Let's take it live. Um, we'll officially convene the Littleton Conservation Commission meeting of August 5th, 2025. Uh, relatively short agenda, although we have a decent amount under administrative discussion. And so for those participating
um we are going to take the administrative discussion um until we get to the 7:45 hearing then we'll take the hearings and then if we still have administrative discussion we'll come back to that. Um first let's get to the minutes. I think the agenda
said the minutes of July 8th but the minutes that we have in our email are July 22nd. Tim, can you confirm we're we need to approve the July 22nd but not the July 8th minutes? >> That's correct. Yeah, it was typo. >> Okay, no worries. Um, are there any
additions, corrections, deletions, or comments on the July 22nd, 2025 minutes? >> That looks great. >> Yeah, it looks good to me. >> Cool. Very good. We get a motion then.
I move that we approve the minutes of uh July 22nd as presented. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion's made and seconded. Andrew, you can take our roll call votes tonight, too. >> Sure. Uh roll call vote. Uh Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I
>> Kyle. Oh, Kyle, I think you may have been on mute. >> Doesn't look like you're on mute on Zoom. Maybe a thumbs up. No. >> Oh, there we go. >> Now we're good.
>> Perfect. So, Kyle, is that an I? >> Uh, Ed. Oh, Ed, I think you're on mute. >> Just becoming the thing tonight. Ed Carl. >> Carlbery.
>> Chase. Chase Gerba >> and myself I it's unanimous. >> Very good. Uh Tim, do you have any additions to the administrative discussion or does anyone else have additions to that before we get into it? >> Yeah, I have one uh brief one. It's going to be about 58 heartwell.
>> Okay. Anybody else have anything else that they want to bring up tonight? >> Yeah. A quick one. >> Workers credit union. Is that a quick obser? So, we got 58 heartwell workers. And then Ed, did you have something? >> Yeah, I'd like to get an update on
Powers Road. >> Okay. >> He's got some heavy equipment in there and stuff. I'm just curious what's left. >> Okay. So, we're going to add Powers Road discussion 58 heartfel heart and workers
credit union to it. We may add things later, but that that'll be the list for now. Um, nonetheless, we're going to go through what we've got first. Tim, do you want to take us through uh top of the order 19 switch? And we may take the enforcement orders out of order a little
bit. Um, just to try and move things along. >> Yeah, sure. Um, 19 switch. This was an old one, an old uh it's just a septic replacement. Um, and it is stable and uh in my opinion, ready to be issued.
>> Okay. And you've inspected it and everything? Monday. >> Okay. Anyone else have comments or questions on 19 IPS switch >> hearing? None. Can we get a motion to
issue the COC? >> Make a motion. >> All right. Go ahead, Andrew. >> Oh, sorry. Make a motion that that the commission issue a certificate of compliance for 19 IPS drive D file number 204-0431 second.
>> All right. Uh roll call vote. Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle >> Max >> Ed >> Ed Falsa >> Carl >> Melberg guy >> Chase >> Chase Carey >> and myself I it's unanimous.
>> Very good. Uh let's move on to the enforcement order for three Sarah Indian way. Tim, you want to give us an update on it? And then um to the extent that we need information, I don't know if the property owner is here with us or not.
>> Yeah, I I don't see the property owner here. Um if you are here, please raise your your hand um and we'll promote you to to talk. Um did you want to continue with this in the event that the property owner is not here? Oh, here we go.
>> He's here. I'm promoting him right now. Okay, very good. So, Tim, if you could um bring everybody up to speed while also Oh, actually, you know what? Let me let me pause until the property owner is in because sometimes things get a little wonky when you go
from one to the other. >> Okay, looks like we've got the property owner in. Tim, if you could give us um just an understanding of what we're looking at here and what issues are in front of us and then um what I'd like to do is have the property owner explain
what's going on after you've briefed us on it. >> Sure. Um so the enforcement order was issued for um some clearing that was observed going down to the bank of of Fort Pond. Um I was able to get in
contact with the property owner and he confirmed that there were uh two stumps that were there that were removed. Um that area that was cleared is now stabilized with um stump grindings there. When we uh went out to the site
um there were some sonnet tubes which were observed. Um so a little bit of a background, Mr. Warren did obtain a DOA for the rebuild of the gazebo um out there in the existing footprint. Um and
on the the plan that was submitted for that RDA, it shows um an old set of stairs um that were removed and then um a new set of stairs. Uh the only thing that was discussed during those meetings
was the gazebo itself. not the stairs. So, there may have been a little confusion there. I believe Mr. um Warren is uh under the assumption that the the stairs were permitted to um be built and I believe that is why the the sauna
tubes um were observed out there and are out there right now. Um, so Jay, if if any of that um is incorrect, uh, please correct me and, uh, uh, feel free to, uh, to review from your perspective.
>> Um, before we get to that, Tim, can you help me understand your observations with respect to the footprint of the previous stairs, the old stairs that were there versus what's being constructed now? Same footprint or different footprint? >> Uh, it's a different footprint. I can I
can pull up the plan. I do have it here. Um it might help you guys visualize it. Uh give me a second. >> Why don't we do that and then we'll let the property owner weigh in, but I would like to hear your perspective on what you first. >> Yeah, she's we went on a sitew walk together. There was a handful of us
there. >> Okay. >> And yeah, we were a little confused at first and then when I went back and looked at the plan, it was unfortunate that Yeah, I see it on the the proposed plan. I I think Tim's right. There was some confusion on there's some existing stairs called out to be removed. Um and
I think we might have assumed that they were all existing stairs that are drawn on here, but that's why we like uh engineered plans that kind of show existing conditions and proposed plans. You have two different sets. So can you can you see my cursor? These
are the uh the old stairs um that were removed. And this is the um what would be the the new stairs. They're not there yet, but these these sauna tubes or these circles and they are currently uh installed.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Kyle, anything to add to that? >> No, I think that's absolutely correct. So, I'm not sure we can do do too much. We approve this plan. Um Okay. Um, is that Mr. Dolan is the
property owner? Is that right? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Mr. Dolan, um, are you able to unmute yourself and give us an understanding of where you're at in your project and sort of help us understand
how you see this sort of unfolding here. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Two two things. Okay. uh caught kind of caught me off guard a little bit, but um I did come in and see I think Tim yesterday and um what I
thought might have got the attention of a a neighbor or you know other property owners is uh June 20th and or 21st two trees came down on my neighbor's property. Okay, which and uh took down
the wires. So Littleton Electric came out and and cut the trees up, okay, and left all the brush. As they said when I talked to them, their job is to clear the roadway and put the wires up. >> So I went in there personally and I have
a skid steer. I cleared all the stuff. I cut everything up. And I I gave Tim a couple of pictures of that today. The the two big tree stumps are still there on the side of the road, but all the brush is gone. Everything's cleared. So
that was probably what started this confusion, okay? Because um there was a mess there. And I went to the town, they gave me the date that they came out there, they got it all on record, the two trees came down, actually one tree came down and took another tree down with it because of the size of it. And
Tim has those pictures and um for you guys to look at um in doing so um with the skid ste you have a picture of it. Okay. I I hit one of the other trees and took the bark off of it. You should have a copy of that. I
rectified that. Went to um um Abashon first. I went online and asked the best way to fix it. Went to Abashon, bought Bach Repair, painted the tree. Um I live up the street and I think Mr. Ed
Pearson has been to my house when he when he originally looked at this project. I'm very meticulous. Everything's I care more about this property than you guys because I own it. So, I want it to be done right. Okay? And as I as I said,
whatever you guys say, I'm going to do because it's I live there. Okay? And I started this project last year, okay? And life has gotten its way. So, I put the sauna tubes in. So, it priced out
what I want to do and I want to do it correctly. Okay. And uh I stopped I stopped doing it because there were other things more important to do. And the project's going to start not because we're talking now, but in it was in the
fall. It just wasn't important for me to be sweating. And also, there's people that use the pond and um um what do you call it? The kids are out there every day at the camp. So, I don't want to be out there sawing wood and doing stuff. So, you know, the the camp closes
another another couple of weeks. The end of September, I'm going to start the project again and finish it before the winter time. And whatever you guys say, you know, if you want, see, but I've I've nothing has ever gone in the water. I can guarantee you that. Okay. I put all the hay bales
around, you know, all the retaining things. Uh um and and to be honest with you, uh one of my daughters, I've got seven kids, okay, and 17 grandkids. We get our money's worth out of that pond, okay? It it's we our side looks like
Camp Nishoba. I don't know if that's good or bad, but it's just that's why we live there. But anyways, you know, one of my daughters a year ago actually sprained her ankle in one of the rocks. So that was one of the things. the stairs. The stairs were all rotted
before, but the stairs actually weren't legal. And you guys gave my next door neighbor um what do you call it? Um he he had to rebuild it. Actually, one of my trees fell on his property and he had to get
he uh his gazebo rebuilt and the stairs all rebuilt. And when you guys inspected that, that's when you looked at my stuff and said, "You know what? what are you doing over there? And I said, well, you know, we're trying to and I showed them all the pictures of the rotted stuff. I'm going on and on, but you know, it's
just I'm trying to do everything the right way. >> No, we appreciate that, Mr. >> Suggestions you have. I'm okay. >> Yep. And and I I think part of what we're trying to sort out here is precisely what the the right way is in a way that's protective of the the
resource areas. Um, Kyle, it sounded like you, who else had gone out for a site inspection? I wouldn't mind if you guys could fill in the rest of us on sort of what you saw out there in terms of erosion potential. And Kyle,
honestly, your thoughts on where we should go here. Um, >> Michael, you were out there with us, right? >> Yeah, I was. >> Was it just the three of us? Tim, you, me, and Tim? and Sarah was there but she's not >> um yeah so this I think makes more sense
in my mind or I feel comfortable about this story this timeline because yeah we went out obviously and neighbor said hey there's stuff going on out here there's equipment you got to come down and look it looked like >> it it looks exactly like what he said u what he described
>> I would like to see kind of a before I don't know if it's pictures if we can see a before picture and Now what it looks like cuz it's I would assume that there was more kind of undergrowth in the area. It was pretty clear cut. Um kind of
>> You mean like on the shoreline? >> Yeah. On the >> in between the dock and the porch. >> Kind of where took down the plan. It Yeah, it's in between the dock and the porch, but more so at the top of that plan um is where all this must have happened because that's where it really
was cleaned up. Um, and it was just down to down to grade and and mulch. Um, >> okay. >> Yeah. So, if if you see the top where the wheelbarrows is, that's where you can see there's one of the tree right where that pointer is. That's where the
damaged tree was. Okay. And that's where I picked up all the brush and all the stuff and actually backed into one of the trees and took all the bark off. And then I I I um I actually went to uh Onyx and Led and got all the chip grindings
because I went online and they said that was the best way to retain the stuff. So I put all the chip um >> you know and actually it's not chip. It's uh it's it's the stuff that they give away free. It's um the roots of what do you call it?
