the 100. >> It would be because of the subs- the subsoils. He ultimately located because of the subsoils. I think that was probably part
of the reason why it failed. >> Okay. Works for me. >> I have one maybe one maybe more than one condition that I think we would need here. Um one condition would be that all excavated soils need to be stockpiled
out of the out of the 100-ft BVW buffer. Obviously, it can't be outside of the 200-ft riverfront area, but stockpiling outside of that. Matt, I I also think I'd like to see I don't think it should hold up our approval of it,
but I think I would want to see uh a final figure that shows sediment and erosion controls around this, but I would be willing to approve this as long as you're willing to provide that to Tim
so that he signs off is good with it before you work proceeds. >> I >> So really at the end of the day >> here. >> Oh, oh, I'm sorry. I >> That line's right here. >> I completely missed it. Okay. Well,
never mind. I'll I'll eat that one. So then my only condition would be stockpiling outside of the resource area. >> Absolutely. Not a problem. Andrew, you good? >> I'm good to go. >> Okay. Could we potentially then get a motion
to close the public hearing and issue notice of intent? >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing and issue order of conditions for 136 Mill Road, DEP file number 204-1037 with the aforementioned condition that
Chase mentioned about stockpiling outside of the resource area. >> Second. >> All right. We'll do a roll call vote. Ed. >> Ed vote aye. >> Chase. >> Chase Gerbig aye. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxwell aye.
>> Oh, I see Carl in the audience. Did we want to plug him over? >> I've been trying. >> Moving him over right now. >> No, no, I think we have a quorum. I I'd rather not chance that quorum and Carl vote on this. >> Sure. Absolutely.
>> Okay with that, Carl? >> Absolutely. So I'll be an aye as well, so it is unanimous. Oh, here's Carl. >> Come. >> Very good. Matt, looks like you guys are good to go. You have your project consultant >> Thank you very much,
Carl, and I'll talk to you soon. >> Take care, Matt. >> Take care, Liz. >> Um Okay, I'd like to go back to the administrative items, Tim. You have a sense of what makes sense to take before the 8:00 p.m. public meeting?
>> Uh >> [clears throat] >> We can go through some shorter ones. >> Um >> Okay. >> Uh that I think would make more sense to go through right now. Um we can jump ahead to the Nvidia volunteer project.
Um so about a month or two ago, Nvidia came to us. Um we met with uh So it was Nvidia, uh Lauren and I, as well as uh Alyssa Russell and uh the trust.
Um and I guess every year Nvidia does a local volunteer project, and and this year they were interested in doing one for um for Littleton. And so we're kind of talking to them about which project might make the most sense, and originally we were thinking maybe they can help out with a boardwalk, and uh
ultimately what we decided on was uh it would probably what the best fit would probably be is um if they were to help with the construction of the uh the Braille Trail over at Yamp. Um and so what that looks like is
um it's a about a 3/10 of a mile loop, and I actually have a figure here. Or maybe I don't. Um I think it's lost somewhere in my email. Um but it's a a 3/10 of a mile loop
right at the front of the property. Um and hold on a second. Nah, I can't find it. Um but essentially, what they would be helping out with doing um so there on a Braille Trail ways
there's posts every X amount of feet anywhere from like 6 feet to I think like you know 15 feet and along those posts that are on the side of the trail is a rope that goes through the posts that the users can can
hold on to as a guide rope or or wire and along the trail there's other you know there's there's Braille signage and other sensory things and so we thought it made the most sense to do a work day with them they can
offer anywhere from I think it's 20 to 50 or 30 to 50 volunteers for a full day donate about $200 per volunteer that they can provide so they they would
anywhere up to about $10,000 in funding they would be donating to the the trust not the the commission just cuz it's easier for them to donate to the the trust and so we've been working kind of behind the scenes on on planning this and been
in communications with the video about this as well we're we're aiming for the first week of October um and I know we we generally talked about the idea of the Braille Trail at YAP many months ago back when we were
thinking about going after a grant for it and the commission was on board with it we got a letter from the disability committee saying that they were were behind this as well so just wanted to to throw that out there as an update to you guys on on
where we are with that after we opted to not go with the applying for the grant money's for this it was on our agenda to go after CPC funding this fall for it so hopefully we can get it done with
uh with the funding and uh volunteer work provided by Nvidia. >> Cool. That's great. So, will it will there be sort of like a finalized design to this? Like I I would love to make sure that the Disability Commission not just is supportive of the concept, but
is supportive of the implementation. I want to make sure that we are we're doing it in the way that's the most effective. Essentially, a a good idea gone wrong is what we would like to avoid. >> Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly um
reach back out to them. I can talk with with Diane, um provide them a basis of our design and and get their approval or or comments on that as well. And if we need to tweak it, um cuz they think it's it's better a different way, then we can certainly do that.
>> Cool. Any other comments from the commission on this? >> Yeah, I have a quick question. Um you mentioned [clears throat] funding. I guess A, do you have a ballpark on what the costs would be for this? >> Not quite yet.
We're still in that planning stage. Um we're we're going to see So, we still have that to to figure out. We're also going to see how much we can get in um in either donated materials and and services for this project as well.
>> Yeah, and I only ask because you mentioned that Nvidia is also providing $200 per volunteer, right? And now, is that is that money that could be used for materials and >> It exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. It seems like I don't again, I don't
know. I've never seen one of these installed, so I don't know what what it takes, but sounds like they could be pitching in quite a bit of fun funding then. >> Yeah, and and there's things that the volunteers won't be able to do um with
this for this project, right? Like um the wooden posts are going to have to go pretty deep into the into the ground deeper than you can you know manually dig so um a cost that we're looking at if it's not going to be a donated service is is having somebody come out to to actually
do those or to drill to drill those holes excuse me. So it's it's they're not going to be able to do everything there are going to there are some things that we're going to need to either get in donated services or
or have to pay for. Next. Yep. >> So Tim are you just looking for a general like sense of the question? >> I was just kind of I mean if you guys want to give another vote of approval that's fine too. I was just looking to
give you guys as much information on where we stand with this as I have at this point. >> Cool. Sounds great. Go forth do good things for the community. >> You [laughter] got like a tiny bit. >> And better better yet do it with with the help of external resources.
>> Yeah. Yeah no we're very very grateful that they they came to us and are looking to help out in that way. >> Cool. >> Great. >> It is 8:00 so we can we can move on to the next uh >> Sounds good and so those who are still on the administrative discussion we will
I promise circle back to you as soon as we can. So we're going to open up the 8:00 p.m. public meeting the request for determination of applicability for Prouty Woods invasive plant management proposal.
Who is here to speak to that? >> I just have a motion for him. >> Oh sorry I was going to say um Chase before I do get started I will have to recuse myself just because I am a volunteer for now. Um and it it's kind of a conflict to uh
participate so I will be lurking in the shadows. >> Okay. I I I think you're probably being conservative in that regard, but because we have a quorum otherwise, let's let's just go with it. >> Sounds like a plan. >> Okay.
Um the floor is yours. You want to describe to us what we're looking for, what you're look what you're asking, and then we can figure out where we're going to go. >> Um yeah, so we have uh CCEF funding to do uh invasive species treatment on um Prouty Woods. Uh it's going to be 43 and
1/2 acres. Um and I will not be personally doing the project. Uh my co-worker Zach will be, so the more technical questions can be directed to him. Um but yeah, we're planning to do uh spot treatment for all of these uh various species. There's a little bit of everything in there.
There's uh barberry, Japanese knotweed, bush honeysuckle, um >> [clears throat] >> multiflora rose, not just off the top of my head. So, um they've done some harvesting in there. Um oriental bittersweet as well. We're trying to get on top of this. Uh ideally, you get rid of this, but you know, ultimately, it is
more managing, and we're trying to get it so there can be more more and better regeneration where they've done harvests. Um and then just to make it so you can have more native species coming in in the understory there. So, um yeah, they have the funding for it, and [clears throat] um
we think there's good applicability with the the the work that they've been doing. They're trying to have it be a kind of a prime example [clears throat] forest management in the community. So, we just think that this is part parcel of kind of what we have to do with uh with everything going on there. So, I'm the forester who wrote the management plan, and I've requested this to be
done. Um and they've followed up. They've applied for the funding, and then uh Long Point Forestry will be doing the uh the application um with our certified uh pesticide or herbicide applicators. >> It And I think one of the things that the community is going to want to know
is if um if you could explain sort of the extent of the herbicide applications like it essentially describe how in so many words we're trying to use as little herbicide as we can but it's also not practical to do this without herbicides. >> Yeah, so to kind of address the doing it
without herbicide. I mean I'm I would love to if we could just go in and hand pull and just cut the stuff but a lot of these things if you cut them they come back more vigorously it's kind of like treating Medusa where you you cut it off and it has more branches that come out. Um so it's not really especially at this scale to manage this
mechanically. So we do look to herbicides to do this. Everything is spot spray so our workers go through with a backpack sprayer and are specifically treating individual plants. They'll kind of walk a grid back and forth to make sure that they're getting everything.
And yeah, we're using the applicable herbicides for different areas. So do your near wetter areas we're using the appropriate herbicide for wetter areas. So it breaks down after a couple months so it's not persistent in the environment and that's why we're using it and ultimately it's less disruptive
to the to the kind of soil into the habitat than doing mechanical removal because if we were to go in and pull stuff out things like that we're disturbing the soil. We're going to be disrupting the native plants that are there and then by opening up that soil we're kind of inviting more seeds to come in and reestablish and just this
kind of this vicious cycle. So This is kind of the the tool that we have at hand the best we can do at this moment. And yeah, it's kind of what we what we have to do to make this work. >> And again mostly in the interest of making sure the public's sort of read into this.
Must the EP approved herbicides and licensed applicators? >> Absolutely. Everybody is licensed applicators. This is state funding so everything has to be completely done as Massachusetts state law mandates and yeah, we we do this on lots of properties. These guys have gotten all
the certifications. They're using the appropriate herbicides for everything. Um, yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Commissioners, what questions do we have here? Uh, you're on mute, Kyle. >> Sorry. Um, so I'm looking at the plan that you provided that shows the the areas across the, you know, the 43
acres. Um, and it overlaps a lot of the trails, by the looks of it. It won't there be it would I guess when would this work be performed and is it something that the public can still utilize the trails or will it be marked off and detours, anything like that?
>> So, there's we're going to put up signage and we're we're working with NAF to get them to put up signs as well. Um, I don't know the specific time that people shouldn't be near that, but um, yeah, there's definitely signage to divert the public away from there. Um, and again, like I said, it's not
persistent, so it will be a certain time frame where people will be discouraged from entering there. Um, and we'll work with NAF to figure out the um, best alternatives for where people can go. And they've done some treatment, um, they've got some similar funding prior to do some cut stump, um, application.
And cut stump is where you cut the cut the plant off and then at the base of the stump you're just painting the stump itself with uh, with uh, herbicide. They've done that in some areas, so they've done this management before. Um, and so they have some practice with, you know, communicating with the public and making sure that people are aware
where they can or shouldn't shouldn't go. And this is not being like broadcast applied, so it's not like there's just going to be stuff all over the place, so it's going to be very targeted with the plants that we're putting it on. >> Other questions or comments? So, what what we have in front of us is a request for determination of
applicability with a waiver. Um and I think although Andrew is recusing himself, he would remind us to if we are approving this, make sure to mention the waiver in a motion. >> I would.
>> [laughter] >> Do we have any uh anyone who wants to make a motion or any substantive concerns that need to be expressed before? Then I'll uh I'll take it upon myself to Oh, no. Without Andrew, I don't know which negative determination this >> [laughter]
>> This is what it's always for. >> What is this negative determination for? >> I think it's a three, but I I think >> Figures. But you're the Andrew, you're still recused. You're just helping us from stumbling or tying our own shoes
together here. So, um I move that we issue a negative determination three and approval of a waiver for the application of herbicides by Mass at the Prouty Woods property.
>> Second. >> All right. >> Motion's been made and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote. Carl Melberg? >> Uh >> [clears throat] >> Carl Melberg, aye. >> Kyle? >> Kyle Machael, aye. >> Ed? >> Ed Folsom, aye.
>> Myself, Chase Gerbig, aye. >> And one recusal. >> Oh, right. And Andrew, sorry. I take that for granted. Um very good. Okay. Um we are moving right along. Thank you all very much for moving along. We have a very packed agenda. Um I think you're
all good to go. >> Okay. >> Thank you all for your time. >> If you could let us know so we can make sure to announce it at a conservation commission meeting before this kicks off so that we can make sure people are as read into it as possible. >> Yes, absolutely. Thank you all for your time. I really appreciate it.
>> Thank you. Cheers. Tim, the floor is back to you to go through whatever you think makes the most sense in the next administrative item. >> Sure. Why don't we go ahead and and I'll promote over Erin and Erin has a
a brief presentation on bumblebee and and biodiversity that she would like to share with the commission. >> Okay, very good. Erin, oh, let's wait for Erin to get in here. Hey Erin, how you doing? >> There I am. Hello. >> Hello.
>> Thank you for having me here. >> As you heard we have a pretty packed agenda so we're going to try and work you in here. I would say you probably technically our next item comes up at 8:15. You probably have a few minutes more than that if you need it. I don't want to cut you short but also
um I don't want it to draw on either so the floor is yours Erin. >> So can I I can share my screen, right? >> You should be able to, yes. >> Okay. So does does everyone see it? >> Yes.
>> Yes. So I think most of you know that I've been growing plants based on a list by Dr. Robert Gegear at UMass Dartmouth who studies at risk pollinator pollination systems but
specifically declining species of bees and butterflies and plants. >> [clears throat] >> So this is the fifth year or so that I've grown specifically plants from his list for about 130 some odd species.
Um we used to have 12 species of bumblebees. We now have nine but really three are almost locally extirpated. Um, so we are also, as you know, in a biodiversity crisis with insect loss
degrading or declining rapidly. These are some of the butterflies and one moth. Um, a declining at risk endangered in Massachusetts. Bird losses are down. Um, bird populations are
are down. Um, this is one of the plants that I grow that is at the location at Bumblebee Park and at the library and it's a state listed um, plant called Penstemon hirsutus. We've I'm I'm not I'm now trying to
source local ecotype seeds. So, I'm trying to find seeds and I grow them myself with the winter seed method. Um, this one is is endangered. So, I I haven't even been able to find seeds. So, I just wanted to update you on Bumblebee Park that um,
Concord gave me permission to install a garden there and this is in 2023, a group of home school kids um, and I started trying to tackle this property. Ultimately had to have Sam Bell come and
plow it. It's it's very impenetrable. I don't think it was ever plowed. I think it was pastured and then mowed for 50 years. So, it's really rocky and compacted. But, this is what it looks like. This is last summer. Um, I just
did a tour as part of I'm part of Metro West Conservation Alliance has a subcommittee now called the Metro West PSA Pollination System Action. Um, so there's a number of gardens around the um,
region featuring Dr. Jaggi Rao plants. >> [snorts] >> Um, you know, we call them biodiversity gardens or pollination preservation spaces. Um here's just some of the blooms from last year.
And last more nice blooms. Um it was really important for me to provide I want this to be auto didactic and provide public education. So I made labels last year and signage with a QR code to Dr. Jagier.
Um and I just wanted to update you on how it's going. It's a challenging property. There's a lot of poison ivy. There's a lot of rocks. It's really dry. I my water is provided by the fire department filling my 200-gallon watering cube. That's the only water I
have. Um it's um >> [sighs] >> you know, it's a work in progress. Um I've been able to, as Tim knows, cordon off an area of the slope behind the bench that is a big area of
I tried to cordon off areas of a little bluestem, which is a clumping grass, which native birds like bobolinks nest in I don't know if we have enough space for bobolinks, but they do need clumping grasses that are native. Um
warm weather Wait, cold weather? I never I always get those screwed up. But anyway, native grasses. Um I'm still going to try to um keep certain stuff like the lowbush blueberries away from um mowing.
So I'm kind of thinking about the whole property um as a restoration project and uh it is in succession. So it is obviously we know really hard to have a meadow in New England um and it is mowed just once a
year. So it's full of buckthorn, but also the native gray dogwood, and oaks, and bittersweet, and um and blueberries, but it's it's a tricky um project. Um
My What I'd like to do now, going forward, is obtain I now have my sets sights set on the property across the street, which is a wet meadow. Um So,
a lot of the plants on Jagir's list are wet meadow plants, which makes sense because Massachusetts really, you know, is a wet meadow, wet forest state um or area. Um And a lot of And we're we're in a severe
drought again, for like the fifth year, and a lot of my plants are suffering. Um It mean the right plants for the right place, right? So, I started thinking about this, and I've been walking around the meadow, ID'ing
plants. What we have the the the good things we have extant on the property at um the meadow is we have two incredibly healthy white ashes, which is amazing to me. Um cuz you never see living ashes anymore out in
uh conservation land, cuz usually they're at private properties, and they're being um treated. Anyway, a lot of sugar maples, willows, cattails, sumac, sedges, elderberry, meadowsweet, sensitive fern. Um and then
the meadow portion of it is actually full of reed canary grass, which would have to be herbicided. There's no way to mechanically eradicate that. Um What I'm interested in doing is obtaining some um some like three
uh quotes for um I think ideally we would start with the reed canary grass. Um I would like to install some native plants in that area that I couldn't I would like to get local ecotypic seeds
and sow them. So, I have a list here, but anyway, I can stop sharing cuz this is just boring words. Um Where is my cursor? Um There we go. Um So, um
Anyway, I LCT owns this property, but obviously, it's wetlands, and I want I need it to be in good communication with you and have your blessing. Um but I'm interested in um pursuing this as a restoration
project, and it will be multi-phase. Um There's so much bittersweet that it's very overwhelming. And then, of course, there's phragmites. There's also these ditches that maybe were dug as mosquito management or
wetlands farmers historically would do this lowering the water table funk funky thing. Um so, anyway, it's uh not very well trafficked. There's not There's one kind of trail um that Jim
and Rick blazed. Um And I would want it to be only I I want it to be accessible like one that that trail just intersects the really wet cattail area and the meadow. And I think that's a fine trail um and then some
sort of access into the meadow where I would like to put in swamp rose, swamp thistle, monkey flower, all this stuff that needs wet. But I don't want to have like a lot of trails in there. I just think it it's an incredible bird and um
you know, insect sanctuary theoretically, but like a lot of places I would say it's like 80% invasives and 20% natives. And they're really wonderful natives, but um, I think we have to cherish our wet
meadows these days especially in the drought and climate change uh and the dearth of insects. >> So, Erin, you're generally looking I mean, given that it's trust-owned property, you're really asking us uh
from in the in our capacity as conservation commissioners with respect to the Wetlands Protection Act. Like, is this a thing we're generally supportive of to the extent that we need to get some permitting done or something like that? Is that Is that generally the
question? >> Well, I think what inspired me to come here today really, Chase, is that as some of you know, I was working on the library for I have been working on the library for a few years and realized that
I wasn't um I didn't know that I I should be presenting an update of the work and I was kind of going um not just unnoticed, but uh it didn't work out well. So, I felt like I should be here to
represent the work that's been going on at Bumblebee Park A. Tim has been really helpful and also, you know, I've been able to say to Tim like, "Let's treat the knapweed. Let's treat the bittersweet." So, we've had some herbicide work there.
Um and and I don't know uh you know, so that's really why I wanted to come. I just wanted to come and make sure I'm dotting the i's and crossing the t's and say letting you know that like here I am. Um things are moving slowly, but in
the right direction, I think. Um but uh, I don't and I I don't know what I have to do to I mean, at this point I'm just going to get, um, you know, have quotes because all of the invasives there can't be they they need,
um, professional >> And I think to to the extent that invasives on this property need to be managed, in fact, we we just went through this a couple minutes ago with respect to NEF and I think what you heard was it probably
without giving you formal approval without the right paperwork, um, that we would be very supportive of that. Um, frankly, NEF's application would be a good model for you to take a look at in terms of what a request for determination of applicability needs to
look like and I would say particularly in this context, I would expect Tim and Lauren to to be able to sort of help you it There there are some formal processes that we need to do, but I think generally what you will find is we're going to be very supportive of removal
of invasives and we'll be doubly supportive of replanting of natives. Um, to the extent to the three quarters of those natives are names that I don't recognize, which is probably itself indicative of why we should plant them, but, um,
but I think we'll we'll lean on Tim and Lauren's expertise there to make sure what's going in makes sense, but certainly commissioners, if you guys have anything else to indicate here, but I um, personally, I think very supportive of this. We have some eyes to dot and Ts to cross.
So. >> Yeah, like for example, there's, um, a bunch there's several species that are like, uh, Tim, you know, probably like white turtlehead, closed gentian, swamp rose at Hartwell that were being mowed by Sam Bell because he didn't know they
were there or what they were. So, I think it's just becoming more um critical for us to not just understand, not just to know where we have them, but to also protect uh keep our local ecotypic
native species in a protected space um away from mowers and invasives. >> Yeah, and like Jay said, Lauren I can certainly work with you to file an application to get there besides
uh permanent. >> Okay, yeah, but like first step would just be to get quotes, right? I mean >> You can certainly do that in the in the meantime, yeah. Um yep, certainly. >> the person that you that you know you
that was hired to do Cloverdale. So. >> Oh, land stewardship. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it certainly um the the means, the methods, the dollars involved, who's responsible for the dollars involved, those are all things
that we would need to navigate together, but um but the overall concept, the the broad vision, the goal, the end point, I think makes a lot of sense. >> Mhm. Yep, thank you. I mean, it's just kind
of an extension and of what um and is going on at you know, in other places, too, and just becoming more and more um critical as we move into this kind of next phase of
management now so many um so many things stacked against us in this day and age, but and >> appreciate you. The bumblebee garden is ecologically wonderful. It's also just beautiful. So, thank you very much for sort of managing
both. >> It's hard. I'm still waiting for the unicorn um all yellow bumblebee to appear which it has been which I've seen in what in Chelmsford and Southborough and that's this rare Bombus fervidus all yellow bumblebee that I don't I don't I don't
have the magic formula yet I guess or maybe it's locally extirpated but it's it's very humbling to try to make a garden in a remote place with you know it's it's a tricky one but
>> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Aaron I I hate to cut you off we have a very tight agenda. >> I know sorry I talked too much. >> No you're you're great thank you so much for coming in and and Tim and Lauren certainly be there to help you as we move into this next phase across the street. >> Awesome thank you.
>> Thank you Aaron let let us know if you need anything. >> Okay thank you so much. Take care. Bye. >> Bye. >> Okay we appreciate everybody's patience this is an important topic. We're going to open up the 8:15 public hearing for the
notice of intent for Beaver Brook DEP oh it looks like at least when the agenda was printed we didn't have a full DEP number manual removal of water chestnuts and Dave Barr should be there we go there's Dave Barr. Um Dave I know
Tim circulated today an update to the list of properties so if you want to sort of take us through the application here and what you're looking for and I think we can toss out any general questions I
don't think well not I don't think if we don't have a DEP number we we can't approve it tonight unless one came in Tim. No. >> No not yet. >> So Dave if you want to hit the high points or things that you think are substantive things that we need to understand and then we'll have to
continue it in any case to pick it up next meeting. >> Yeah, I understand. So, Friends of Forge Pond was made aware over the winter that one of our neighbors had uh
seen some uh water chestnuts in Beaver Brook when they were hunting last fall over there and um so at that point we couldn't verify that they were there
because they were down for the winter and uh things were iced and snow but uh we started [clears throat] the uh the process of applying for a permit to remove them
uh because it takes a while and >> [clears throat] >> um recently we were able to go back and uh look at the area where they were reported and we did find them there um
and they're in the Littleton portion of uh Beaver Brook. We are requesting permits from both Littleton [snorts] and Westford to uh look in the in Beaver Brook and find
where there are water chestnuts and to remove them where we find them. Uh the [clears throat] big concern here is that water chestnuts can very quickly spread. Um individual [clears throat] plants can
will produce about a dozen seeds and those seeds can last for 10 or 12 years. Uh so um a small infestation can quickly overwhelm a uh stream or a river or a lake, or a
pond. Uh, so >> [clears throat] >> uh, we saw I would say, um, a few hundred, uh, plants, uh, when we went and looked. Uh, so we are uh,
hoping to be able to get approval, um, in time to, uh, remove them uh, before they drop their seeds for the, for the season, which would be late July. Um, >> [clears throat]
>> and, um, so, uh, we have, um, we talked to Westford, um, a couple weeks ago, uh, and um, where this is our first hearing here with Littleton.
We, um, >> [clears throat] >> uh, are the section we're looking at is between Forge Pond and the Westford town line in Westford, and between the Westford town
line and where, uh, >> [snorts] >> Beaver Brook first crosses under 495, uh, in Littleton, um, and that's basically one section downstream of 119, another section, uh, between
[clears throat] 119 and 495, um, and, uh, you know, um, it [snorts and clears throat] would, it potentially could take a while for, uh, any plants to move downstream in, you know,
uh, or just but, um, we [clears throat] we felt like those areas had major open, uh, sections that it made sense to, to investigate, uh,
uh, [snorts] upstream of there, it's, um, narrower, it's harder to get into, it's there's more um more reeds in places and the number of properties involved becomes
exponentially bigger. Um so we limited it to the from the >> [snorts] >> western town line upstream to where it first crosses under 495. >> [snorts]
>> Uh which is about 16 what is 16 properties >> [snorts] >> and at this point we have and we understand that we need to um get the permission from the property
owners where the stream crosses their property and we have uh shortly after we submitted this we sent out um uh letters to the property owners
and [clears throat] asked them explained what we were doing and what we were we asked them for permission to uh look for and remove any uh water chestnuts found in their section of Beaver Brook.
Um [snorts] so far we have um five uh five responses where the owners have given us permission. Um we
believe we have uh talking with Lauren and Tim about the Hartwell uh um >> [clears throat] >> conservation area. Um they were pretty sure that
the commission would be in agreement, so that was a sixth area that we listed on the revision that we sent today, but um >> Right, but you need us to formally approve >> you whether you agree that with that before Tim signs it.
>> Okay. >> Anyway, that's where we stand. We So, just the logistics of the revision today was that it was pointed out that we needed uh property owner's permission in order to
open the hearing, and so uh we reduced the scope for the moment to the properties where we have permission, and our hope would be that when we get uh additional um permissions, [clears throat] we can
uh expand the scope. Um Unfortunately, at the moment, we don't have permission from the property where the uh plants were found. Um and uh the the property owners aren't
local, but uh I'm at this point I'll be trying to reach out to to um to them to see uh if we can uh the one property's uh their their address is in Connecticut.
Um so, we'll our hope is that we could get uh approval for the properties that we have permission for with the condition that if we got more permissions,
uh I'm thinking ideally we could work with the conservation agents to expand it um if if the commission's willing to to set it up that way. But, we wouldn't be We wouldn't be doing any work on any properties we don't have
permission from in any case. >> So, what you're asking there is let's say we we issue the notice of or we issue uh an order of conditions. After that, you get someone else that signs off on it. You'd like to make sure that you can
do that, too, right? So, >> Right. >> um Tim, I let's assume we we approve this. Um Tim, could you and Lauren look into our ability like what what would the
conditions say to give the Friends of Forge Pond the ability to essentially add things on to that with your sort of sign-off cuz I think we'll want to make sure we have the right language to the extent that we even legally can do that. >> Yeah, I can certainly look into that.