>> Stump grindings. Stump grinding. All the stump grindings. >> It looks pretty stale. It does it does look like work was done. That's which makes sense. >> You can see see the tree. You can see the tree that I hit. >> Okay. >> And that's been fixed.
>> So, and in terms of the stairs that are being put in, Kyle, is your understanding that we we approved a plan that showed those stairs and maybe maybe we didn't understand what was going on, but the plan we
approved included those. Yeah, that's that's my my gut feeling unfortunately or you know it is what it is. But yeah, and I I think that's why we kind of like to see a existing conditions plan set aside from a proposed plan. This kind of showed both. Um
and so yeah, >> I I did the original walkthrough at that night actually. I don't remember seeing any stairs in place. I mean, we talked and it was pretty obvious, you know, that they needed to be replaced
and so forth. Um, I don't recall any discussion at the time of a staircase going down to the dock. Um, the plan that was up a little while ago, that certainly shows it. So,
I remember um meeting Ed there because matter of fact, Ed was kind enough because um We were kind of confused. I I was down waiting down at the water and he was waiting at my house and he probably
waited about a half hour, 45 minutes kindly for me and I'm down there waiting down the water. And anyways, we went back there and I um there were no stairs there, you know, and there was no building there. There was no building there either because I had already torn
the building down and that's where um the >> platform was there. That was it. >> Yeah. and they they had all the the pictures of all the rotted lumber and so forth. And actually Ed saw all the pictures of the rotted he didn't see pictures of the stairs because the stairs were already in um at the acting
dome to be honest with you. >> Okay. >> So I guess the other question that I have is I I I appreciate Mr. Dolan that you put down the uh stump grindings. I guess my sense is
that's a better short-term measure than a long-term measure. Those tend to wash away over time. >> It absolutely is. It absolutely is. I just, as you can see, you know, nothing, as you know, in any construction site gets worse before it gets better. So,
you're looking at something that's been there almost a year with nothing done. Nothing at all. Okay. Matter of fact, since Ed looked at it, there hasn't been anything except a top put on top of the lumber so it wouldn't um get water
logged. >> So, my question for the commission is, do we need to ask Mr. Dolan to do something more permanent than just uh mulch on that exposed surface?
I I haven't looked at it, so I would defer to the wisdom of those that that were there. >> What if did anything come to mind? >> I I was thinking plant some bushes, something like that to to add some >> Yeah. some sort of stability.
>> Well, that that's all going to be done once the building's done. It's it's like, you know, it's like any project. I mean, it just um gets worse before it get, you know, this is going to look absolutely gorgeous when it's done.
Okay, it's if you Ed came up to my house, he saw the way my house is built and just it's, you know, everything's meticulous, very meticulous and done correctly. I mean, it's it's my house. This is the this is my property on the water. It's going to be very tastefully
and done properly. >> Understood. Appreciate that. I was about to say I think the concern is just while you're doing it that hill is ripe for erosion and you said nothing's gone into the pond but the one picture I'm looking
at there's a trash barrel right at the water. >> That's that's because I was picking up the stuff with the trash barrel. >> Okay. >> Okay. I was working there. >> Sure. So may maybe we need a time frame when
you will be completing and and alleviating any risk of erosion. >> Whatever you guys want to do. I mean there's no argument at all. I just want to do it correctly. >> Sure. I mean I think what we would
prefer to see and um I'll risk speaking out of turn here is to see vegetation growth before we get into the winter season. So either you've completed the construction and you've worked on and you've reveated those areas that remain
disturbed or if the construction is not complete by the time we get to let's say October that you commit to vegetating that so that it's vegetated over the winter time. >> I have no problem with that at all. >> Okay.
Um so so that's one issue. I think the other issue is the stairs and I think what I'm hearing is we may not have understood the plans. I will tell you I'm not sure I would have supported permitting the stairs as I understand
them now. But my proposal to the commission is because we did permit it. We probably have to live with it even if we we don't even if we didn't understand it and and permitted something we didn't don't particularly care for. Now >> I I agree with you, Chase. I I think we
would have had a more thorough discussion about it. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have ultimately approved it depending on, you know, what the what they were going to look like and constructively. It certainly is some more square footage than what was previously there. Um
>> yeah, probably could have gotten there. >> When we had the discussions in my head, it was strictly the platform, you know, it wasn't anything beyond that platform. the stuff on top of the platform of course but uh um
>> right I I totally agree with you I also remember looking at this plant when >> yeah I I don't remember the sonot tubes and all that in the in the in the picture but as you said Kyle if this is the plan we approved whether
intentionally or otherwise we kind of have to stick to what we approved >> yep we we hold people to build what they committed to and similar Absolutely. I think we need to hold ourselves to allowing people to build things that we
>> absolutely >> Okay. Any opposition to leaving the stairs as is then? >> Okay. >> For me, >> any other concerns? We talked about a uh a condition on this that says that slope
needs to be stabilized. I would assume that there also needs to be erosion control. I saw some in that picture. I don't know the status of it precisely, but there should be erosion control on that slope and it needs to be stabilized before winter. >> I'll get a couple more rolls.
>> I think that might be a good idea. Any other conditions that we want to apply to this? >> Okay. >> Um I I it might not hurt to get an understanding of what the owner plans on putting there, stabilizing with um
>> maybe a planting plan. Yeah, if it's plantings or if it's some sort of >> whatever it is. Yeah, we ask for that for almost everything. So, >> yeah, at least right. So, um what he's comfortable with it, we have time for that. I guess the owner can come up with what he thinks he would like to see
there and >> Tim can kind of give it a a yay or nay. >> So, Mr. Dolan, what we're asking for is not just a general commitment to vegetate it, but a more specific plan for what you will actually plant there. Will it be high bush blueberry or will
it be I'm not a not a plant guy but what specifically you would plan on planting there and submitting that plan to the commission that says I'm going to plant x number of bushes of this type and I'm going to put this type of seed down in
this area. And the reason we ask for that are twofold. One, we want to make sure it's stuff that's going to survive, right? That it's it's the right match. And the other is we want to make sure that we're putting in things that are native and ecologically valuable.
>> Um, and Tim can certainly Tim or Lauren can certainly help you with with putting that together to a degree. >> I agree. >> Uh, Tim, administratively, what do you what do you propose for a process here? >> Um, so the
>> Sorry to put you on the spot. >> EO was already ratified at the last meeting. Um, I mean it's it's up to you guys. Do you want to see once we come up with the the planting plan, do you guys want to see it at a meeting or are you okay with me um confirming it with Mr.
Dolan? >> I'm totally okay with Tim >> I'm fine with Tim approving it. >> Okay, I like that. >> Once it's stabilized, revisit to discuss lifting the the EO. Do you guys want a
monitoring period? Um, >> we t they typically have a 3M monitoring period for plantings. >> I would imagine it's got to go through at least the next next year's growing season, right? But >> yeah, I would think for shrubs we could
possibly shorten that, Carl, but um but I think a year to confirm that we get reveation and Mr. Dolan here shouldn't be an ownorous thing. We just want to make sure just like you and your family use the lake, we want to make sure your property is stable so that it everybody else can use the lake the way they want
to. Um, okay. So, yeah, I think what we do then is we leave the EO in place. Tim, if you could write this up, communicate the plan to Mr. Dolan. Then, Mr. Dolan, if you can put together a planting plan and run that through Tim and Lauren,
then we should be on a path to rectifying all this. >> Sounds good. Thank you for your time. >> Yeah. Thanks for coming in. >> Appreciate it, y'all. Okay. Um uh as I promised, we're going to move on to the um
we're going to move on to the public hearings. So, we have a 7:45 public hearing for a notice of intent, 18 Pleasant Street, D file number 2041024. Uh, Tim, you want to give us an update and then we'll ask the property owner to give us an update?