The other option I would say is if you guys are willing to entertain it is um if, you know, Dave gets another signature for another property, if he comes back and requesting a minor mod to just expand that. That's more of a formal commission approval of it. I mean, I guess
my approval would be a formal one as well. Yeah, I guess >> My worry with that is that um uh we uh you know, you only meet every 2 weeks or twice a month, and uh the seeds will drop around the end of
July. Uh and um so, [clears throat] uh we may get the permission in time to actually go in and work in the areas where we know the plants are, but uh the commission might not meet in time to be able to go in and do that before
the seeds drop. >> I I would be willing to entertain Town Council may not love it, but some sort of uh retroactive. I I do think we should ultimately sort of do a minor mod that memorializes it. But, Tim, if you
can find a way for us to do that, let's say retroactively? Cuz I hear what Dave's saying in terms of we don't If If people are out there doing this work, we don't want to have to remobilize out to do it for one additional property or have the seeds drop in the process.
>> Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely look into that. >> In other words, find us a credible legal way of of doing it, and I think you You have the green light to be as creative as you need to be to get >> [laughter] >> with with [snorts]
>> Um but I think that that jumps over all of the the bigger points, which are essentially is the commission supportive of this once we have a MassDEP file number to proceed with an order of conditions. And
so, I'd like to open it up to commissioners to see what questions, comments, or concerns commissioners have on the hand removal of water chestnut. I will note one thing um that Dave didn't touch on. Uh Natural Heritage has looked at this,
and there are a few conditions that Natural Heritage has has requested, but nothing substantive in terms of not ability in not being able to do the work. Things like make sure that any wildlife on the water chestnuts gets returned to the water, you know,
Yeah. >> Their Their Their biggest, like you said, that was one uh do that in two places, and then clean the boats uh before and after. Uh the biggest uh constraint was that um uh they said uh we
couldn't do it between August 15th and um >> September 30th, I think, right? >> September 30th, right. So, [clears throat] um you know, by by August 15th, the seeds have dropped. Anyway, by by October,
it's kind of too late to be um taking them out. >> My My goal this discussion with commissioners though is that if the Friends of Forge Pond are in front of us in 2 weeks, I I'd like Dave to know are are we going to say yes or are we going to say no so
that he can I think credibly get everything lined up so that this this could proceed essentially immediately after a formal vote. >> Yeah, the Thank you. Yeah, there's a fair amount of logistics to getting >> [clears throat] >> uh it's a difficult area to get into and
uh it's once you're in there, there's not a lot of room to move around so you can't have a ton of boats and the boats have to be basically kayaks or canoes. And then you have to get the plants out of there in a way that you're you're you're not spreading them,
you're not dropping them. >> Commissioners, questions, comments, or concerns? >> How are you getting rid of it after you pull them all out? >> They'll be [snorts] composted. That's the uh standard process. Keep
keeping them out of the water. Um they're okay to be composted. Um whether we do that at a um uh commercial site or if somebody wants to
uh manage it themselves, um we'll just make sure that they're not getting anywhere back near the near the wetlands. >> Yeah, I I would say Dave, um I'd hit on the same question I have. I would require a condition here that says
that you will uh the composting will be outside of all wetland protection act resource areas and you will notify the Littleton Conservation Agent uh about where you're doing that
composting. >> Right. Sure. Yep. >> Hey Hey Chase. Uh Oh. A lot of these, from my experience with water chestnut harvest, thing is um one of the better ways to handle it,
in addition to the compost, is you're supposed to spread them and let them dry and then you can compost them. But from my experience, that's how most people that are harvesting these things
do. Um the other thing is when you harvest them you need to get as much of the plant as you possibly can because, as you know, Dave um little pieces
spread throughout the system. So, it's a it's it's not it's not an easy thing to do. I understand what you're saying with the small boats and kayaks as far as the best way to do it. >> Yeah, we've had uh yes, thanks, uh Carl. That's right. Uh we've had some members
that have uh participated in uh other uh water chestnut removal events recently to uh gain some experience in uh how to do it and um
uh and it [clears throat] uh does take some care, but um if you are careful, uh the roots do come up. >> Right. >> And you're right, you have to make sure you get everything.
>> A- And Carl, the looking at their performance guidelines, I liked two things. One was um provide a fragment barrier around areas to be harvested. And the other was guidance on harvesting the entire plant including to the extent possible the greatest extent possible
the root system. >> Yeah. Yep. But I'm I'm all in favor of it. You don't want to you certainly don't want to test them taking over um the waterway. That's for damn sure. Right.
>> I I'd agree with Carl and she's Thank you Dave for leading this charge as always. Um and yeah, I know I I I I would be very supportive of this in 2 weeks. >> Yep. Agreed.
Okay Dave, so I I think what you can say here is to the extent that there are other folks who haven't signed on yet that you have I don't think you're overstating it to say you have Conservation Commission support to do it.
Um if that helps people get their head around it. I also would suggest that if you have someone who's concerned a little bit about the town's stance on this that Tim I'm volunteering you for a lot of stuff this tonight, but I think you
could point them to Tim too who could talk to them and say no that the commission is very supportive of of this. >> Right. Yeah. And I I I may send follow-up I mean in in our cover letter we didn't say you know that we will specifically only be
in the stream. We will not be on your property otherwise which might be what some of them might be concerned about, but you know we did say that we're just going to be going in to remove them in the stream. So
>> [clears throat] >> Uh my main interest at the moment is getting the permission from the the one or two properties where we've already seen them. >> Very good.
Well, um good luck with that. Um we have to continue it until >> Sure, we have to >> formal file number, but I think you're you're good to go. >> Appreciate it. Thanks. >> Thanks, Steve. >> Do I have you guys Do I have you guys' blessing to sign off on the Hartwell property portion of
this? >> Oh, yeah. Um sorry, I I think we should um Let me formally make a motion to authorize uh the Friends of Forge Ponds use of the Hartwell property for
uh water chestnut removal purposes in association with the notice of intent filed uh >> June 1st. >> Discussed. Yeah, I guess we'll have a number. There There's a convoluted motion, but I think it'll do. >> That'll work. Second.
All right. Roll call vote. Ed. >> Ed Foulkes, aye. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxwell, aye. >> Carl. >> Carl Mabbs, aye. >> Chase. >> Chase Kirby, aye. >> And myself, aye. It's unanimous. >> Very good. >> Okay. Thanks a lot.
>> Thanks, Steve. >> Okay. Good night. >> Um okay, we're going to move on to the 8:30 continued public hearing on the notice of intent for 359 King Street, DEP file number 204-1035 for site redevelopment.
Who is here to speak to that one? Is this This is Joe? >> So, Mark Arnold here with Goddard Consulting is here um along with Joe. Joe Calerdo is with us as well as Dwight Long. >> Very good. So, Mark, you want to take us
through any updates on this? I mean, we had a sidewalk uh what, about a week and a half ago, but anything >> Exactly. >> Anything that you guys have changed in the meantime? >> Yeah, so um we we we took the the comments that uh we got from the sidewalk, which we appreciated. The um
one of the comments was um the installation of bounds um to kind of demarcate the limit of kind of like the developed area as we redevelop the property to kind of like demarcate the limit of lawn and landscaping. And so um our intention is to um
propose bounds basically along the outside of the proposed cart path, which I'll just um I'm going to pull up those those the current landscaping plans just so you can see that. So um conceptually um as a team we're working on on exactly where we want to put these, but basically we'd install them along the
outside of this pathway um and they would kind of tie into this garden and then from here again um to here. So that way we'd kind of demarcate the the the the pathway kind of being your your barrier to any um manicured lawn beyond that and everything else would be maintained as as agricultural
fields as it has in the past. Um and the other comment we had during the sidewalk um that we were working on addressing is um there is uh a desire to install uh what's an open shelter shed for for a horse or animals
in the back fields. Um the plan would be to put that outside the buffer zone. Um it's the kind of structure that you could basically put in the back of a pickup truck in terms of materials, um install it with hand dug sonotubes. Basically um put it up, so it's not a it's not a full-blown four-sided shed
that's like for like like, you know, full-time winter with utilities, etc. It's basically almost the either one or three-sided shed with one side completely open. Um it's mainly for shelter when it's raining heavily, it's windy um for
livestock to kind of gather there some shelter. And again, the plan is to put that outside the buffer zone. So we will plan on showing that, um, on the plan, um, somewhere. So, again, like they we do have that actually here. So, again, we'll we'll make sure it's clear what this actually means and what we'll
re-change the wording and explain what it means. But, again, it's in terms of a barn, it's not the classical New England barn. It's going to be more of an open shelter shed. Um, >> So, you're building a run-in. >> Exactly. It's It's a run-in shed, exactly. Yep. >> Yeah. We have those for our horses as
well. >> Yep. So, um, so those are the two, um, really major updates from the site walk and we wanted to make sure there wasn't anything else that, um, was missed. We're working with planning board on on their review of things with the stormwater and everything else. And
so, um, we're hoping to kind of conclude any comments that we have from the commission in terms of the project tonight, so we have those all together and we can do like one plan revision that at least covers all the conservation commission comments, so we can, um, have a tight set that, um, has all the details and all the notes that
you want to see, so we have a plan set that we can all agree is a plan set that adequately shows what the commission is approving. >> Mark, I think one My comment on the barn, since you're you're riffing on that, um, so everyone is aware, I
talked with Mark a little bit, um, on the site walk, not just about that barn, cuz frankly, jurisdictionally, as long as it's outside of the resource area, they can do it. The real challenge is getting it out there and I think, Mark, one thing that could be helpful there to
sort of assuage my concerns is to make sure that there's some construction notes about the equipment that will be used to actually get the uh, to build the run-in shed and any restoration that might need to be done.
I don't think there will be any, but what might need to be done to restore any resource areas that could be disturbed in the process of getting equipment or materials out there to construct that. >> Yeah, certainly.
>> That's probably just a couple of notes on the drawing to make sure it's clear. >> Yep, absolutely. Yeah, we I think we can put together some notes that are are very clear to make sure that again any any type of any type of vehicle traffic that does that does pass through the buffer zone would would would make sure that it
didn't impact the the vegetation vegetation or if it if there was any roughing up that we could add we throw it up would see would use etc. dress so we can make sure that it's adequately restored and stabilized. >> And you know, like one other thing, you know, traversing the minimum distance through
the buffer zone to reach that area and not doing it during seasons when it's wet. I think I could reach a determination that there would be no resource area impact as long as it's not overly wet when you do it. You're using
reasonable equipment, you know, things like that that you're minimizing the travel distance. >> Yeah. >> Then it becomes a a thing that is not an impact. >> Yep. Yep, understood. Yeah, I think we can provide you that level that good
level of detail that you'll comfortable. >> Other comments or questions on the plan that Mark's got for us? >> Mark, one thing real quick. Um, actually two. Something that we discussed on site of the sidewalk and I think Andrew confirmed that there's not going to be
any trees that are being taken down within jurisdictional buffer zones, right? >> Um, that yeah, that is that is the case. Yes. Yeah, that there's there's one tree by the path here, um, but that one's remaining. So we're just basically coming right alongside that tree there. You can see the the existing path
already basically comes along that tree. Um, so we're just going to kind of, you know, we're just work right next to that tree just like we have before. Um, we're not taking that down and then this tree back here is obviously not being touched with the path down here and and there's nothing around this area. So, um, I I believe we're putting I believe the
landscape plan has um details for tree protection and I'll make sure that they're on the on the detail sheets. So, that way those trees that are in the buffer zone that are near where we're going to be working um do have adequate protection just to make sure that we keep all those trees protected during construction. >> Excellent. The other thing that I wanted
to uh discuss one thing that we talked about on site um was the area within the 50-ft uh no disturb where it shows the proposed pavers. Um I think Andrew mentioned that that is is is not going to be supposed to be pavers anymore.
>> Correct. It's going to be It's going to be a gravel cart path. Yes. Yep. Yep. >> And that's a continuation of what's already there, right? So, to the extent that that's showing work within the 50, it's simply continuing >> It is
It's yeah. >> redoing what's already disturbed there. >> Basically, yep, exactly. Right in that edge is basically It's all within that There's a chain-link fence right there already. Um and it it exactly. It's just kind of just kind of making sure we have a good radius there. >> [snorts] >> Can you go out to the to the shed again
for a second? You're going to build a shed, but what what mechanism is keeping the animals out of the out of the wetlands? >> Um the the the the the whole the whole property um is fenced in and has been
used historically for a livestock in the past. Um so, um there's nothing that prohibits the livestock accessing the entire back area in terms of um livestock that happens every day. Um I know of farms with that have cattle that
go through that perennial river's running right through the cattle runs and the cattle go right through the river. They lay in the river. Um I feel that's a little weird cuz it's a perennial river seems to be a little more significant than an intermittent stream. Um but uh still um it's it's,
uh, it's I mean that that river is actually in the watershed to the Wachusett Reservoir. Um, so, um, but, uh, it it it it it's basically there there the livestock is allowed to to wander through there. I mean, we will be putting a lot of we will I believe there is intentions to do some protections for some of the, uh, the plantings to make
sure they don't get damaged by the livestock that there are out there. Um, >> won't eat them. >> Yeah. So, but there yeah, the livestock otherwise would be kind of let to roam in the buffer zones, um, where there isn't any plantings or anything. >> The other condition that we talked about in the field was we have standard
conditions about fertilizers, fertilizer application rates, organic fertilizers. I would propose that we make sure that Tim and Lauren include those standard conditions here. >> Yep, I think that's good. Um, I I don't
think there's need to fertilize back there if if you if you if you do, you know, um, grazing and you strategically graze it out it it you get natural fertilization through the livestock. So, um, particularly if you do, um, strategic grazing where you you actually
just move you have you can move a you can have temporary electric fences you can move them around if you want to and then you can strategically graze each area and you just, um, it gives a good a good amount of nutrients, but also lets the grass regrow and you get more grass and then they they come back and get better nutrients and it's a good cycle
for soil regeneration. >> The the space is not going to be able to handle very many horses. So, cuz they will graze it down by the end of the summer. >> Yeah, I think I think right now there's I mean I I I heard there was one horse that was, um, the applicant's daughter.
Um, it's being it's being put elsewhere I think this summer, um, because of of the permanent time that this has taken. Um, but, um, but we're hoping to again have a permit so we can get the the shed up there and hopefully next year we have a a lovely horse walking around it and neighbors have something
to >> One one or two won't be a problem, but much beyond that this field won't survive. So, I can speak from experience. >> So Mark, to be clear, you're not looking for a vote tonight. You just want to make sure you get all the comments, critiques, concerns, criticisms.
>> Exactly. Yep, exactly. If there's anything else particularly that the commission wanted to hear or see on the plans or it further clarity, uh we want to make sure we have all that so we can kind of provide you one kind of updated package with everything. And hopefully at the next meeting we'll have a plan that will be actually approved by
planning board or near there and then we can kind of hopefully have plans that that coincide with each other. >> So commissioners, any other comments that we have concerns that the applicant needs to address? Okay.
So Mark, my understanding is I just need you to confirm it. You're looking for a continuance to the next conservation commission meeting. >> Yes, please. Uh oh, to Joe, do you have one more comment? You have your hands up. >> Uh Mr. Chairman,
we intend to go to the planning board Thursday evening. We're on the schedule. So, I I think and speaking on behalf of Mr. Wong, we would appreciate a positive vote tonight so that we can pass that on to the planning board so we
can keep this moving along. So, I I I'd like to correct Mark. If we could get a vote tonight, that would be very very helpful so we can try to get this project underway. >> Um what I would recommend here Joe is
that we could ask Tim to communicate to Marin the general support of this. I'm a a hesitant to go down that pathway. You're the applicant, you have the right to ask for the vote. I I like to see these things buttoned up on plans. As we talked about, we can be
prickly creatures here. So, um I I personally would rather see these things just finalized and ask Tim to communicate to Myra to communicate to the planning board that all of our substantive concerns have been expressed
and we expect them to be resolved without a formal on something that isn't final >> anything we could do to keep moving this along would be much appreciated. So, if if that's the course you need to take, Mr. Chairman, we we we respect that.
>> Joe Joe, would you like the commission to vote to authorize Tim to let the planning board know that the the commission is is um suspending minor plan changes before they approve the plan set? >> That'd be great. Yes, please. Yes.
>> I I think Tim can probably do that without a formal vote. Um I think this is record enough of that. But certainly I think that that makes a lot of sense to have Tim communicate to Myra. We do better as a town when everybody's talking. >> Fair enough. That's fine. Thank you.
Appreciate it. >> Okay. Very good. Then um we will continue this to July 7th, Tim. July 7th? Is that what we're doing? >> That's correct. Yep. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you all. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. >> I know. >> And I've lost the agenda. Where's the agenda? Okay. Um next up we have our 9:00 p.m. notice of intent. Oh, sorry, 8:45 p.m.
Yeah, 2A Cataldo Pondway. MassDEP file number 204-1034, portable portable liquid natural gas facility. So, what I I'd like to do here is uh I believe there was a site walk. Um
the applicant could introduce any components of the project that you think we need to understand, then I'd like to have a report out on findings from the site walk, and then we can come back to the applicant, and then we can go to
commissioner questions and comments. >> I'm sorry, uh Chase. I lost you at the beginning there. Could you repeat that? >> Yeah, Sam. I I wanted to know if you could speak to any um changes in the plan, anything that the commission needs to know, then I'd like to have a report
out from those that are on the site walk findings, and then we can um see where we go from there. >> Of course. >> The floor is yours to discuss the project first. >> Thank you. Yeah, so um my name is Sam Keferstein. I'm an ecologist with BSC
Group, and we have a number of of updates to share um regarding the project. So, our last um time we appeared in front of you all, there was a number of information requests, so we had provided the stormwater report that
was provided to the Littleton Planning Board um to the commission as well as Army Corps wetland forms. Um as well as we also updated our environmental resource map. Um that was based on the site visit and a call for
some additional flagging. Um just uh you know, better demarcate the wetland for uh the commission as well as snow storage locations to be shown on the plan. Um our uh uh professional wetland scientist
also met with ConCom staff earlier this week just to discuss the wetland line and and get out there with you all. Um this, you know, pertinent but in Westford for the, you know, portion of the project is in Westford
and we um were issued a conditional negative determination for that project uh or for that portion of the project in Westford. And um you know, one of the the big pieces is from from the site visits and uh the
initial review of the project, you know, there was talk of um mitigation for the uh 12 tree removals that are proposed within the buffer zone. And um we did share that planting plan earlier today, but we recognize, you
know, the commission had had little time to review that, but the hope is that um you know, we wanted to share the plan for some initial feedback and review um so that we can incorporate that and and update our plan accordingly and share at um
you know, a subsequent hearing for for the commission's approval. >> Okay. >> came in after >> after I was out of the office, so I I didn't get a chance to forward that over to the commission for for their review. >> So, you're That sounds good. Thank you,
Tim. So, so you're uh essentially your plan tonight, Sam, what you'd like is for us to make sure that we express any additional substantive concerns understanding that there are some things we haven't looked at and you're expecting um a continuation.
>> That's correct. Yeah, we're expecting a continuation. I if if possible during our time tonight, I know it's a packed agenda. I have the planting plan as well as a representative um from our uh our landscape
architecture team just to share some initial impressions and thoughts. We definitely would love to get if there's any anything that's the commission prefers or likes to see in the mitigation plan, we definitely want to have that take place tonight if
possible. >> We've gotten burned on this in the past, but if if as long as you'll acknowledge that you know, our comments may be incomplete, I'm not opposed to taking a look at it, but it I just want to be really clear taking a
look at it doesn't mean that we're sort of only the comments we make tonight are the comments that are sort of fair to raise in a couple weeks. Um >> Sure, that understood and and and fair. >> So, let's set the planting plan
logistically, let's set that aside sort of to the end and we can talk about that in real time. Let's talk about the other substantive questions with respect to flagging, delineation, um snow storage, and so on. Um
Commissioners, what do we what do we want to see here? What Who has comments on those things? >> I have a concern about the flags. This is the second site walk down where that specifically it was been called out. Sarah and I went and there and it was
not anywhere near sufficiently flagged. And then I saw the note so I wasn't able to go the second time and again it called out flagging. Um so, I don't understand what's what's the hold up there. >> And um one of the the wetland scientist was actually able to get out there
yesterday. I wasn't in the office yesterday, but Lauren actually got a chance to go out with the wetland scientist when he was hagging hanging those additional flags and she had him take some soil samples as well where it It a it was questionable.
And my understanding is the applicant was looking to submit that revised plan showing those additional wetland flag locations on this this new plan, but is Is that the um Sam, is that the plan that that you sent
over this afternoon? >> That's correct. Yes. >> And Carl, were you able to attend the site walk? >> Hey. >> Hang on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Hi. Yeah, yeah, I did I did it. Can you guys hear me now?
>> Yeah, and and are these sort of flag revisions based on in some part your comments in the field as well? >> Yes. Yeah, both him and I observed that
some of the flag locations appeared to be off from what we could tell. Um and they needed to have an intermediate flag installed, which I think is what they did. Um because the distance between flag to
flag um incorporates some wetland. So, we needed some intermediate flags to um to do that, and then um we also noticed that
the distance >> [snorts] >> from the wetland flag to where they showed the 50-ft um was not accurate. >> Okay. >> And that needed to be Yeah, that needed
to be fixed also. >> Sam, would you be able to show the um whatever most updated plan you have that shows the wetland flag line and >> Sure thing. >> Is that the the aerial imagery so we can kind of point out to the commission >> Absolutely.
>> at least one flag that we were looking at out there. Um >> I believe it was 104. >> Uh >> Yeah, 103 or 104, yeah. >> Yep, right there. Um so, looking at the plan right now, it's a little
deceiving. Um we measured out 50 ft from the the flag 104, and it goes I would say about maybe 10 to 12 ft into the existing disturbed area. Whereas, if you look if you're looking at the 50 ft on here, it almost looks like it's at the the edge of the existing disturbed
area. Um So, just wanted to to point that out. Um cuz that's we noticed that for at least that one flag um that we actually took the measurement at to the 50 ft in the field.
>> Right. Right. >> Yeah, and if if I can chime in on that point, um I recognize that ER map kind of the the frame of reference might be a bit uh you know, confusing or a little off, but you know,
our site plans were based off of the um off of this wetland line. And so, we've you know, after the first hearing and site visit, especially with it being so close to that do not disturb, you know, we we confirmed with, you know,
the designer that no work, including, you know, pavement, fencing installation, uh what have you is taking place within that 50 ft no disturb. >> Hey Hey, Tim. >> Yeah. >> Were we able to uh look at the past
records? >> I I I exactly where you're going with that. Yeah, I was just about to chime in on that. Um another thing that that we talked about briefly out there in the field was um the the history of this area and the
permitting of this existing disturbed area. Um Carl, I have some I have some information on that. I also have aerial imagery that I could I could show that would probably help um inform you guys as I as I talk about it. So,
um back in 2000 and it was either 2006 2007 and I'll pull up this um this imagery to show you. This area was part of a larger project that was permitted. I believe it was called the Village at the Common for the
development of a bunch of um it was it was a subdivision um development here. Um this area where there is the the parking area right now. Um it was permitted to be
you can see it right here, proposed soil absorption area as well as um sediment forebay. And so so that was on the approved plan. Um you can see this is the wetland line right here. Um this is back in the 2006 delineation.
Um so pre-by-law, right? >> Tim, can you orient me a little bit so that the wetland line? So, this was this was the approved plan and essentially allowed work right up to the edge of the resource area. >> Yes, pretty much. >> Okay. >> Um
>> Where's the road that's there today, Tim? That's not the one that is at the bottom of your picture. >> Yes. Yes, that is. So so this is the um existing disturbed area and the road goes off down here and then it goes it's not shown out here, but there's a road
in this direction, right? Um so so this is 2008 when the the work had begun. Um you can see this is the well in back here, the the four-bay assuming was going to go right here, and and the soil absorption area back here. You can see
the road. So this is 2008. 2011 2012 2013 2014 Um I'm not sure if this had an extension. Um
because if it got it if the order got issued in uh 2006, you know, it's only valid for for 3 years, so I I I don't have clarity on on this work, the change between 2011 and 12
and 2013 2014. Um and then 2015 and in 2019, which is pretty representative of of how it looks generally today. There's a lot less kit There's no containers over here.
There's The containers are There's a couple towards this portion of the site. Um so so that was what we found when we did our our digging on the history of this site, Carl. Um that was the last thing that we saw was the the where it was in front of the
commission for for development of this portion was um was this plan This approved plan right here. >> So the site The site was never developed. So >> I I You're right. The The subdivision it it never
So came to fruition. >> They They built houses, but it never completed. >> Right. >> Right. Never completed. So I don't I don't know that the status of the permit, whether it was ever extended or anything like that. Um
But, the thing that got my attention, Chase, um was the fill material that was placed within the 50. And And the only reason I'm I mean, it was obvious we're looking at this project which is trying to stay out of the 50.
And then we have this uh fill material on the chemical property. Um that's within the 50, pushing, you know, quite a ways in. So, I just want I I I just needed before I could Before I could um
logically look at and make an evaluation on this particular application, I just needed to know the status of that project which Tim was looking at. >> Yeah, and and it looks like the >> Yeah.
>> It It looks like the the change, right, between, you know, when it was in development and you know, clearly this is not the the soil absorption area in the sediment forebay. This was, you know, 2013-2014, which is pre-bylaw.
Um that being said, you know, don't have record of this work right here being permitted for the development like this like it became. >> And they're looking to They're looking to pave this over.
>> Uh Yeah, we can we can we can jump back into that. I was just, you know, Carl had asked if I can >> Yeah, no, it's it's it's Yeah, it's it's it's just As long as I'm clear on this point, Tim, I'm good. I just
just having trouble analyzing the 50 when there's material already in the 50. >> Yeah. >> That's all. >> So, Carl, um So, bringing it all the way back to the existing project,
based on the existing conditions, cuz I I don't I I know there are different statutes of limitations under the Wetlands Protection Act for enforcement orders, but I'm going to presume that none of them would allow us to go all the way back to 2013, even if that was
done incorrectly at the time. Um how does that bear on the project in front of us now? Are there things associated with the current project that you think are insufficient to protect the resource area?