>> Sure. So, um, me, Lauren, and Kyle went out site uh with Montgomery and and did a sitewalk um last week. Um and he Montgomery's confirmed there's not going to be any trees uh coming down for this septic work. Uh it's all going to be in
an area of existing lawn. Um and we have a revised plan that was submitted that shows stockpiling. Um I believe it is in the front of the house. Um Montgomery, do you have that plan? If not, I can share it on my screen. >> Yeah, I can share it.
>> Sure. >> Yes. Are you able to see the plan? >> Yes, we are. >> Yeah. So, basically the only thing that changed was last hearing we requested the site uh you guys requested the site visit. So, we did that with Tim uh last
week. Uh it was staked out and everything. So, we did they did see that on site and then we did provide this this stockpile area outside of the 100 foot buffer zone in the front of the property. That's the only change that we made to the plan that was requested last
hearing. >> I I also read Montgomery and correct me if I'm wrong y'all that there was a concern about making sure that the existing septic septic excuse me existing septic tank was just um decommissioned in place and it looks
like you added a note to the plan to do that as well. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So the the the Yeah, we do have that note actually. It's not 19. >> So basically it'll be um it will be
pumped dry and then the bottom will be cracked and then it'll be filled with sand and just left in place. >> Commissioners, any other comments or questions on this particular project? >> Yep. Um, Montgomery, I think you hadn't gone in front of board of health, but
that was maybe last week. Did everything go right with that? >> Yep. So, we got approval. This is like like a week before that, I think. Uh, so we we got approval from the board of health. So, the plan was approved. >> Yeah. I I was on SIW with Tim Lauren and
just because I was concerned when I looked at the aerial of this property originally, it had tree cover. Um there's some there's some large trees out there, but so just the canopy covers the backyard, but where they'll be working, um >> there shouldn't be any issue at all. This actually seemed really
straightforward once we got out there. >> Thanks for making time to do this, I >> and I think Tim, you said you looked at the the flags, but they were pretty obvious as well, right? >> Yeah, we confirm the flags. So
outside of the proposed construction material stockpile location, do we have any other special conditions that we want to see with this before we close it? >> I don't think I heard any, but I want to confirm. >> No, I don't think I have any.
>> Okay. Uh, can I get a motion then perhaps to >> Yeah, make a motion to close public hearing and issue an order of conditions for 18 Pleasant Street DP number 204-1024 >> with waiver. >> With the waiver
>> second. All right, roll call vote. Carl >> Carl Melberg. I >> Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle. Ed >> Edi >> Chase >> Chase I
>> and myself I it's unanimous. >> Very good. >> All right. Thank you guys. >> Have a great night. >> Um one thing I should note on that I voted on that. I missed the hearing two
weeks ago. Um Tim, I should fill out a Mullen waiver on that having reviewed the documentation for it. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so if you can put that in my email, I'd appreciate it. >> Sure. >> Um, part of the reason I reminded to was reminded to think of that is, uh, next
up is the notice of intent for 31 Madawanaki Trail. Um, Michael, I I know sometimes you, uh, recuse yourself from certain projects around here. Are you participating in this one or are you recusing yourself from this one? I
>> I'll be participating. >> Okay, great. that makes quorum easier. So Tim, you want to give us an update and then we can dive into it. >> Sure. Um, we have, let me promote Chuck here.
All right. Um, so Chuck submitted a uh a revised plan, which I'm actually going to show here. All right. Um, so what we asked of of Chuck um at the last meeting was to to locate the areas um of work that are going to be redone um and to put
together a a construction sequence um and also to highlight access and um where things are going to be stored and stockpiled. Um, so you can see that the the stock piling area is up here on the driveway. Um, this is going to be the roof for the access. Um, the the tops of
the uh the retaining walls are going to be replaced. The the stairs are going to be replaced and um an area of the uh patio. Some of the pavers are are sinking. Um, they're going to be removed. there's going to be fill placed
under uh those pavers and the pavers are going to are going to uh go back be replaced as well. And then also um Chuck added locations for um erosion controls as well. You can see down here the sil silt fence proposed um and this is the
construction sequence. Okay. Questions? Uh, I'm sorry. Uh, Mr. Bush, do we have you promote? >> Yes. >> Yeah, use that. >> Um, anything you want to add to that or any other context you think we need to know before we dive into a discussion?
>> Okay. Really, there's a site for the uh stockpile, but what's going to happen is uh soon as we remove things, they're going to go in trucks and go offsite. Um, and then soon as we need things, they're going to come down from my shop. I I have a uh office on Gilson Road and
Grten. There's a big uh spot where we can lay things. So, if we need certain parts, we're going to bring them down and they're going to go right down on the um on the walls or the stairs. Um nothing's really going to be stockpiled there at the end of the night. Everything's going to be gone up in the
groten. That stockpile is we had a maybe a few pallets or a few brick hanging around. Uh, nothing big though. >> Do you anticipate having um having soil or sand or anything like that that
you need to have delivered to? >> Uh, if it does, it will be if it does, it will be in the back of a truck and it will be um >> scooped up and brought down to the spot. It needs to be done. >> Okay. So, what I'm understanding is
there won't be stock piles of >> nothing >> material. >> Nothing. >> That's consistent with what we talked about the last meeting. And they're really the only material being brought on site would just be a real minimum amount to raise the papers on that patio area.
>> Sure. >> Everything else is is stone work, stone replication or stone repair. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I think I think we were pretty comfortable with the with the work that was proposed. It was just kind of crossing the tees on what
>> I understand like last time after I got off the thing. I understand that after watching a couple meetings that you have to make sure that the people are on board on the way of the process being done because some people don't listen and do it correctly. And uh I understand
I will be here for every process of the the application. And it's not like I'm just going to hire someone and um they're going to just do it, wing it, and I'm not going to be around. You know, >> your small excavator route is that >> it's going to go down there and we're
going to slide the stuff down to the other. It won't go down to the uh lower part. It's probably just going to stay in the upper part and it's going to um lower the stairs down and we'll move them from there by hand. >> All right. That's what I was wondering.
I I would like to make sure that there's a condition that says and it and it sounds like Mr. Bush this isn't going to be confrontational, but um a condition that says a small excavator doesn't stay on the >> water side of the structure overnight or
otherwise >> unattended. No, no, no, no, no. It's not even going to stay on the property. We're going to take it get it out of here. >> Okay, even better. >> Yeah, I agree with that, Jason. The only other condition that I kind of thought about now could have been should have been added to a sequence though I don't
think we actually talked about it was any sort of repair work that that excavator disturbs um >> oh the from the route >> yeah if I hopefully it's a rubber tire or rubber track then it doesn't cause a lot of problems but you know if it starts to tear up the grass that's there
>> well we're going to put um we're going to be putting um things I've got a really nice lawn so I don't really want it ripped up So, we're going to be putting um match down >> all the way down so that um >> it doesn't really wreck my grass that
much, >> you know. >> Yeah, we're We love to hear it. That's perfect. >> Bad because I don't want to wreck my grass. So, I'm kind of like h you know, so I want to have a path of um of the match, you know, the that the ones that
the contractors use all the time, >> you know. Please. >> Um, the only other thing that I saw that looked like it wasn't addressed in last meeting was the timing of doing this work. >> Well, I'm hoping now I don't want to do
it now cuz it's the middle of the summer and I don't want to wreck my lawn and have it all ruined for the rest of the summer. So, I'm looking at maybe probably September, October area. And that'll be better for us because that will um the draw it it'll start moving
the uh dirt the water will start going receding more. Uh so we don't have any problems down there at all. It's already receded probably four or five feet off the the uh areas. So um nothing is in the water or anything at this time.
Yeah, that that's what I'm looking for is a condition that says that this is done such that the water line, the silt fence is fully in the upland and not in the water. >> It could be done right now, but we're going to wait till uh the fall. >> Okay.
>> Or September area. Okay. But it could be done right now because right now the kids have a beautiful beach they play in. >> True. >> Chuck, when does the uh the draw down occur on >> that occurs more in November, October? November. Okay. >> Um, and it's the best. If you remember,
we did a project down there for a boat ramp. It's the best right around Thanksgiving, but I really wanted to get it done a lot quicker than that. But last year it was probably out it was down about four or five feet of water um
from high watermark and that was it was way out. you could walk around the whole uh entire lake and there was at least 10 ft of walkable area out. >> So So Chase, what do you want the wording of that to be that condition?
Uh, I mean what I would propose is that the wording says something like that the work is only to be done when there's sufficient space between the water line and the work area to install sediment and erosion controls well above the
water line and and be protective of, you know, sediment discharge. >> Okay. >> I don't know. >> Something like that. I I don't think we need to confine it to a specific day, week, month, year as long as the water conditions are
conducive. However, Mr. Bush, should the water conditions change, our expectation would be that you would um stabilize it and and not actively be working in the water. I don't know. Let's say the water this this project is not going to take long. This project's going to take a few
days or maybe a week at the most. So, Commissioners, what else do we have? Anything else that I missed in the notes from questions that were outstanding? >> No, not for me. >> This is about as straightforward a project as we've had
>> when we did the project down the street. Also, uh we didn't leave anything on site uh on the um the boat ramp project. There was nothing on site. We went in, did the job, and out. There was nothing left on site. There was nothing stored on the site. Nothing like that. So, it's
going to be similar to that one. >> Okay. I think we're ready for a motion then. I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing and issue an order of conditions for 31
trail file number. Oh, actually I don't have it here. Uh Tim, did we get one? >> It's um it was Yeah, it was issued um Friday, I think. 2041025. >> That D file number with uh the previously mentioned conditions. And do
we have a waiver associated as well with associated waiver? >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle >> Maxfield I. >> Edi.