>> No, if I look at the existing project and um uh just the only things that were what we already just were talking about, the the the wetland lines, uh the distance
uh from that 103 wetland flag to the 50. Those those would be the only issues if we're looking directly at this project now. >> Okay. Andrew, Ed, Kyle, do you guys have uh additional substantive concerns
as it exists today? >> Yeah, I mean, it's kind of a tricky situation because the baseline that we're working with now, I mean, it it's not a true permitted baseline, so how do you build from that? I mean >> Uh >> [snorts]
>> that was that was That's the point. That's the point, Andrew, that I'm having that I'm struggling with. >> Yeah, cuz I mean, if this work was completed 12 13 years ago under the radar, and now it's, you know, it's not
giving a true representation of the 50, how do you that's hard to kind of >> [snorts] >> hard to kind of move from I mean and it's beyond the point of probably even retroactively permitting at this point. So
or would we even permit it? You know, if if that still you know, well, I mean it was done pre um 50-ft notice or bylaw but still >> It mean it it was it was deliberately put in because
we also noticed within that line of film material there was a um there's definitely a constructed ditch. Um with cobble cobble on both sides of it. So it's
definitely meant to um control water down through there. So again again like uh Andrew brought up it's difficult. Makes it just makes it difficult if we
just forget the whole thing and say we can't do anything about it was done. >> Here here's what I would propose if um one or two members of the commission are willing to do so. I would suggest that
we and the agent get together with town council for a few minutes to understand what what what the implications are here. Um I think that would be a productive discussion with maybe one or two
commissioners and Tim and someone from Tom's office. Carl, would you be willing to sit in on that? >> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, I'd definitely be willing to to sit on that. And >> And Andrew, maybe you too. Would would you two be good with that?
>> Yeah, potentially if it's um you know, even like you know, maybe like mid-afternoon on like a Friday. >> Okay. Yeah, I think what I'd like to do is have you guys meet with him and town council and sort of report out on that
while simultaneously looking at this right now as it currently exists because that those sorts of answers from town council could bear come to bear on things, but I think we also have to look at the project in front of us. >> Yeah. >> And so what I'd like to do is be able to
give Sam substantive comments on the project as it exists while we also run down any let's say legal avenues that need to be resolved. >> Yeah. I'd I'd been more than happy to do that. >> Okay. >> Once I have that clear in my mind, it'll
be a whole lot easier for me. >> Okay. Um but if [clears throat] I'm not changing subjects too much, there there is one additional sort of technical issue, Sam, that I I wanted to know if we could talk about real quick. >> Sure.
>> Could you bring up the um could you bring up the site plan again? >> Of course. >> I I wanted to talk about you have like a you have like a backup generator, yeah, proposed from transformer and emergency
generator. What I wanted to understand were things like fuel storage and things like that and where is that emergency generator running on diesel or is it running on natural gas? How does How does that all work? And essentially what I want to
get to is are we storing oil or hazardous substances in a resource area or in a place where if they were to fail, it could end up in a resource area? >> Yeah, great question and I see Matt Wozniak
I elevated so if you want to take this map, the floor is yours. >> Yeah, sure. Thanks, Sam. Hi. Good evening. My name is Matt Wozniak. I'm an environmental engineer with National Grid. And that
backup generator there will be run on natural gas. >> Okay. >> We do not anticipate storing diesel or any kind of petroleum fluids on this site. You know, there'll be the the tankers
with the liquefied natural gas. There's four potentially at the site at one time. Those are those white rectangles in the beginning in the middle of the parking lot. Yes, Sam.
Um those will have LNG, but those aren't stored on site, per se. Um when we anticipate a a need to vaporize, the trucks will arrive a day or two beforehand. They'll be hooked up.
Then they'll vaporize all the contents, and then they'll be sent off site cuz they'll be empty. So, there's no you know, certain permanent storage or long-term storage of of chemicals on the site. >> Okay. >> Why do you need a generator?
>> Um Matt, when you say vaporize, talk me through the process. What What What does that mean? >> Okay. So, liquefied natural gas is is natural gas that is cryogenic. It's
stored at minus 260° F. And by storing it in such a cold temperature, it contracts on a ratio of roughly 600 to 1. So, um the volume of you know, it it's it's
shrunk down. Um so, you can store a lot of natural gas in those containers. Um, so when a day comes when it's cold out or when the demand will potentially exceed the supply in the distribution system,
this plant will go into operation. We will run the liquefied natural gas through what are called vaporizers, but they are basically heating elements that heat it up. The The liquid expands
600 times and then it is put into the the distribution network and sent to to homes. >> Okay. I I That's largely I I just want to make sure we weren't I I don't know. Um, I don't know the process very well. Somehow cleaning something out or
allowing something to vaporize to the environment. So, when you say vaporize, you mean just to to enter into the distribution system as a gas as opposed to storage as a liquid. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah, it's a closed system. Nothing is is in the atmosphere.
>> Okay. Um, I had one other question on stormwater. Um, town planning board is looking at this as well. Is that correct? >> I don't believe they've opened in front of planning board yet. I think in the beginning of Is this the beginning of July? Is that correct?
>> 9th. >> Okay. Have Have we Have we coordinated Well, we we couldn't have if they haven't opened, but um, I would like a peer review on the stormwater just to make sure everything is
appropriate. Um, I expect planning board would ask for that as well. >> They have. >> discussed that? And if it was in the minutes and I'm forgetting, I apologize. >> Since this last when we met on May 12th,
we met informally with the Littleton Planning Board, introduced them to the project. We submitted the stormwater application. We are submitting site plan review application, and they indicated that both those will be subject to third-party review.
>> Okay. Chase, is there anything Oh, sorry. >> Uh no, I I just as long as the um reviewer is also cognizant of the resource areas. At the end of the day, that stormwater handbook
is a stormwater handbook, whether it's uh Conservation Commission or Planning Board that asks for the peer review. So, I'm I'm good with it, as long as someone's looking at it. I want some a peer reviewer to sign off on the stormwater.
>> Couple of things we we talked about, the first sidewalk that I don't see noted out here, was the drainage. And we specifically talked about that you needed to make sure you didn't drain it back toward the the wetlands.
Um and the other was noting uh snow storage, where, you know, where you're going to plow and all that. >> Yeah, so in in Okay, just making sure I'm not muted. Um so, we did, you know, show Let me zoom
out. These These are the uh snow storage locations. And so, in line with our uh the stormwater report, as well as the maintenance of, you know, the the impervious and the pervious pavement, um in terms of snow storage,
most of it's going to be accomplished using upland pervious areas, like the uh road shoulder. And then we also, as as needed, um you know, we highlighted an alternative area within the lot that could be used to um,
you know, store snow. And there's also off the map, there's um, it would be within Westford, but there are the batting cages at Kimball's that, you know, uh, the owners of Kimball's have informed us can be
utilized as needed if the areas we've shown aren't, uh, if it's a particularly heavy snow year. >> Mhm. >> Um, yeah, in terms of having grades shown on the map, um,
I apologize that I I must have missed that note. I wasn't at the first site, um, visit. But, um, really it's been this outer edge is is pervious pavement and so the thought is that these, um,
the grades have been done in such a way to to guide storm water and to the pervious pavement and it would be able to, you know, um, essentially diffuse and and recharge ground water through those pervious points.
And the storm water report we had shared, you know, showed that we were able to satisfy all of the all of the standards, um, and even those set out by the the Littleton Planning Board, as well. >> Um, can I can I ask a really dumb
question here that I'm sure we've already addressed? Um, why does it have to be in this corner as opposed to at fully outside of the resource area? Like, in other words, if, um, uh, uh, plan north, like, what
why can't it be plan northeast as opposed to plan southwest? >> Sure. So, Matt, definitely chime in if if I leave out any details here, but because of the nature of these um you know, the roadway and the how the
LNG is going to get brought into the site, it needed to be in this location in order to support that the trucks to turn around and leave the site. So, do we have a truck turnout there?
>> Yeah. That's what dictated the the size of the pavement and the location of the equipment. >> I I I would like to request I I I appreciate what you're saying, makes a lot of sense to me. Um I
I think in the interest of one of the things that we have to demonstrate is that you've considered feasible alternatives and I think or you are pursuing the least impactful feasible alternative
and in that sense it it will probably drive a design engineer nuts. I would like to see the auto turn measurements if you take it out of outside of the resource area. In other words, prove to me through auto turn that you can't make the turns that you need.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, we can >> Here Here's where I'm going. I I I don't love that we have all of the noise and all of the lights in close proximity to that vernal pool. And so, I'm going to come back to light
in a second, but that is a particularly sensitive ecosystem there and the further we can get things away from that, the better. So, um I I I think we just really need to see firm
a firm basis firm documentation for why it has to be here as opposed to outside of the resources. >> I think we asked a similar question with first site walk, why was it over there? Something else that that and and
nothing has changed is why it's necessary to take out the trees on the left side when you got so much room for everything else already. And they have big trees. I appreciate that they may not be in the in the resource area
and stuff, but I'm still going to stand up for the trees. >> Yeah, I I I think showing the truck turning movements will will help. Um, but we also because we are vaporizing natural gas
and there's some equipment, there's setbacks that we have um, per electrical codes and per other things that require space between pieces of equipment and so that is also led to
this layout that we have. >> Um, [clears throat] that's a thing Tim that I'd like to make sure planning board is also looking at that I appreciate that there are these codes that may dictate these things that are way outside of our area of expertise,
um, but if they are dictating these setbacks, I want to know from planning board that they really do have to have these setbacks. That they're being interpreted correctly and implemented correctly. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, I'm going to turn to a really narrow
board thing. Um, I I would also like to understand from you all what you're proposing in terms of light poles and how the hoods and the construction of those light poles will um, minimize light shining on the resource areas and
in particular that vernal pool. Cuz you can really screw up wildlife mating cycles with too much light in those vernal pools. >> Yeah, we can definitely look to pull, you know, some more detailed information. I I would just share that,
you know, we did have this project reviewed by natural heritage and we had submitted a Mesa checklist to them for the the two endangered species um that are likely to be found in the area or or this serves as as good habitat for
them. And um you know, we did get a no take finding so long as we we implement the um the mitigation such as like the turtle protection plan that we'd included with our our Mesa checklist, but
>> Yep. Understood and I'm I think I'm here leveraging our prerogative as a local planning as a local conservation commission to go above and beyond those requirements. >> Understood. Yeah, we can definitely pull some some more detailed information to
share with you for leading up to the next hearing. >> And essentially what I want to know is you are using the minimum amount of light that you need for safety and you are it's being designed in a way to minimize
its impact on the resource areas through the hood, through the type of light, through timing, through motion sensors, essentially all of those aspects. >> Okay, we can definitely pull that in and look to share for next hearing. >> Last question is noise. How much noise
does this generate? >> We have done studies. We have this equipment. And we can we can provide that because that's something that the planning board has asked. And so we're we're working on it. Um
>> What I'm going to ask you to do is to take it one step further than the planning board will and benchmark the amount of noise generation to levels that are potentially disruptive to ecological resources and particularly uh vernal pools.
I'm fully receptive to the idea that it it may not be significant, but I I want you to to lay that out for us. >> Okay. It It is not very loud, but we'll we'll pull that information. >> Is it steady when the trucks are the
When there's no trucks, there's no noise, right? >> Correct. This this is planned to operate 15 to 20 days over the winter, you know, so it's it's not constant. And it's
you know, periodic on the cold days. This will run for a day or two and then and then it'll be silent. >> And when the trucks are there, the noise is primarily the the I forget what you called it uh >> vaporizer >> Vaporizer, thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah, they're heating up the
liquid natural gas. >> Okay. Okay. Um So, Sam, since you're looking for a continuation here in any case, I think it I have to get the want to keep moving. Commissioners, are there any other things that we need to put on that radar
as substantive concerns? Okay. So, Sam, if Oh, oh, Kyle, you just came off mute. >> Yeah, sorry. >> Were [clears throat] you going to continue on to I know you had some wariness about a potential plant planting plant. >> Yeah, I wanted to give Sam 2 minutes to
to put the plan up just to see what's there and we can throw we can throw darts at it and then Sam you can think about those darts. >> Yes, yeah, and understand, you know, this this is a preliminary, you know, and there may be
additional comments come, you know, time in between the hearing and next hearing. Would it be possible could I ask just we have another staff member, Casey Lee Bastian, who I believe is in the audience. If if it's possible to make him a
panelist just so he can give you that that elevator pitch, that would be great. >> Yep, good. We did it right. Casey Lee should be moving over now. >> And are we able to see this plan?
Or is it still on the >> Yeah, you can see looks like a planting plan of some sort or tree removal. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Yep. >> Yep, great. Thank you. >> Hello, Casey Lee Bastian, landscape architect and ecologist with BSC Group.
And we were asked to develop a plan for offsetting the impact to the trees being removed inside the buffer zone. And we've looked at that and there are some areas in and around the area of
clearing where we can perform some infill planting. So this would be adding back some birch and understory species as well as a certain amount of shrub um to match that quantity and we're aiming
for like a two and a half to one uh per unit replacement. >> [gasps] >> And the importance of doing some of the understory pieces is the with the additional light, this helps to prevent anything that might migrate in because edges are very active. So, it's valuable
to have some uh multiple layers of canopy and understory for the biodiversity in those edges. That's what we've proposed. Any questions? >> I mean, I'll tell you at first blush, you're probably in the right general
ballpark in terms of replanting ratios. Um Do you want to run through the species real quick, Casey Lee? I'd I'd be interested to make sure >> Sure. >> my more educated commissioners on this have a chance to weigh in on if the species makes sense to them.
>> Yep. Um so, we're working with yellow birch and sweet birch. Um that's Betula alleghaniensis and lenta. Uh we'll be doing some American hornbeam or musclewood, the Carpinus.
Some hazelnut, uh Corylus. Some hawthorn, uh Crataegus crus-galli. Witch hazel, uh Hamamelis. And a Prunus virginiana, chokecherry. Then for uh lower piece, but still
fairly large, some witherod viburnum, so Viburnum cassinoides. Um again, a group of things sort of for a spread of fruit and flower throughout the season, as well as reasonably large mass for things that we can help to infill and
restore the forest edge. >> Um how big would the saplings be that you're putting in? >> Sorry, can you repeat that? >> Uh how how big are the saplings that are going going installed? The the the yellow
birches and that kind of thing. >> Ah. Uh We're looking at we looked at the soil and spaces and it uh looked better than we had expected. So, we can still do probably 2-in caliper ball and burlap on
the larger trees and probably 5-10 gallon container for the smaller pieces. So, you can expect those to be in the multi-stem and 5-6 ft height. >> Okay, thank you.