>> Carl. >> Carl Melberg. I >> Chase. >> Chase. I >> myself. I. It's unanimous. >> Okay. Very good. Good luck, Mr. Bush. Please. um let Tim and Lauren know when you start so that uh
>> they can come take a look if they choose. >> No problem at all. >> Thank you. Um we have a couple just three minutes until our 97 and 99 Mil Road hearing. Um maybe Kyle, do you want to you wanted to talk about workers
credit? >> Yeah. Um I just I noticed that the property adjacent to it more towards the point um there's a like four lease or built to suit sign on it now. So I don't know I kind of always assumed
and I thought we had talked about that never being an option. So I guess Tim keep your eyes open or your your ears open um if something's because I I know I wasn't really involved with workers. kind of started I think in the back end of that and that was a lot of what I
remember. >> Yeah, I'm not exactly familiar with this. It must have been before my time. >> I I assumed um initially that workers was going to put I thought they were going to put some type of ATM or
something there. Um but there's I think we put didn't we put um a a squared off area where they can work within is designated or is it do we actually
put something structural squared off? >> It's definitely definitely it's definitely delineated where the where they can work. >> Yeah. >> And and that whole like I guess what would be eastern side of the property it
it's all all but underwater half the year. >> Exactly. It's always underwater when it gets wet. >> Yeah. water though because of the highway in which case it wouldn't be protected space. >> It's all it's protect No, it's all protected. >> Is it all protected? I wonder then how
they >> It's like beaverb in there, right? Yeah. So, yeah, it's all pro. We I think I think we I think the consultant found the highest part of the >> Yeah, >> they they found the highest part of the property and, you know, did a
delineation around it. And >> so how are they ever going to build another thing? I mean that was definitely there's definitely a for lease sign. You don't lease uh underwater. So >> suggest planning to build >> it. It's approved. It's I believe if you
go back to the uh workers when we approve that building or rehab of that building, we also approve that secondary lot or whatever at the same time. I'm not positive. I think we did.
I know we I know it was delineated. >> Okay. Well, that's certainly well expired at this point, even if you did. So, >> yeah. I I think what I' I'd like to ask maybe Tim, this is a good >> job for Lauren to take on to excavate
those files and maybe circulate to us what was delineated and what was approved at the time understanding that obviously the delineation is far too old to be relevant at this point. But um then that's in the forefront of our mind and then it we can think about if we
need to make sure anybody understands what their obligations are there. But we don't typically get involved in those transactions. But nonetheless, I think it'd be good for us to know what's going on. >> Yeah. Okay. So yeah, if we can dig that up and
become maybe a little more conversant since maybe outside of Carl and Andrew and Sarah, I don't think anybody else was here. >> I was I think I did a sidewalk after they were when they were trying to get plants to stabilize and grow. That's
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, let's move on to the 8:15 notice of intent for 97 and 99 Mill Road. Uh, if we could promote, do we have Dave? Yeah, we have Dave. Um, Dave, you can let us know who else you'd
like to to have promoted here. >> Hey, everyone. Dave, >> I should have uh Steve Burn and Dan Severs as panelists with me. >> Very good. Um, one thing I want to point out to the commission with our
documentation for this meeting, we received uh the applicants response to mass D comments. Um, and perhaps Dave, you or your team wouldn't mind to summarize that for those who maybe skimmed it and
didn't read it word for word. >> Yep. Um, Dan, are you on? Dan was dealing back and forth with the EP. Hello. >> Hey there. >> Sure. So, um, to recap kind of what happened since we last met, we had some
comments back from D. We did a resubmitt and then afterwards I, um, spoke with Rebecca Gendra, who's the D agent, to go over some of some confusion that was happening. So clarified all the
confusion and um regards to the surfaces out there that are existing and how we were um basically how we follow under a redevelopment. and um Tim Pearson was able to speak with her and kind of walk through what we um what
we did which ended up we basically um instead of assuming all the the gravel on site um in the general area was compacted and impervious, we basically assumed that it was not other than the clearly impervious um mil
and um compacted asphalt at the entrance of the site. uh in addition to all the stockpiling areas. So, um we were able to basically prove that we're still reducing impervious area on site that we do fall under redevelopment.
Um and we also updated all the supporting documentation that we we meet storm water standards and if we if we didn't meet them that we make them to the maximum extent practicable. Um there was also um clarification that the site is located within the zone 2
wellhead protection area. So that was revised and a note was added to the plan as well as um the storm water checklist. I think that covers most of what what we um changed on the plan. Tim, can you think of anything else that we talked to
with Rebecca? >> No. Um you summed it up pretty good. I will note in in reviewing that Dan um I don't think you explicitly made this comment but DP I think noted looking at
historic aerials they saw what looked to be vegetation and they questioned whether or not it was truly degraded. I think knowing that area the way that we do is very different than looking at it in an aerial. And I I guess it it never even occurred to me to consider it not
degraded. So, exactly. Um, I'm I'm comfortable with that. I appreciate what Mass E is saying, but having stood there and having seen that property for a long time, I don't disagree that even places where there's, you know, a bit of vegetation coming up through Lord knows what, uh, it >> absolutely
>> degraded. So, um, I I also know that you guys had some things with the fire department outstanding. Um, do you guys want to give us an update on where that's at or
what your time frame on resolving some of those questions are? >> Yep. I I can uh start this one off. Uh, yeah, we have gone back and forth with the fire department. Um, and we were discussing previously a hydrant location
which we we've come to terms on. Um, and then they really didn't have too much else um to comment on at this point. Um, Steve Burn can follow up my comments, but uh we we are going to provide them
with sort of a a fire action plan. Um, Steve, I don't know if you want to dive further into that right now. Yeah, we we actually went back and forth with Deputy Chief Coffee and um we we have a a fire narrative, a hazard mitigation emergency
response plan and uh Deputy Chief Coffee was actually pretty well-versed on um what his response would be. Um, and it does depend on the situation of course, but he had a pretty good idea and he was looking for um, you know, basically what
I refer to as the fire narrative, which would include the hazard mitigation analysis, the emergency response plan, and how, um, you know, essentially the owner operator, us, and the fire department would work together if there was ever an emergency response event. So, um, he seemed very comfortable where
we are. Um, we would obviously need their sign off to move forward. So, um I think they know that and you know that's what they're they're waiting for the next steps from us. So, he they did not have anything outstanding. The the hydrant as Dave said um was the one
piece and then um you know we owe him the rest of that permitting stuff as we continue along the progress. Steve, I think given that the commission, my understanding of the commission's comments and certainly my biggest concern is the
emergency response pieces. Um I I think the commission would probably benefit from seeing that documentation as well. Would you mind to share that with Tim so he can circulate it to us? >> Um yeah, the only thing we've sent to him so far is what we've used on other projects. So there'll be sites
>> Oh, so this isn't a sight specific one yet? >> Nope, not yet. Okay. I think it would still be beneficial to circulate the generic one. >> Sure, I can do that. >> Um Dave, I hopefully this got to you
through Tim. I did have a question for you about permitting through the um energy facility sighting review board and whether or not that is still forthcoming or maybe we don't qualify because it's small enough. I was just curious how that unfolds because I know sometimes they do put things through the
ringer and if they're going to substantially change this, we would probably want to know that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um and yeah, we did get that from Tim. So, I I appreciate that. Um and I'll kick it over to Steve again. We we the system that that we're designing
right now does not meet the threshold for their review. Um unless unless for some reason um a local commission um requested it, whatever. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right, Dave. So, Chase, I I think we're we're on the
smaller side. I think the EFSB was really uh for the larger projects. So if you go on their site and see what uh energy storage projects are out there, it's hundreds of megawws and hundreds of megawatt hours. So much larger scale um in much different areas. Um and that was
the reason why this EFS EFSP was you know essentially created and the the law went into effect I think earlier this year. Um but I I don't think we qualify at least that's how I've been you know managing every everything so far. Um and basically it's you know anything over
100 megawatt hours and where you know 20% of that. >> Okay. I I I don't know one way or the other. Don't take my agreement to mean that you are or aren't but um
makes sense to me. Anyway, other commissioners comments questions on this. I I don't know it where we stand with respect to willingness to approve, but let's let's set that aside for a second and focus on the technical questions and concerns
that we might still have outstanding. >> Quiet room. >> Ed, did you have something? No, >> no, I said I don't have any issues. Okay. >> Nor do I. I think we covered everything in the last meeting or so. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I I I will say I I am my biggest concern has been the impact that this project would have in the event of an emergency response. Um,
>> I'm not >> about that though. And I mean, you and I both raised it. Everybody keeps saying, you know, no problems, no issues, no need for anything to contain the the the water and all that of this stuff. U
It's >> true. And yet >> I understand that. But uh >> in my professional capacity, I'm working on cleanups of battery energy storage facilities after fires. And so it makes me anxious. >> Yeah. And battery fires in general
are terrible. >> So I I think the question what I'm hearing is we don't have any remaining comments. Technically, I have asked for the hazard analysis. I me personally, I'd rather see that
before approving it, but I I would also defer to the wisdom of the commission. If everyone else is comfortable with it, then I'm I'll put that in my pocket and we can go forward. >> I I think I'd rather see the plan first. Chase, >> I'm not comfortable approving something if we're still if we still feel we need
additional Yeah, >> Steve, do you I I know you said you have a generic plan. Um when would you have a sightspecific plan? >> Yeah. So, let let me just kind of I can provide some additional details. The
generic plan is for the project we did at Welssley, which is um you know, the first generation of the system that we're proposing for Littleton. So, it's going to be very similar. Um, there will be some things that'll be different, but I can send those docs to you guys and
you can look through them. I mean, they're they're hundreds of pages. It's very very detailed. Um, but there will be some things in the Welsley one because of the location and there's just different ways that the fire department um, you know, would want to respond based on the area. So, um, like I said,
the deputy chief coffee has has thoughts on, you know, how they would, uh, combat any sort of, you know, thermal event there. Um, I don't, it didn't sound like, and Dave, you can correct me if I'm wrong, it didn't sound like he was going to be looking to flood the area. Um, it was really going to be a
containment and to cool the surrounding area if anything like that ever ever happened. But again, you know, with the safety measures that are in place and the e the um management systems that are in place these days, if anything, you know, starts to show any voltage or
temperature changes, then, you know, things are shutting down. So, um there there's a real push in the industry, but I I understand you guys want to see more. So, I I can send you those documents. I just wanted to kind of fill you in. We had a really good back and forth with with Deputy Chief Coffee. So, um, he was willing to write something
and, you know, state that he was okay with it. Um, so >> can can I propose this and see what the commission thinks? Um, in lie of offering our approval tonight and in lie of going through an exhaustive discussion of what what might
be different between the plan, the draft plan we receive and the final plan, I would propose one or two of us meet with Steve and if Deputy Chief Coffee, if he's available as an offline discussion so that we can understand a little bit
more of the specifics and then report back. Um I I I would like to be a part of that. This is a concern that I have, but I think that would be a mechanism that I could get comfortable with it. >> I'd be interested in that.
>> Dave, how does that how does that work for you guys? I know we've we've been stringing this along for a little while and I don't necessarily want to rush this through, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that we've been >> looking at it for a while. >> That's okay. This is I mean it's
definitely the the most important um thing about this project and and that's completely reasonable and um we'd be willing to work with the commission citizens and the fire department to to do what's right for the for the property.
>> Yeah. Chase is this this you may think this is delaying it but this is actually probably making it smoother as things go along to be completely honest. Um you know well >> now you guys are just flattering us and that's that's that is a >> I said now you guys are just flattering us and I was trying to be serious
management strategy. I'm a me I'm a member of a board in my town and you know you want you want to get the questions you want to be able to you know satisfy them because as soon as things start going you know sideways then you know everything you know just gets worse. So this is being proactive
is is a is a good approach in my opinion. So >> and I think that's where I'm at Steve. I want to be able to tell the community that we did as as much or more due diligence than we you know possibly could. It's one thing for a septic system. We know how those work, but
>> and there's some a lot of wetlands there downstream downhill. So, but whatever gets >> And Mass DP pointed out, right? It is a wellhead protection area and and if anybody cares about that most, it's probably Dave, but um we have secondary
interest there, too. So, >> yeah. >> Um okay, let let's do that. Um, I think we could have up to three people participate without posting a meeting. Would anyone else like to participate in that besides myself and Michael?
>> Be interested. I'd gladly step aside if there's a third that wants to step up. >> Let you guys handle that. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I agree. Tim, would you mind to coordinate that with the applicant and with the fire department and uh with
myself and Kyle and Michael and then we can try and understand maybe more of the specifics. Steve, if you could circulate that draft document to us sooner rather than later, that would let us get get familiar with it and then, you know, maybe give us a few days to read,
>> if not all of it, at least the pertinent parts of it and then have a maybe more intelligent conversation with you all. >> Okay. Um, then Dave, we would ask you leave to continue this for two weeks to the
19th. >> Sounds like plan. Sound good? Okay. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, circling all the way back. So, we've closed out.
>> See Mark has >> Sorry, Chase. I see Mark has his hand raised. Mark Gallagher. >> Oh, I apologize, Mark, if you've had your hand raised for a while. Mark, I just permitted you to talk.
>> Hey, good evening. I was just wondering if you were going to now take us uh because I know you had to do the public hearings first. >> Yes. Yeah, we're coming back to those. >> All right. Thanks, Chase. >> Thanks, M. >> Um, so we're going to go to enforcement
order discussion. Uh, 04 pond D 204988. So, Mark, I I lied a little bit. You're next after this one. Um, can we promote Mr. Marsh? And I don't know if we need to promote any
other folks. That's right. Tim, you want to give us the latest lowdown? Give us an update and then we can try and get this closed out. >> Sure. I've got the uh uh revised plan
that that Steve or not revised, but the plan that Steve has submitted. Um, I'll be sharing that. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Marsh, we'll let you give us an update, but I we just want to hear from Tim first in
terms of his understanding of status. >> Yeah. So, so, um, the plan you've submitted, it's got the, um, location of the the boat shed relocated. Um, it was permitted to be right outside of the 50 and and here
it's shown to be outside of the 100 foot. Um, Steve, I'm not sure this is to scale because I think the the sitting area is a little closer to where the dock is showing. Um,
but I I it's supposed to be the scale. I had them come out and shoot it. Okay. No, >> there was um there was another plan that I gave you. This is just the draft. So, there was another one that I sent to you. I don't know if you have that.
>> Okay. I don't I don't recall receiving that, but do do you have that that you can share? >> Um let me look. I don't think I'll be able to get a des well versed on the computer as you. I'll try to do it while you're giving the presentation. I
>> I can I can run through my email um if you want to just update the the commission on on what's been done since the uh >> the last time it was discussed. >> Okay. So, basically what we've done is um I've done everything that the commission has asked. I've had the
arborist out. I've had the uh wetlands person out who has given me um a way to rectify where the where the path is going to go. And what we've done is we've moved the um the patio area away from the water and I've taken the boat
house out of the 100 foot out of your jurisdiction and moved it up. So originally that's what I had planned on doing anyway. You know, um I know that we were concerned about with the amount of work that I had done there with regard to a disturbance, but if I built
that boat house, I'd be putting a concrete pad under it or or sauna tubes. Now, we're not doing that. So, we've reduced that disturbance area within your jurisdiction of the 100 foot by probably 50%. By moving the boat house
out and um and moving the um the patio area, that little paver area away from the water. So, that's like I said, I've done everything that uh the commission has asked. Uh I'd like to get the
enforcement order lifted. Um and then have you approve the amendments with me moving the boat house out and um you know putting the um path in according to the uh wetlands specialist plan
and I think that would satisfy everyone but we're doing less disturbance ultimately. >> Mr. Marshia, apologies if I'm missing something here. You said install the path in accordance with your wetland specialist plan. Is that something that
has been what does that mean? Is that something that has been shared with us and I'm just not recalling it or I don't know what you mean? Um so uh Sarah had requested at uh one of the last meetings that um I provide the commission with a
plan on uh the construction of the um the the path itself. So what they've done basically is they said I have to take some of the duff from either side um and then just place in the um the wood chips which are on site. I'm ready to go. I can probably have that done in
the day. Um, and then I'll and then the little patio area. Um, originally I think we had talked about doing some uh Yeah. So, if you take a look at that, so that restoration planting area, there's a number of plants that need to
go in. And then I would take some of the existing um uh tree litter and and brush and um put it in that twoft wide restoration. I don't have the exact wording, but that's essentially what it is. And then put the wood chips down
where the 5-ft path is. >> But you need to fill that in because that was dug out quite a bit. >> No, I've already filled I've already filled it in. It's already been done. >> Prove that. We asked them to do that after this first came up. >> Yeah, we did that. Um remember um I had
to have the arborist come out and then I had permission to um cut the cut the um uh the roots and then place the soil back which I did. >> Okay. >> And and that's where you're at now if that's what the site looks like. >> Yeah, that's exactly what it looks like.
>> Yeah, we're pretty well stabilized. I'm like I said, I'm ready to go do the patio and put the wood chips in and do that and I can do that in short order. So, I think the the one thing that I don't see on the plan, um I don't think
it's it was in this package is we Sarah wanted to see um an elevation at kind of at the end of the area you've disturbed. >> Yeah. So, here's what I'm going to suggest. um at on the asbuilt plan, I'll
make sure um that what we do is we keep that where the wood chip path is that it's down below the existing grade and on the asbuilt plan will show that. >> Okay. Yeah. So Tim, I guess maybe just make a note that we review that as built
before we give any sort of a certificate compliance. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then if you want me to add a condition onto the >> I'm I'm still hung up on this draft plan versus finalized plan. Like do
>> Well, this is the existing conditions. There should be I I did submit um this was just a draft for me to review that I submitted to Tim prior to me giving the thumbs up. It's it's the exact same thing um that we have here. Um only I have the stamped plan. You should have
>> Steve. I only saw this one that was sent to me on the 29th. Um, >> let me just um let me see if I can send it to you right now. >> Mr. Marsh, whether you send it or not, I I I want to be really clear like I mean, we just dealt with this half an hour ago, >> right?