>> So, presuming and I don't take this as approval, but presuming that we agree with the location of this and replanting is necessary, the question for commissioners is did you hear anything there that's like a non-starter for you? Something that you
know, you really think is worth getting out now before you dig into the weeds in terms of species, densities, locations, um >> Okay. I always refer to Carl or Jensen and Lauren first as far as what I do. >> [laughter]
>> Carl's good, I'm probably good. >> Yeah, if Carl doesn't speak up and if he doesn't have any major concerns then >> Well, and I'm I'm I'm happy um you know, with with the way they're thinking about um
replanting. It's always the thing that always bugs me, of course, is um the loss of the big trees. And there are >> Absolutely. I think you shouldn't take that as a foregone conclusion here just cuz we're talking about the replanting
plan. >> Right. I mean, there are several fairly large trees that we're going to lose. Um Um I mean, of course, the the re- the re- planting never replaces big trees. So, we're just we're looking, you know, we're going to have
30 in horizon before >> I'm 100% with you, Kyle. I brought that up on our sidewalk sidewalk as well that they're taking out some really nice trees. In terms of tree removal, and I I'm
going against what I just said, um is National Grid going to come back and argue in 5 years that they need to clear a whole bunch of area around this because the large trees pose a safety risk to a thing that we're building now. It Cuz right now, the trees that are
being removed are in the construction footprint, but there there's a whole bunch of large trees not far from here, too. >> Yeah. So, uh you're that is a a good question. Um and that's something that uh I asked
uh my colleagues about because we don't want trees that are within 5 to 10 ft of the fence that would provide an opportunity for someone to climb over the climb up the tree and then over the fence. So, I asked him to create this
planting plan with that in mind. So, he has put the trees off to the side and and in a way um you know, they're not in close proximity to the fence. So, the we we have addressed or you know, we've we've thought about that um in
advance. >> Um may I ask >> One thing that I would appreciate is a narrative from you based on the trees that you've seen out there, both in terms of safety, in terms of someone being able to climb over it, but also in terms of um
when large trees might get too large so that they pose a risk if they were to fall on the plant. And so I I would like you to opine on when other large trees in proximity are likely to pose a risk. Is it 5 years? Is
it 10 years? Is it 50 years? >> And not just up at that far end, but all the way along the edge because the sole backside has got trees. And if you're going to go start to to chop up trees, that I personally big
problem with that. >> That's the right question. >> And we'll have our forestry group look at it. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Sounds good. >> But I I think what you guys are hearing is to the extent that what needs to be removed here we do I don't think you you
got any major pushback on the general concept. We'll have to dig into the the meat of it. >> So >> Thank you. >> Sam, if it's okay with you and your team, I think we've spent a long time on this and a packed tonight. I'd like to move on unless there are any major questions that you feel like you still
need to ask or don't have resolution on. >> No, I think at this time, you know, we really appreciate the time that you all took to you know, go through questions, discuss the project, and even review this planting plan, you know, albeit
quickly. So I think Matt, unless there's anything else, I think we're we're okay to move forward with a continuance this evening. >> Yes, I appreciate everyone's time. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you all. Okay.
Allison, you're going to be up. We're going to move on to Boy, it's getting late. 9:00 p.m. the notice of intent for the transmission line improvements right away. DEP file number 204-1033. So Allison, when you
are over, if you want to jump in, I think we had Last time we met, we had some questions and some comments for you. I would appreciate it if you could sort of take those one by one, let us know what changes have been made or what things you've considered, and then we can see where we go from there.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um Allison Milman, BSC Group, on behalf of the applicant, New England Power Company. Um we also have Andrew Cole on the on the line um for any pointed questions that maybe he's better suited to respond to. Um if I may share my screen, please?
>> Yeah, go for it, Allison. >> Okay. So, last time we met uh with the commission, the um the areas of interest uh for further discussion were specifically Blood Road um and the uh the farm property adjacent. >> [clears throat]
>> Um since our last hearing, uh the applicant has met with um the landowner um to discuss the concerns that were raised at the last hearing. Um as such, uh we've made uh revisions to our site plan um to
uh reflect those discussions in the field that were that were had. Um I think the the big takeaways here were that that there were concerns about the use of Blood Road with heavy equipment. Um now we've changed the uh the NOI plans here to identify that Blood Road
will only be used um uh for temporary construction. Oh, I'm not showing the right plan. I'm sorry. Give me 1 second, please. I apologize. >> No worries. >> We changed We changed our um
file structure. >> Here we are. Okay. Here's the updated plan. Okay. Um so the the general concerns were use of Blood Road by large equipment um and the proximity to Blood Road to the
resource area. Um updated plans that I'm now sharing, it you're able to see those? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. Um is that Blood Road will now only be used for secondary access and uh pickup truck use only. Uh
also uh to address the um landowners' concerns, we've removed a large amount of the grading of the mounds. Um there will be only localized grading under the wires that's necessary to to address the ground-to-wire clearance issues.
Um and temporary matting will be used um for the installment of the replacement structures. Um we are we are still showing the you know sediment erosion controls that we talked about um you know to be consistent with what's out there now,
the reinforced you know the silt fence reinforced with uh straw bales. Uh we've also changed our access route to the farm as requested by the landowner. Uh so again, the the grading is is substantially reduced as we're showing
here. Um per conversations with the landowner, the primary access um per schedule with the landowner uh will be the on-farm access road uh that we discussed at the last hearing. Um and additionally um
there was there were concerns about the um the construction matting to be placed within this uh field identified vernal pool. Um and as committed to at the last hearing, uh New England Power um can avoid placing mats from March 1st to
July 31st of any given year, understanding that those mats will need to remain in place until the construction is complete in that area. So, I think those are the the big takeaways and the concerns that were raised at the last hearing and and uh I hope they're found to be addressed
substantially um for the the commission's consideration. >> Also, I just want to understand the time of time of use restrictions there. When you say "will not place the mats," does that mean not do work, or does that mean I
I cuz work without the mats is not ideal, either. Like Uh >> No, it means that the mat what they will place the mats outside of the active season, but the mats will need to remain >> Okay. >> Um while the construction is occurring.
So, if the construction is occurring during, you know, the following year, continuing in the following year from March 1st to July 31st, they the mats will be utilized for traffic, um but there will be no additional matting placed during that time.
>> Okay, so there's not a time of use restriction on the work. There's a time of use like time of mat placement restriction. >> Correct. And that's consistent with nat you know, New England Power's operation and maintenance, you know, provisions
with natural heritage, should this be with a natural heritage. So, if there is a vernal pool uh with a natural heritage, um they are required to place mats outside of the time of year. The mats may remain um during active season. Um >> [clears throat and cough]
>> because they're >> Does that mean that theoretically, we could have heavy equipment work like literally I mean, there'll be a mat down, but moving through a vernal pool with standing water in it? >> Correct, sir. Yep. >> [clears throat]
>> Yeah, I'm not okay with that. Um I >> Well, considering that it's I would like to say I would excuse me. >> like to see a year restriction on the work in the vernal pool, period. >> Okay. Considering that we're restricting the company's ability to use this as an
access road with heavy equipment, we are thereby not allowing them to continue [clears throat] on outage required work. You know, in this whole stretch of right-of-way during certain periods of time. So, that that
Andrew, >> Andrew Kolda, I'm joining Andrew Kolda, environmental scientist at National Grid. Again, Allison touched on it, you know, this is the BMP that we deploy under natural heritage kind of review and approval for use of mats and work on mats. Um I guess
would an additional erosion control line on the edge of mats that would reduce is what is your concern the the vibration or migration of animals? Is that what you're keying in on as a concern? >> Yeah, exactly. I I am not
uh I am not comfortable authorizing planned construction work that involves heavy equipment moving through and a biologically active vernal pool. So, that's wildlife impacts
in sort of all the ways that you could imagine, and I appreciate the the mat placement outside of um outside of active windows, but we're talking about what a lot more than just mat placement here when we have
equipment moving potentially moving through a vernal pool. >> Right. Chase, I just like to bring up the point that we did provide the results of our vernal vernal pool surveys which indicated that there were no amphibian breeding species in this
pool. It was mostly pretty much, you know, in pool species such as fingernail clams and fairy fairy shrimp. So, I don't necessarily think that a migratory movement is necessarily a concern
at in this specific location. >> But you just said you're going to have heavy equipment going through an active vernal pool. And if you've got the the clams and other things that are in the vernal pool, you're just going to drive over them. >> No, sir. The the mats will be in place
before the active season so that there will be no opportunity for those individuals to be, you know, within that soil substrate at during active season. So, in active season the mats we placed and that'll prevent those individuals
from occupying that space. >> So, when you put the mats in there won't be anyone buried in there or anything. They they don't they don't dig in for the off season and then come up when it's, you know, I'm I'm not I'm not a vernal pool expert
but feels to me like wouldn't there be cases where you'd have animals digging into the soil to I'll call it hibernate. I'm not sure if that's the right the right word. And then when the right time comes they they come out.
>> That might be the case but at this point the consideration is the least impactful, the most you know, the the greatest avoidance and the minimization that New England Power Company is able to commit to considering the critical nature of this work.
I mean, that's >> an additional measure that would prevent and I guess speak to or address your concern. So, a straw bale line I'm not I would really we wouldn't do a a silt fence line. Obviously, that's digging in the wetland. So, like a silt sock
type control line that's again a secondary control on top of the mats. So, you have mats and on the perimeter of that work space and those mats you have an erosion control line that's preventing those animals amphibians that even though we don't have evidence of
them being there but those animals from working their way towards the mats. Like that seems like we have two parameters to prevent impact. >> I'm I'm just really having a hard time. I I appreciate what you're saying, Andrew.
Uh you're trying to meet me partway. I I don't understand why we can't sequence a project like this to just have a time of time of year restriction on this particular work given that this is
planned work, right? We're not talking about emergency work. That's a different thing. Um and you've got a lot of work to do out here in general. So, sequencing I appreciate it's a complication in your your Gantt chart but I I just don't
understand the infeasibility of sequencing the work to eliminate this while the vernal pool is active. >> I mean you you did kind of touch on it. There's there's a massive amount of work in general across multiple miles of of utility corridor line. So,
to try and squeeze in and like you said utilize a Gantt chart. We already have time of year restrictions from natural heritage on multiple priority habitats on the line. So, we're already actually committing to not working in areas where turtle species for example are are active. And so, in areas where there's
vernal pools, this is the BMP that natural heritage observes and we've worked with them on and they've we've not seen any impacts from it. So again, that's that's why we deployed this measure. And so to try to squeeze in as you're you know, seeing two structures, it does create quite a domino effect
like you have to come down the line of each of these structures, do the direct in beds, you have to do that sequentially, then you have to move over to the other one, you have to do that sequentially. That's done under NRAs, so safety safety safety observers and communication to outage
uh coordinators. And then you have to do that on the next line. So while it seems like it's just two structures and it may be manageable, I guess I'm saying to you is we've provided BMPs to prevent impacts. I I guess I'm asking you that additional measure
prevents further impact. So I it's very critical that we'd be able to do this work and not have these two structures be this outlier that we have to somehow finagle and change around for quite frankly, a massive amount of work. So it's very very difficult.
>> Correct. And since now we are committing due to the the commission's concerns and the um landowners' concerns, you know, the use of Blood Road um you know, that that's definitely isolating sections of the of the right away from you know, the the linear
nature of the of the of the work. >> Well, what if we did this? What is your client's appetite for hiring a third-party biological uh monitor during this sensitive work? Essentially,
someone who's independent of of you guys and I know you'll have your own environmental monitors and so on to essentially confirm that we are not when we go to do this work that there are no
um significant species impacts associated with it. I I think that's as that's as far as I'm going to move to to getting comfortable with doing this work. I'm also receptive to my other colleagues on the commission telling me to stuff it. It's there are five of us
and if I'm over stretching, that's fine, but I maybe could get my head around it if there's truly an independent environmental monitor looking at habitat impacts associated with the work immediately before you propose to do this work.
>> Yeah, I guess just one comment there, Jason. And I know there seems to be this it's commissions in general like this desire for third-party independent, but again, BSC has qualified biologists, botanists, herpetologists, etc. And we would do it with Tim present or we would coordinate
it with Tim's presence doing the observations. It's a it's a great hands-on seeing the activity of utility line work with with Tim the agent. We could report that back to the commission on, you know, here's the findings pre-mat installation. Here's the mat installations. Like give you that
representation. And we have inspections that are occurring weekly, regularly. So like uh is is that to it's it's serving what I think you're seeking, right? Just that additional assurance at the time of construction. And I'm not opposed to the third-party. It
just seems like it's just another layer of coordination and personnel and safety and and it it gets very complicated. And I guess I'm just asking like isn't isn't it feasible? Tim's great to work with coordination-wise. We could just work with him on a schedule. BSC does that
evaluation in the spring. The matting is occurring like why isn't that like a a way to get through this? >> All right. To me it comes down to very specific expertise. And I agree. Tim and Lauren are great. I I and I also I
don't take this as uh sort of puning the credibility of BSC's staff, but um there can be momentum here to satisfy your client, and I'd like a high level of expertise that is truly
independent of the client needs here, which is why I I don't often go to third-party monitors for stuff like this, but I think this is a place where it does make sense. >> Okay, just That that that that makes sense. That makes sense. I'm I'm I'm not going to fight you on that. I get where you're coming from. Um so, when you're saying a
third-party monitor it's specific to like a biological assessment of the of the potential vernal pool ahead of mat installation and observations of mat use deploy being deployed, and that's what you >> And then ahead and then immediately
ahead of actually getting into that area to do the work. It It and I would put a time of year restriction like if if you the sequencing ultimately works such that you're able to do this outside of the period when the vernal pool is active, then we don't need a third-party
biological monitor, but I would want a monitor when the mats go in, and I would want a monitor to observe it prior to the work commencing if it is during a period when the vernal pool is active. >> Okay, yep. I'll agree to that. I mean,
at the end of the day I I see where you're coming from. I think it that gives you the assurance that you're looking for. Um to your point, if the sequence of work we are able to get in here and and it's a non-issue, you know, that makes sense. So, yep, I I'm I'm all for that. That's fine. >> Sorry, Commissioners, I sort of
I was good with that one, but let me know you think I'm out of line. >> not not out of line. >> No, I'm I'm all in agreement with you, Chase. >> Yeah, I I am in agreement with the two Chases and I not to play devil's advocate cuz I do feel like this is a
high priority area, but I just want to make sure we're comfortable with enforcing a third party. I We've had these other sites and I try I've been trying to think of what what was performed at other sites. We've
had sites where we've had monitoring performed. Yeah, turtles for instance. And I just off the top of my head I cannot recall if we said, "Hey, you need a third party." You know, this is which I to me is just as critical as a whirlpool. Um So,
again, if everyone else is comfortable with that, then then so be it. I'm just tracked away if we're pushing pulling a little too much here. >> Well, you know how I I've had this exact circumstance. This this one seems a little more intense to me. >> Yeah, sure.
>> And and how how I see this is not impugning um these folks, but rather if push comes to shove and maybe you're a little behind schedule or maybe you got to get something done a third party is more likely to say,
"No." protecting the animals. They're there to help the animals and the environment as opposed to the folks doing the work saying, "Well, yeah, yeah, I guess we can go." You know, that that's how I look at it.
>> I I'm in the field, so I I strongly disagree, but that's that's just my point of view. So, that's why I I brought it up from my point of view, but um Yeah, I I'm I'm comfortable with it. I agree. It's incredibly sensitive and important that it needs to be protected, so that's >> And I would um agree as well.
>> So, Tim and Lauren, I think you know, you guys are going to have to work that into the conditions and so on to make sure that that's clear. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Okay. >> Now that I've monopolized so much of this, any other comments, concerns
that need to be addressed on this? >> I the only other the only outstanding I guess I have is that you know, and I don't know if they're on the call or if they're observing here, but the I guess it was outside of our jurisdiction with the the private property use of it cuz that was a big sticking point at the last hearing and
maybe I guess I might have answered my own question is that there is the there's other concerns other than maybe right in this one spot and that doesn't pertain to us, correct? That's why it was brought offline. >> Yeah, I mean I can speak a little more to it. Um so this is Andrew Cole again.
I I did meet with the Mathesons along with our project engagement group and the construction planners. Um you know, we met them just looking here at the dates. Um We sent them a summary of of all the discussions and what's reflected on the
maps here on Monday the 15th. So we went through it literally structure by structure, uh discussed with them what what they were asking for us to change from what we had talked discussed with them back in 2023. So you know, a long time had passed and they were just seeking a different basically approach
and and we captured everything that they were asking for in my opinion. Um it was largely uh you know, mat usage, where we were coming in, reducing the blood road access, and and just trying to be cognizant of their operations and communication. So
um we sent all this to them. It's all within the the right-of-way again. So uh I'm very confident we've captured everything and and any tweaks that they would present, we would we would be seeking and kind of putting it before before Tim as well like a field change. So I don't think there's going to be
anything substantially from here. It's it's all matting and localized work to remove structures, replace structures. >> Okay. Did did did Did you just say any discussion with the methods of those um those elevated areas where the where the poles are on are going to
stay? >> That's correct. Yep. Yeah, there's a a significant reduction in grading that removes the mounds. It's basically an all replace of structures and remove the the prior the structures. So, you'll just see the the box outline sort of our
workspace it where where Allison has zoomed in 21 for example. Existing 21 in red with an X through it is what will be removed. New 21 puts the new structures off of the mound. And the mound stays. So, it it really
cuts out like >> [clears throat] >> all the all the grading significantly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good. >> I'm going to take silence here to mean we've run out of comments and questions. Is that fair?
Are we good with this to go? >> I'm fine with it. >> Yes. >> If we are, if someone would like to make a motion to issue an order of conditions. >> I'll try. Um okay, I'll [clears throat] make a motion that we close the public hearing and
issue an order of conditions for the translation transmission line improvement right of way the P number 204-1033 as we've conditioned tonight. Um I imagine this includes a waiver somewhere along the way. >> [snorts] >> Second.
>> Are there updates to the plan still coming? Did Did Did I In all this conversation, did I miss that? What was that again? >> I just want Are there more updates there, you know, the the third party monitor and and
what have you? Or is that part of the conditions? >> Yes, we're making that a condition. >> Okay. Okay, I I sorry, I was a little confused. >> Yeah. Tim, I I think along those lines before we take a vote on this, I do think this is one where it would be useful for you to circulate the
um conditions to the commission and then our next public hearing if we or our next um our next meeting if we could spend 5 minutes to just make sure we're good with those conditions before finalizing them. >> Sure, yep. I was I was definitely going
to ask if you you wanted to see a draft of those before they they went out. Um so, you guys want to continue this into the next meeting? >> No, we don't need to continue it. We have 3 weeks to issue the order of conditions. So, the public hearing will
be closed. We are about to take a vote on whether or not to issue the order of conditions. Um the 2 weeks from now when we meet, it's not a public hearing, but we can certainly meet to confirm about the conditions before they're issued. >> Yeah, okay. Sounds good.
>> Okay. Uh motions on the floor and has been seconded. >> All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Uh Chase. >> Chase Gerbig, aye. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxwell, aye. >> Ed. >> Ed Folts, aye. >> Carl.
Oh, Carl, can you hear us? >> We're not hearing Carl. >> Oh. Carl, can you give us a thumbs up? >> I'm not sure we can accept a thumbs up as a vote. >> I'm Melburg, aye. >> There he is. He just said >> Oh, there we go. >> Perfect. >> I'm Melburg, aye. >> Thank you, Carl.
>> Thank you, Carl, and myself, aye. It is unanimous. >> Very good. >> Thank you everyone. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Cheers. Thank you. >> Have a nice night. >> Okay, we're getting there Al. Um Okay, we're going to move on to the 9:15 p.m. notice of intent 16 Pickerel Lake
Cobb Pond DEP file number 204-1036 control of nuisance aquatic vegetation. >> Uh thought we were going to we don't have the applicant here um tonight for that. We were waiting on
So, DEP's comments when they issue the file number where they wanted this to they wanted an appendix A to be um filled out and for this to be posted in the environmental monitor as a uh ecological restoration notice of intent.
Um haven't received the appendix A yet. Um they also recommended that the commission ask for a plan showing exactly where the herbicides are going to be used um and haven't received that plan back either.
Um so, my recommendation would be that this just gets continued to the next meeting. >> Okay, that that sounds reasonable but Tim, I mean I think go forth and and make sure we have those things and make sure the applicant knows that if uh in a couple weeks we come forward and
we don't have those then we're I don't see a lot of points in having a discussion until we have those. >> Sure, yeah. Sounds good. >> Cool, look at that. We just made up 13 minutes. 9:30 p.m. notice of intent 0 Taylor Street DEP file number is not yet
complete for habitat enhancement. >> It actually just came in today. >> Oh. >> Um it is 204-1038 um and to the best of my knowledge the commission didn't have any any remaining or outstanding questions or concerns
with this project. We were just waiting for the the DEP file number to come in tonight. Um so I told the applicant they did not have to attend. >> That was my understanding as well. >> You want to make up more time? We're about >> Woah, woah, woah.
>> [laughter] >> If someone [snorts] would like to make a motion to close the public hearing and issue an order of conditions on this. >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing for zero Taylor Street DP file number 204-10-38
for habitat enhancement. Um did we have a waiver for this? Um I'm sorry. I'm >> Yes. >> I believe yeah, we we must have. >> Uh with the associated waiver. >> I'll second that. >> All right. We'll have a roll call vote. Uh Chase.
>> Chase Garabedian. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Mach so I. >> Ed. >> Ed Polta >> Carl. >> Carl Melberg I. >> And myself I. It's unanimous. >> Okay. Now we're going to circle back and
finish out the administrative items and my apologies to those folks who have been waiting around all evening. Uh Tim, you want to take us through the rest of those? >> Sure. I'm promoting over Mickey Jensen right now. Um
going to the continue discussion for six Spectacle Pond Road since the last meeting where this was discussed, which I believe was two meetings ago. Um we had a a site walk um where we looked at the
the rocky embankment um as well as the uh potential nesting habitat of the bank swallows. Um Chase, I don't know if you want to give a review of that site walk. >> this. First first Mickey I should probably apologize to
you directly for keeping you so long. >> Yeah, I I was going to go to bed. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, you know, I'm still sitting in my office. I got to drive home. >> I get up at 5:00 every morning. It's late for me. >> Yeah. Um, okay. So, I I think a couple things came up during the sidewalk. One,
um, the the proposal to essentially extend the perimeter made sense. And we talked with with Mickey about that. Um, and essentially having two rows of
berm there for a while to make sure that we're not um, creating sort of an opening to for for um, sediment to get through. So, that I I I I think we're we're pretty square on. Didn't see a lot of issues there. Um,
in terms of bank swallows, what uh, what I had indicated to Mickey at the site visit was that my own preference was to be highly deferential to the the bank swallows, but if Mickey was able to come in and sort of show
that they're not using that nesting, that um, my mind could be changed. But I essentially said that it was going to be on the onus was going to be on him to to sort of prove that the bank swallows were not actually using those nests through some kind of evidence or
biological opinion. Um, the third thing that came up and I had Tim follow up with Mickey was whether or not we needed, uh, a construction general permit from EPA and a storm water pollution prevention plan. And my understanding is Tim, um, Tim, I think
Mickey emailed you about that. Um, that's the thing that I'm still stuck on a little bit is that I think we we do need a construction general permit. We do need EPA authorization under the Clean Water Act. So, um, Mickey, on the first two I know we've talked about
those. Any Any thing to add to sort of what I summarized there in terms of the berms or the bank swallows? >> Yeah, I just want to confirm that we're we're keeping the existing berm there. That's what we talked about, putting the new berm in front of the old berm. >> Yeah. So, you're putting two layers of berms for for
>> Yeah, we talked about Well, you had mentioned that the where the existing berm is not on the left side and not on the right side where I'm going to be adding a berm to the continuation um of the existing berm is to
not allow me to waste put wattles in between them. So, we're using the existing berm as the wattles. >> Yeah, in this scenario, like the the berm is 3 ft above grade and it didn't seem to make sense to me to make him put
a wattle on top of a 3-ft tall berm. I'd rather see those wattles deployed elsewhere. >> Yeah. So, put wattles on the left side where I'm going to add on and then on the right side. I just wanted to confirm that. >> That is what I suggested. I want to make
sure everybody else is good with that. I'll take silence for a kiss. >> Yeah, I agree. From seeing the site, that makes perfect sense. Okay. And then the bank swallows, I'm I'm I'm not going to hire a biologist to spend money on that, but if I want to set up a camera, I guess I'll set I can
set up a camera and I mean, do you want like actual like days of video footage or just want to like like an hour every day or like >> What I'd most like to see is I'm I have >> [clears throat]
>> more than enough stuff to do. I'm not going to sit here and watch a video, but I do think if you take a video of it, particularly in the evenings or in the mornings, right? Like I can't imagine that bank swallows are
going to be using that while there's heavy equipment moving around. I'm looking for quiet periods of time, particularly in the evenings or the mornings. If there's video from multiple consecutive days where we don't have bank swallows coming in and out of that
and there's no additional nests being formed, that's the other thing. I think to have some you know, a photo today, a photo a week from now, a photo a week after that saying, "Hey, we have the same number of nests." I I could be convinced that the bank swallows aren't
there. >> How much footage would you need? Like how long do you want me to sit there and watch? >> I don't know. >> How much do you want to watch? Did we do anybody research I feel like I heard the timing of when
these things nest are we >> Yeah, mid last he says mid August is when they high tail it out of here. For >> Okay, so we got a while, all right. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying, it's like 2 months out of the road. >> [clears throat] >> So >> You know what? Let Let's do this,
Mickey. If everybody's conceptually good with that idea, I I'd rather empower Tim and Lauren to come up with something that makes some sense, maybe do a little bit of research, maybe call Fish and Wildlife to figure out what what makes sense there. Is it, you know, the hour
right before dusk or they more active more in the day? And I would suggest have them provide you with a reasonable sort of time frame. Tim, is that okay with you? >> Yeah, that Yeah, I think that makes
sense. If we can if we can get in touch with Fish and Wildlife and see when they are when is the best or when would be the best time to see activity around those nests going in and out of those nests. Um and we can nail down those times and and
get videos of those times. Um I think that would be good. >> Is there any shot that Fish and Wildlife would come out and take a look themselves? >> I asked that. >> I didn't get the sense from talking to them that this was very high up on their priority list. >> that makes sense. I I think I had talked
to Mickey about that, too, but I'm not too sure what the odds would be. >> I mean I mean They're they're migratory birds, so they're protected. I mean, that's that's that's the bottom line. Um but
You may have to wait till August. Um It would be interesting to see the use. Um so It shouldn't be that It shouldn't be that difficult. In my mind, birds should be coming and going every day.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm there every day. >> I haven't seen any any signs of birds. >> Yeah, I'm hoping they like came in on a Saturday morning when you guys weren't there, and then you guys showed back up Monday morning and they were like, "Whoa, forget this. We're we're moving on." And they went somewhere else. >> But >> Yeah, that could I mean, it could be the
case. >> So, in that sense, I tend to agree with you. If we have like three consecutive days at whatever, you know, time frame that Tim and Lauren come up with where they would be most active and we don't see any birds, you
know, I we don't need weeks of this, right? If we don't see them for 3 days, we're not going to see them on the fourth. >> Good. Could Is Is it beyond I mean, could we One of these hire an ornithologist to go in there and check it out. >> That was what I suggested.