>> I I I'm not comfortable approving something unless we've had it and been able to review it. And I think we need the final plan here. Um, >> this is the final plan >> that this says draft on it, >> right? But it's the exact plan only I have the stamped one. Um and I did
submit it. So uh but it's this essentially the same exact plan. So what would you be holding me up on? >> It essentially is doing an awful lot of work. I want to see the final stamped plan. I'm not approving anything until I see the final stamp plan. Period. End of
story. The rest of the commission can disagree with me and that's fine. But until I see do that, but >> I I don't have enough information to to to reach a a reasonable opinion. >> Have you been out there, Chase? >> Yes, sir.
>> Uh, not in the context of this particular enforcement order, but yes. >> Okay. >> I I think it's somewhat irrelevant whether he has or hasn't as as he noted that we dealt with earlier this evening a plan that we thought we understood and
found that we apparently didn't. And this one says draft. So we can't approve a draft. We need to approve the right one. >> Ed, if we could just hold on for a second. You approve something that was much more intrusive to the interests of
the wetlands protection act prior to this this I didn't cut any trees down. I went around the trees. I've moved the boat house. The boat house was supposed to be down 6 um you know like down close to the wetlands. the proposed sitting
area was essentially right on the bank. Um, >> well, Mr. Marsh, what you're talking me into is that we need a new filing by saying that. And I I don't think that's the path that you want to go down. >> No, you're saying this is a completely
different project than what we approved. >> You you understand how that could lead to a reasonable conclusion that we just need a new filing and start. I I agree with you, but I but I would also say that in the interest of um protecting the pond, this is a much better plan
than what was approved because we could always go back to the original plan. Um and then I'd be putting the boat house down really close to the wetlands. Um which doesn't make any sense. We can achieve everything here. >> I'm not sure anyone is arguing that this plan is better than the other plan. All
we're saying is that we can't approve something that says draft. >> I think we're kind of all getting a little hot over over >> Yeah. >> that. >> Okay. If that's the only issue, then um then I'll submit it. But I would still like to continue to um to
>> Well, you have no jurisdiction over the proposed where the um where the boat house is. So, at least I could continue working with that if that would be unless you guys were opposed to it, >> but I'm outside your jurisdiction. So,
and I won't be doing any work with all I'll be do just just for the record here. All I'm going to be doing for the rest of the project um is to be basically putting the wood chips in and doing some plantings along the edge. So, as long as you're not opposed to me
continuing working, you know, this I actually tried to get on to the commission um back uh you know, back in June to make these changes and propose these originally so I didn't have to cut trees and I was going to move the um boat house. Um unfortunately, you guys
didn't have a quorum a couple of times. Um and then, you know, I tried to stay exactly where the path is essentially in the same spot, only I've shortened it up. If you notice that path originally went all the way down to the dock. We've shortened it up like I don't know at
least 10 ft. Um >> yeah. >> So as long as you're not opposed to me continuing to work on the boat house, I'm cool with it. I'll get you the um the uh stamped plan. >> I I will tell you, Mr. Marsh, I I don't think we have an opinion one way or the other as to work outside of jurisdictional areas. I will note that
that is very close to jurisdictional areas. So to the extent that there's tree removal involved, >> there isn't. You use caution. >> Okay, understood. I got it. Okay. So, I can continue as far as you you don't you're not opposed to me. I also have 100.
>> You're not going to get us to say you can or can't continue outside of a jurisdictional area. All you're going to get us to say is it's outside of a jurisdictional area >> and that's all I need. Okay, great. All right. So, I'll send you over the um stamped copy. Um,
so and it but like I said, it's not going to change other than the fact I won't say draft on it. >> Okay. But for the time being, we understand that the enforcement order within the jurisdictional areas stands, right? >> Okay. Yeah, I'd like it lifted, but um
until you get that plan um All right. So, put me on the next meeting and then I'll um give you that that plan. Commissioners, any other comments on this? Okay. Well, um, Chase, I'm sorry. Um,
Sarah did ask for for the elevations, and I think if if she sees this at the following meeting, she's probably going to want to, and I don't want this to be dragged out, you know, another meeting because it it doesn't have the elevations. Steve, is it possible to get the elevations on on this plan? >> Yeah. I don't I don't see how necessary it is because I'm going to have to do an ASB built anyway. You're going to
require it, right? So, um, you know, it's it's six of one, half dozen the other. I don't see what the big deal is. If it's not right, um, on the as belt, then, um, you're not going to approve me. >> Yeah, I I I kind of agree. It's kind of I mean, I guess we could hold them to a
proposed elevation, but >> yeah, it's the only thing I've asked for so far. I mean, short of >> I think you we make it it has to be a condition of, you know, we're going to amend this order at some point in the near future, hopefully. Um, I do agree
she's going to see that it's not there, but I'm hoping that that condition would appease her. >> I'm sure somebody else disagrees to speak up. I think that that would >> and see she saw it too. She saw what it looked like out there. It's not going to
be hard to keep the elevation below, you know, to keep it down. Um, we're not It's not And Tim, you went out there after he filled in with the native material, right? Yeah. Was it still lower? >> Yes, it's still lower. >> Right. So, it's going to be it'd be hard to keep it to to not
stay below that though. >> Yeah. >> Because I also agree. I don't want to have to go another month, you know, sit through this again next meeting just for her to say that and have him create another plan. So, >> throw my heads out. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we're collectively okay with stepping back from that particular requirement to lift the enforcement order, not from a certificate of compliance perspective, but from an enforcement order perspective. >> Fair enough.
>> Well, I sorry I there was a question mark on that. >> No. All right. I guess I didn't realize that that was we were still talking of lifting the I I didn't think we were comfortable lifting the >> No, no, no. I mean in two weeks time. What what I don't want to do is I think
we all agree extend this two more weeks, but we want to make sure that Mr. Marsh can show up with a firm understanding of what we are expecting in two weeks. >> Yeah, I would think between what Tim has seen out there adding a condition to the
potential future amended order that she would be comfortable. >> Okay. So, we'll add it as a condition, but we don't need to see it to lift the enforcement order once we have a finalized plan that we are comfortable with. >> That's what I'm comfortable with. Yep. >> Okay.
>> So, one question. >> One of us is going to take heat from her. You know that, right? >> I'll take it. Yep. >> I'm sure I'll take it, too. >> You are always going to take it. >> Yeah, you're lose lose there, Steve. >> Yeah, that's true. I agree. Um, so c can I not do you want me not to do any work
within your jurisdiction at this point? until correct. >> Until Sarah sees that. >> Until we lift the enforcement >> lift it. >> Okay, fair enough. I gotcha. All right. Thank you very much. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Okay. Now we'll move on. Mr. Gallagher, appreciate your patience. We're going to move on to the enforcement order discussion for 33 Star Hill Road. Tim, um, you want to give us anything we need to know and then we'll turn it over to Mr. Gallagher or
his team? >> Yeah, >> could we promote Oh, never mind. There goes Sue. Okay, thanks. >> Not too much of an update on on my end since last meeting. Um, when I just updated the commission that um that that morning of our prior meeting um me, Amy,
Lauren, Dave, um Mark, Mark Jr., Wait, Chuck, Karen, we were all out there. Um, and there was soil testing done in that questionable area. Um, it did not have hydric soils. So, the the the plan that
was in originally submitted um by places that wetland delineation is is what we're working off of. And those trees that were highlighted in that um are were confirmed to be the ones that were removed within the buffer zone.
Okay, Mr. Gallagher, floor is yours if you or your team would like to give us an update. >> Okay. Good evening and uh thank you for your time this evening, Mr. Chairman. Um, as Tim has indicated, we had a
meeting out on the job site and um, there were no uh, I always say hydraulic hydric soils uh, that would be found as uh, we initially Dave Crossman and Chuck Karen were there. Uh Chuck is our uh the
gentleman that we hired uh for the trees to make determination of what trees were alive, which ones were dead, uh what trees we removed within the buffer. Um to note, we're not within the 50ft buffer. We're talking about work on the
uh edge of the 20 uh 100t buffer. Um, so we have staked the 100 ft buffer based upon the location of all of the uh wetlands that are uh on the adjacent property because there is no there are
no wetlands on our property as as we initially thought. However, that we are obviously at the at the tip of that area um within the 100t buffer on our side of the road. Uh we've delineated all the way down throughout the forestry's
property both on the inside of the road as it veers along and the outside of the road to ensure that this is not going to happen a second time. We are in the process of uh going to file an ANRAD with you uh for the delineation of all
the wetlands that are within 100 ft of our property that we were asked to delineate. Um Amy was great. Um, you know, I I think we've kind of buttoned this down. Chuck Karen, and I don't know if he's still with us this evening cuz
he was available earlier, but he had a couple of other uh conflicting meetings this evening, but he wrote a letter um to the board, which we provided um last week uh when Tim asked for it. And uh
Chuck speaks to the um work that he did out there, the number of trees, the types of trees. He's made a recommendation that we remove the rest of the invasives from the property. Um he's spoken to um the reason why we
should remove those invasives. Um you know, they're my knowledge they're all outside of the of the uh 100 foot buffer. Um he has spoken to a restoration within the 100 ft buffer. Um where we will allow nature to take its
course. Uh he's talked about the foliage that is there, the tree cover and all of the reasons why in his professional opinion we should not go in and do any tree plantings and allow nature as we did uh previously. Uh he notes there's a
lot of growth that's already occurred. And then he spoke about possibly doing some treatment um to some of the existing uh stumps over the next year which are for the invasives so they don't come back. Um that in summary is
the work we would like um we would like to to begin work outside of the buffer. Um and I listened obviously to the prior meetings um and understand >> so you know we're not going to bless that or not bless that right? >> Yeah. No, I'm just not going to um um
taunt you. So, uh we're going to put the uh sil fence in. We wanted to wait. We wanted to do it two weeks ago, but we lost our time in our slot two weeks ago, so we decided to wait till this time. Uh I think either tomorrow or Thursday.
We're going to put the silt fence in properly. We have the chips on the site to tow it in, and we are going to work outside of the buffer. Um, if you are in agreement with Chuck's work um to the
tale of the 100 foot buffer that we violated, then we would let nature take its course. We would hire somebody to do uh to maintain um the invasives that are there. We'll remove the rest of the invasives that are outside of the buffer
and um we'd like you to lift the we'd like you to lift the enforcement monitor. However, I also understand, you know, that that you may want to wait and see what what develops there as we did on the prior enforcement order that we enjoyed together, which was a little
more egregious and um see how that develops over time. We we have no intentions of working, you know, down uh inside the 100 foot buffer. So, uh at this point, we're going to continue, as I said, to file an ANRAD, get it all um
taken care of. It is stable and I and I think Chuck's indicated that he would advise of no work but obviously that's up to the commission and that's a summary of where we are. >> I am here Mark. So
>> Oh, good news you're able to join us. Happy then I don't have to repeat. Thanks Chuck. >> And I want to recount to make sure everybody's on board as well as the public. Um Mr. Karen, your recommendation was you
strongly recommend against replanting. Looks like we had 37 stumps. 10 of those were either dead or nearly dead. Seven dead, three nearly dead. That left us with 27 trees,
>> and 18 of them were Norway maples. So, it it sounds like what we're looking at here is >> Yeah, you summarize it. Nine living viable trees that were native species were taken out. Four red maple, three American elm, one sugar maple, and one
black cherry. Is that right? >> Yep, that's right. Is that right? >> Yep. >> Um, so >> sorry, go ahead, Chuck. >> I was going to say basically you can see there's all kind I mean there's too much
tree cover. if you plant under it, the trees are either, you know, you're going to have poor survival or more likely just stagnant growth. Um, but the ground in good part of that area was already covered with seedlings germinating and
starting to develop. So I I think rather it'd be much more productive to put the effort into controlling keeping the invasives from coming back into that and letting that natural regeneration develop than to to get into any
extensive planting that and I think that that Chuck thank you very clearly summarizes for the board the question we have in front of us. Um, we had at least nine native living trees taken
out. The applicant's recommendation is we that we allow it to vigorously regenerate naturally and we need to decide if we're comfortable with that. >> Hey Chuck, do you know what's coming in
for seedlings? Is it mainly the uh the red maples coming in? Um, there was a there was a lot of red maple. There was actually a huge amount of American elm. >> Really? >> It was surprising. Um,
>> and then there were there were some oats um some cherries. >> No, we do have hardwoods coming in. >> I'm sorry. What's that? >> That That's good. So, there's a bunch Sounds like a a good array of hardwoods
uh coming in. I guess I don't have any problem with with Chuck's recommendation if you already get seedlings coming in. Um, yeah, I tend to get the mic whenever I want.
So, I I have strong thoughts here, but I'm I'm going to wait to see what everybody else has to say first. >> I'll just say this is the first time I've heard that proposed since I started with the commission. Uh on the surface, it makes sense to me, but uh like I
said, it's the first time I've heard that. Doing something for the sake of doing something seems unnecessary if it's if nature's is already doing the job for us.
>> I agree with that with the condition that the invasives are controlled and don't take over what I mean if these don't have a chance to thrive. I think we treat this as the same as a replanting plant. If you're going to tell us that seedlings are growing, then
I want to see in three years that they have developed to a viable tree. And if they haven't, then we are revisiting the replanting. I'm calling it replanting. It's not replanting, but we're revisiting this plant >> or this approach.
>> Yeah, >> I would agree with that, Kyle. That makes sense. No, I'm going to take I I am deeply concerned about the moral hazard of this
>> that what we would allow is removal of trees that we are very protective of as Mr. Gallagher himself knows and
the resolution of it is nothing or very little certainly nothing in terms of even attempting to replant trees of a similar diameter of breast height I'd
like there there are restoration requirements that we have imposed in other places where we've required two or 3:1 ratio of replanting, right? We haven't gone to the extreme of saying all of the diameter of breast height needs to be replanted, but other communities do, right? A 20-in tree
comes out, you need to replant 20 in of trees. >> That it's a lot, right? Like, you probably couldn't actually get all that to grow safely. I am very very concerned about the rationale behind this that
simply says areas of this nature regrow. So if someone cuts it down, we just and I'm I'm I'm being uh hyperbolic here, but we we ignore it and we just let it grow back because it does come back over time. And and that is how
>> that that's universally true to to it's some infinite time frame. >> That's how tempered forest work. Hang on a second. >> That's the That's the science that if you if you open an a forest up in the tempered zone,
especially in New England, you get a massive influx of regeneration, either new seedlings developing or seedlings that were there and small before are then freed to grow. I mean, that's
the that's how every forest we have originated. Um it's how every managed forest functions. Um and I'm not arguing with you that o over time it will regenerate. What I am
disputing is that as it exists today it's fulfilling the same ecological function that it was fulfilling 6 months ago. >> I would say it's fulfilling a better one. Right now we have fewer invasive species. We have less Norway maple. You still have a full canopy over that site
and you're developing a with the invasives control, we're going to be developing a more natural understory that is beneficial for the wildlife, beneficial for the soil conditions,
beneficial for runoff rates when you have native vegetation. So I I'll agree with you until you said there's a full canopy over the site and I would like to put it in for now. Right. Mr. Gallagher just said that he is submitting an NRAD and is immediately
going to be installing silt fence to delineate the 100 foot buffer so he can proceed with work outside of our jurisdiction. So what's to say that in two months when he starts doing whatever the work is that he's going to be doing that that canopy remains?
Chase, is one of your concerns that are we setting a precedent? >> Yes, that that's that's precisely >> concern that that is a fair concern. >> I would argue, Chase, >> I mean, I would argue there's a moral hazard to requiring
planting of trees in an area where they will not grow. You're going to take goodsized nursery stock and put them in almost full shade that they're not adapted to and they're going to die or they're
going to sit there and you're going to go back in 10 years and they've grown six inches. >> I >> you you'll know notice punitive if you come up with something else punitive. It that's your your fear.
>> Hey, Chase. Chase, >> we didn't go in with the idea of clearing inside the buffer. >> Mark, >> we've already we've already had that. >> Yeah, 100%. I'm good with that. >> Okay. We went in to remove the
invasives, which we did throughout the entire property. Now, we stopped outside of the buffer. You didn't ask me what work we were going to do outside the buffer. You just assume we're going to do development work. We've not finished our job, which is clearing the invasives. We stopped
because of the enforcement order. And then when we came in front of you, um it was discussed that we would we would forego any work on that side of the property for the simple reason that we could not establish um where the 100 foot buffer was because
there was some conjecture that there was wetland plants on our side of the road um which would push the buffer, you know, back significantly. We then spent the money to find all of the wetlands on the forestry property. You know, we're
going to file an ANRAD so we don't have, you know, not know where the jurisdictional area is or isn't for the future. Um the work outside the buffer you don't control under any circumstances. And we did down in that
corner, we did violate the 100 foot buffer um probably for 10 or 15 ft. Um, and we did remove what what Chuck has said, but I would argue that you set a precedent at every single one of your meetings. You know, I've I've had the enjoyment of sitting through a myriad of
meetings over the years, but more importantly over the last couple of months, and you know, in each enforcement order, you set a precedent, whether it be looking at plans where footings are put in and arguing whether they were on the plan or not on the plan. you know, people that have gone
and and and clearly gone, you know, overboard with clearing and pathways and then provide a very limited amount of bushes. You set a precedent by accepting those plans. You're you're a flexible
board. You don't have any one, you know, set of rules and regulations that you follow, i.e., you know, you cut it down a 20-in tree, you replace it with 20 in more, whatever. And I think what one of the other members of the board said earlier is it's a three-year window. If
two years and 6 months from now you're not happy with it and we need to go in I think we should discuss that now because I don't want to come back in two two years and 6 months and then have you say well our entire process has changed and you need to put in 255 in of trees. You
know I I I I think if you're concerned about Chuck's approach we can backs stop it. We've been reasonable throughout this. We made an error. We want to be good about it. But if you allow Chuck's process to unfold and it works, you're not necessarily setting a precedent.