>> Yeah, I don't want to spend the money on it. >> Well, then you wait then you wait until August. >> Yeah, but then the pile stays there within the 50-ft buffer, too. That's >> I mean, that's >> It's not going anywhere. It's just sitting there. >> Yeah.
>> So, I guess that that Cal has the option. >> That's the bottom line. Either >> You hire someone to to prove it one way or the other, or you wait till August when we're comfortable that they're gone. >> Right. I think that's the only option to be honest. >> So okay, so now Carl and I are
not comfortable. Yeah, so Carl and you're not comfortable with the applicator Mickey in this case trying to determine it on his own. >> No, no, no, I'm comfortable with it if if he can um
Yeah, I mean I I need to we need to know though that you know, he's taking taking the taking the videos the right time of day. >> Yeah, yeah, that's I I just want to make sure you're comfortable with that plan that Tim >> Oh no, that yeah >> provide that guidance and then >> Yeah, no I'm Yeah, I mean I'd be fine. I was I was
thinking that you know, an ornithologist can maybe go in there and tell you whether there's even a nest in there or not. And or whether they came in like, you know, they came in on a Saturday, didn't like it and left. But to have that many nests in there
I don't know. Just Yeah, things >> things would make sense. >> So Mickey, what I would suggest is let's take a photo if you haven't already taken one. I'd like you to send those to Tim and Lauren like as soon as you take them like that helps time stamp them, right? Like here's my photo on Tuesday,
here's here's an email on Wednesday, here's my photo on Wednesday, same on Thursday and then um and then we'll follow up with you as soon as we can on sort of timing to take a look at the birds. Or take pictures of when the birds were there. >> Just want to throw this out there.
Um we do have a department trail cam that we could with approval from Mickey if we wanted to is there any work going on out there during weekends, Mickey?
>> Um no. I mean I might be pulling it might be a truck that goes in and out but nothing nothing on that side. The we with the the foundation guys moved now so he's not on that side anymore. So >> Yeah. All right. I I think if we install the trail cam
pretty close to where those holes are in the sand pile, we set it up there for a weekend we can review the the footage from the trail cam what it what it captures. Um I can't remember if ours takes video. It might just take photos, but either way I mean if there's something in front
of it it's going to you know pick up a picture of it. Um we can we can use that to make the determination. Um that way you know we're not confined to just you know an hour that they might be coming and going. Sure. Just just wanted to throw that out there as an option see what you guys
thought about it. >> That's perfect. >> Yeah, I'm I'm receptive to that too. I I think you and Lauren should feel empowered to come up with the right mousetrap. >> I'm fine with us setting up a camera. >> Okay. >> Yeah, the nice thing about a trail cam is that
it'll pick up movement so we don't have 4 hours of video with literally nothing happening. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um the I I think we have a plan there. The last issue though is the construction general permit. Um so construction general permit
applies when there's more than an acre of disturbance. My understanding of the original application is that uh a construction general permit was going to be obtained. That's an EPA permit under the Clean Water Act and I don't think we have one. Part of what
goes with that is not just the permit but more importantly the storm water pollution prevention plan. Um I don't I don't think we can go uh allow you to continue working Mickey until we
until you have authorization under the Clean Water Act. >> Okay, I got I got I got to check with my I I attempted to email me that asking me that and I just said I had a chance to talk to my engineer about it. But >> Okay. If you have your engineer available he should be able to turn it >> around pretty quickly.
But stormwater pollution prevention plans are not Shakespeare. So >> Yeah, they usually they usually always have to do those when we have stormwater stormwater. >> Yeah. Oh, right. Yeah, you you know something about this. So >> have it. I just I didn't have a chance to look for it.
>> Okay. I I'm going to say that like we can't have you doing dirt work until you've got that coverage. >> You mean like construction of the environment? Yeah. >> Construction of the berm or even grading work like across the site.
>> Yeah, I'm not grading anything. >> The construction general permit doesn't just apply to the Massachusetts uh to the Massachusetts uh Wetlands Protection Act resource areas. It's site-wide and it's independent of
our resource areas. So it's not even like working outside of the resource area is you're in the clear. >> Yeah. No, I understand. Yeah, I'm not doing we're not doing any grading. We're just The only thing we're doing is removing that sand.
>> Yeah. >> Well, we're not doing it right now until Well, they they they Tim said the wildlife said we can remove from the opposite side. Right, Tim? >> Yes, it's something that we discussed on site. Fish and wildlife said that they would
be comfortable with a portion of the the sand continuing to be moved outside the buffer zone. As long as there's a buffer between where the nests are and the stockpile and the area where it's being removed to the point where the removal is not going
to jeopardize the integrity of the um the structure of the sand even though it's you know probably not terribly structurally sound in general just cuz it's sand. Um so we we told Mickey, you know, on the far side of the pile where there's, you
know, pretty much I don't want to say no risk, but at very low low low risk of it creating a failure on that side of the sand pile that you can continue over on that edge, but he's not working near where the the nests are
on the stockpile. >> Goes back to the I'll look for those the storm water pollution plan. >> Yeah, so yeah, going back to that permit real quick. Um, I just tried to look at you guys' website for past hours. This has it or is it not done, right? We approved it to
do that foundation work way back when sometime. So, A, So, A, is that due for an extension of some sort or where does that go? And then B, do we have is there I couldn't see the files the old project files. So, would it be in
there somewhere that we required that or knew that it needed to be obtained? >> I thought when you have an active permit, you don't have to extend. >> So, this project, I believe, I'm almost positive falls in the time frame where they'd get the automatic 2-year extension under the permit extension act.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But I but I understand I thought I thought if you take out a permit, like a building permit to build something, um, that entitles you to keep on going. They can't just
make you extend during the middle of a build. >> You would have to come back and ask for that extension. You know, it would be kind of like a check-in to make sure for us to know what's going on on the site while you're actively working, right? Like,
it's been 3 years. We don't know what you're doing out there anymore type thing. You haven't closed that file out, so we kind of need an update and see that things are on track. Um, just have a pulse of what's going on. I don't know that I've ever seen one not approved an extension not approved, but
you know, if that foundation were to sit there linger for 10 years without you going forward doing something with it then there might be >> Yeah. >> someone that says hey, enough is enough here. We're not going to extend this permit. >> But Tim, you know, if it falls in that
automatic extension? >> If it got permitted, I want to say the >> Yeah, when >> I don't think it qualified did I don't think it qualified for the COVID tolling, but it should have qualified under the permit extension act which I believe is any permit that was active from I want to say like
it's some point in 2022 is when it started and I believe this should have been active in that period and it goes and I think until either 2024 maybe 2025. So, it it without seeing it in front of me, I'd say pretty confidently it it received
that automatic 2-year extension. >> But this is 2026. >> Right, but it was active in those years. So, it automatically gets the dead the extension deadline or sorry, the the permit deadline, right? So, the 3-year period
where it's active, it there you get an extra 2 years on that that end date. >> Okay. >> So, if we permitted in 23, it would need to be extended in 26 and you would have until 28. >> You'd have until 28, yep. >> I was just curious didn't need to make
this linger longer. >> [snorts] >> Long story short here, I I think Tim, you and Lauren need to take a look at it and make sure that permits are all square. Mickey, you need to make sure before you do any additional dirt work that you've
got coverage under the construction general permit. >> Okay. >> And to do that, all you need to do is provide Tim and Lauren with your stormwater pollution prevention plan and your
notice of intent under the construction general permit. Your engineer should be able to do that for you. >> Yeah. >> Cool. Then it's up to you to deal with the birds however you you see fit in terms of documenting that they're not there,
but until you hear from us that we agree that they're not there, we're going to presume that they are there. And so giving them deference, working only the front side of the pile, those are all things that we expect right now.
>> Okay. So once I provide Tim and Lauren with the stormwater plan and notice of intent, can I start construction of the the new berm? >> Yes. >> And then once the new berm goes in I and I see that
to continue construction on the the building, do I need to have grass growing on the on that or whatever the need of grass or just have the berm installed? >> The berm needs to be installed and I think, you know, that it's got to be
functional in the sense that like if if it does not have grass growing on it yet, it will need erosion controls on like the back side of it so it's not bleeding. >> Yeah, well yeah, I want to have those anyways before I had it constructed anyways, so. >> Right, right.
>> Okay. >> I think that's right. >> So once I get that installed, once I get the documents that installed, should I have Tim come out or somebody come out and take a look at it? >> Yeah, Tim, I I would like you or Lauren to come put eyeballs on them. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And we can talk offline about scheduling
the the trail cam. >> Yeah, okay. >> Okay. >> Sounds good. >> Awesome, Mickey. Well, um thanks for sticking around so late with us. I appreciate it. >> All right, thanks. Bye. >> Okay, Tim. What else we got? 15 powers
update? >> Yes, and we do have I apologize, my dog is coughing in the background. He's having a a rough go at it lately. Um I'm promoting Shawn McGaigan over right now. He's with us. Um So, I'm talking about the restoration
plan, specifically the the plantings um at 15 powers. So, part of the restoration plan was that there is to be six um plantings at the top of the hill and 12 at the the base of the hill.
Um there's six at the top of the hill and eight at the uh base of the hill. I've got a picture of the ones at the um base of the hill that I can share with you if you give me one moment. And John, if you want to chime in at any
moment, by all means. >> While he's pulling that up, John, thanks for sticking with us here. Sorry things uh got so drawn out tonight. >> So, you can see here, this is the this is the base of the hill um and the plantings that are spread throughout
that. You still got the um the wattles that are here as well. The slopes vegetating nicely. Um and then I don't think I I have pictures of it back at um I might dig back in my email, but
there's there are the plantings up at the top of the hill as well. Um So, yeah. So, I I can Oh, sorry. >> Oh, sorry, Tim. Yeah, I was just going to say it looks like John's actually still in our attendee uh list. So, >> Yeah. See if I can >> I just promoted him.
>> Go ahead. Keep going, Tim. I got it. Despite my claims earlier that I don't know how to use the tech. We'll see. >> [snorts] >> Um so I I I think the discussion really for this meeting was we gave John the the deadline for the the plantings to go in
that were part of the restoration plan. Um most of them are in there's there's still technically four that should be installed at the base of the hill. Um how do you guys want to move forward with that? Are you comfortable with the the eight that are in right now
or you do you want to require the the additional four? Um I think that's the topic right now. >> Why are they not the four additional? I mean personally I'd rather see all 12. >> I believe and I can't say for sure cuz
Lauren had this discussion with John. Um when John went to purchase the plants, he said that he got all the all the blueberry bushes that they had there which was eight. They didn't have 12 of them. John, correct me if I'm wrong. >> There's only one place that sells
bushes? >> I can't speak to that. I'm just telling you what what I heard from from Lauren. >> Sure. >> John's in. John, if you're you're in as a panelist, you should be able to unmute. I'm not sure what we got, huh?
Um I'm with you, Ed. If the plan was 12, let's do 12. >> Yeah, I I agree. They're they're available. Just got to look around. >> There's more than one
nursery in in the state. Are even in the area? >> John, to the extent that you can hear us, I I think the direction is pretty clear. We just need you to finish what you started and and then we can put this behind us. They're uh Do you guys want to set a particular
date to to see these in by? I mean, the original date was uh >> By the next meeting. >> We we Sure. Okay. I mean, we're already past >> all the deadlines we've given. >> Yeah, the previous deadline was the end of May.
>> Yeah. >> All right, sounds All right, sounds >> Okay, so I'm not sure if he's there. >> Yeah, he might he might Yeah. >> Might be having some difficulty. Thanks Thanks for pointing that out. >> He just didn't know as well as he thought. >> Yeah. >> [laughter]
>> Um He's He's permitted to call in so you can communicate to him. The expectation is 12. He's got a couple weeks to finish it. >> Okay. Absolutely. Um Okay. Just let me know when you guys are done with this. I have one quick thing
that I just want to add. >> Okay. >> As if be quick. You ready for [laughter] it? >> Yeah. Uh it was just I don't know if you guys got a chance to see um I sent around the uh second half of 2026 uh ConCom meeting
schedule. Just a a simple vote on that if you got a chance to see it. Um didn't want to wait till next meeting cuz I think the submission date might be around then. So, I Even though I didn't have it on the agenda when I when I posted it, I just wanted to
um get that approval in advance of the next meeting if possible. No, we can post it. >> So, you you're looking You're looking for me to move to approve the proposed meeting schedule for the second half of 2026.
>> That's correct. Yep. >> Second. >> [snorts] >> All right, roll call vote. For a second I'm like, oh yeah, we got to do the roll call. It's late. Um Ed. >> Um Sure. Ed Falciani.
>> Chase. >> Chase Kirby guy. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxwell guy. >> Carl. >> Carl Albert guy. >> And myself I, it's unanimous. >> We We can always adjust them if we need to. So >> And And we might need to depending on when town meeting is.
>> Yep. >> Try to schedule it around that time. >> sorted out so there's nothing we can do about trying to Yeah. >> Cool. You guys got anything else you want to talk about tonight? >> I think we're good. >> [laughter] [snorts] [sighs and gasps] >> Motion to adjourn.
>> I can't >> All right, final roll call of the night. Carl. >> Carl Albert guy. >> Ed. >> Ed Falciani. >> Chase. >> Chase Kirby guy. >> Kyle. >> Kyle Maxwell guy. >> And myself I, it's unanimous and we are
adjourned.