Every single enforcement order, every single ANRAD, every single order condition that comes in front of you is different in some way, shape, or form. So, I don't think anybody can seize on this because you'd have to say, okay, is it all the same? Were there invasives? How many trees were cut? How many were
dead? How many were invasives? we get down to nine trees. Not pissing on nine trees. What I'm saying is backs stop it if you're concerned that you know two years from now we come back. If if what's grow promagated to grow grows
then no harm no foul. Chuck's plan worked and we're all good. If it didn't work, let's agree on nine trees that you'd like to have planted or 18 trees and we'll take the risk that Chuck's plan is going to work. I just want to get out from under this and not, you know, I mean, I live in town.
>> We're obviously embarrassed this happened. We understand it was a mistake. We just want to be done. I mean, I I don't want to waste a lot of your time. Pick a path and we'll follow you. >> And I think it's important to point out here if if this had been cleared and completely stripped the trees, my answer
would be completely different and would be recommending some planting um because the trees would then been be in the open. grow and we'd get bigger trees quicker if we started with some bigger plantings. But in this case, we have, like I said, virtually a complete
overstory still. We still have the tree cover. Um, so I think my approach makes more sense in this situation, which isn't typically when you have an enforcement order for clearing, someone strip every tree off an area.
So, I mean, I I think you all know where I stand. I I as you all know, I'm not remotely worried about being on the minority side of a vote here. Um I I I I'm I remain concerned about the
moral hazard component of it. Um, and Chase, did did uh did Amy did Amy weigh in on this at all or was she just involved in the uh delineation? >> No, she didn't weigh in on the on the restoration proposed.
>> Okay. >> So, I think the question in front of us is it's really not that complicated, right? It's do we as a commission want to accept this as a plan or not? >> And I So what size of the seedlings that
you see coming in, Chuck? >> Sorry. I didn't hear that. >> I'm sorry. What What size are the seedlings that you're seeing coming in? >> Um right now they're pretty a lot of them are pretty small. You know, some of them
are this year's germination. We've had that heavy um acorn crop. So, we've got a couple year old oaks coming along. Um you know, so what's there now is is
pretty it is small. No. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me, Tim. >> I will note that Oh, I'm sorry, Mark. Go ahead. >> Tim, can can you um promote David Murray? >> Yeah. as a panelist. I I apologize, Chase and other members of the uh board.
I I have to leave. I have a a 9:15 conference call with uh people overseas. So, um David Murray is my partner and if you could is he still on, Tim? >> He is. I I >> Can you promote him as a panelist and he can just take my spot? >> Yep. He's rejoining now.
>> Okay. All right. >> Apologies this evening, but I'm going to depart. Thanks, Jason. >> Mark, can I just make a a point, Chase? Excuse me. Um, this is Sue Carter from places. Um, in this case, your 50ft no
disturb zone was not touched. This was basically between 75 ft and 100 ft and it was separated from the wetlands by an existing stone wall. That's the property line. So, I understand your concern about setting a precedence, but in this
case, it's in the outer reaches of the 100t buffer. It wasn't the 50-foot buffer like we had happen on Ipsswitch or other places. So in terms of our precedence, I don't think it's as much of a precedence as if we violated your
50-foot or even the BVW itself. Um so I think in this case um we'll be able to monitor to see what's going on with that. Um >> I I appreciate what you're saying, Sue. I I think you're unlikely to convince me, but perhaps my colleagues you are. I
will rebut it with this. You know, one of the interests under the act is wildlife generally. And as we've discussed with Mr. Gallagher, and I think you were on the call too, I think we've historically even considered the removal of the 10 dead trees or dying
trees to be significant impacts to wildlife resources. >> I was I was thinking the same thing, Chase, before you said that. A and so Sue I while we certainly do have a let's say a sliding scale of our perception of
potential impact to BVW based on distance um we've historically not taken a particularly nuanced view whether it's 25 ft or 50 ft or 75 ft particularly when it comes to trees. Um
what what I would like to note to to my colleagues is if you're comfortable going forward with Mr. Karen's plan. Um, and I understand that. I do think we should make it clear what we expect to see in 3 years time. So, by my math, if
we take away the Norway maples and I think give the applicants credit for the invasive species work that they've done, there's still 19 trees that were either dead and decaying or native.
And my argument would be that in three years time we should at least we should have at least 19 viable trees growing in that footprint as evidenced by a monitoring program at the end of the third year.
>> Well, we're we're obviously not going to have, you know, the size >> of course that we lost. And uh I agree with you. I was think when you before you mentioned the dead trees, I was thinking the exact same thing. They weren't they weren't dead. We have no idea because, you know, they're not
there anymore. But um a tree that's dying or dead and still standing as a you know is a valuable tree. I mean that's they get they're extremely val extremely valuable for for wildlife and birds.
Um snags, you know, are very valuable. So, I agree, Chase, that uh those are that's a loss. And I'm I'm starting to head your direction more. Um, and
>> listen, I I get it. If we decide that we want to go this way, the the logic and what Mr. Karen has put forward, I'm probably not going to support it. It's fine if I'm in the minority. That's just the way it goes. H how about instead of
it being one way or the other, you're saying let's look at it at three years and I'm feeling like it's too too long. Um you know, we look at it a year and a half or two years. And that what that does is it says if Mr. Karen's plan
didn't work to our satisfaction. Now, we still have a year or a year and a half to have the adjusted plan put in place and still have time to ensure that they grow. You know, if you if you do it at three years, we're done. You know, we've done
the three years and and and if it if they plant trees and they don't grow well, oh well. If you do it shorter, >> you know, and check then, >> yeah, >> I I think that's a wise thing to do, Ed, to put some performance standard on this
plan. >> Yeah, >> I'm I'm I'm I'm a little worried. We we know that the property is going to be sold because he I mean, he's already told us that. So, >> um they have a enforcement though go
with to with the new owner. I I don't know. I'm I'm I'm worried that um I'm worried that we'll we'll I kind of rather Now now I'm kind of leaning towards Chase's side and get the
>> Well, again, I'm I'm going to talk >> talk my way out of something that when someone's agreeing with me, but the way we have handled things like that in the past is that we have asked the property owner to provide us with a some sort of formal legal certification from whoever
purchases it, what whatever the lawyers want to call it, an affidavit, something like that, acknowledging their receipt and understanding of what their restoration plan is, and we've required that in other places. >> Is that
do we have any legal authority >> to the new owner? >> I I I hadn't thought about um >> he was going to be sold. If we don't have any legal authority to enforce this after they sell it, they take their money and run so to speak, then I am
totally of a different mind. >> Why don't we do an order of conditions? We're going to have an >> enforcement an enforcement order would stay. It come >> is with the property. It doesn't matter who it who owns it. They're still subject to it. >> It's going to hang on the deed until
it's lifted. and we won't completely lift it until they've met the restoration requirements. And that rides with the my understanding, right? >> Can I make can I make a suggestion >> then? Okay. So, hang on one second, David.
Sorry. That then I'm back to let's use a year and a half or something like that. And and and >> I can't speak. >> No, you can speak. I just was already talking. So, >> I'm I'm sorry, M. Why don't we if we're going to be doing an ANRAD, we're going to why don't we just do an order of
conditions for that piece of property and under the order we monitor the for 12 months the growth of those trees that are that need to be replaced or that are the seedlings that are growing.
So, we have a vehicle which is the order conditions and one of the orders is the uh subject to the tree growth. That way, it goes on the title. It's on the deed. If something happens, it's there. It's an order of conditions and it doesn't get released until the
commission releases it. >> And and Chase, I I want to clarify. I don't believe the the enforcement order is is tied to the title because they don't have to get that recorded at the registry of deeds like they would in order of conditions. >> Correct. which I think is David's argument for formally Yeah.
>> doing this through a notice of intent and order of conditions. >> Yeah. >> Some some protection. >> I still don't like any of it. And what I'm trying to do is understanding that I'm in the minority here trying to find a path that I think is the least uh the
least likely to fail. Yeah. So, and you just use the word that I want to push back against you a little bit here with your your plan or I guess we haven't really heard your plan yet, but I assume that your plan would be a replanting
create a replanting plan whether it's shrubs, trees, whatnot, which would require our standard three-year, you know, monitoring period. Monitor every year until three years and are we there? Are we at a percentage, right? What do
you do in three years when you haven't met that percentage? >> Well, that's what the order conditions are. >> I want Chase to answer that question. >> No, no, I'm just throwing stones here. No, listen. I I fully recognize that there are challenges on both sides. It
my again my fundamental concern with the plan that Mr. Karen has put forward is not his underlying science. It it is, as I stated, the moral hazard piece of it that I I really really am worried
about saying, "Yep, we took out a bunch of trees, but it'll be fine." And I we just have to be really careful if we're going to do that. >> Haven't we answered that though, Chase?
If we let it go as is with whatever the legal stuff is, and I'm not good in that space, and we say in one year, because David suggested a year, I I I like that. In one year, we re-evaluate. Is the plan working? Then we let it go another year.
If it's not working at that point, then we require the plantings that we would have required. Now, doesn't doesn't that kind of address everyone's concerns? We we're not we're not just saying you cut them down, slap on a wrist, go by. We're you know that we're saying you cut them
down. We understand the science of what we're being told. We'll give it a chance. If it doesn't work, then you know it's more than a slap on the wrist and you know >> Yeah. And I understand the precedent that you're worried about setting chase and I think my argument to that has
always been every hearing we have is different, right? There's no apples, right? So we have the prerogative. We have the ability to change our not change our mind but view each each situation in a different light. >> I couldn't agree more with you on that,
Kyle. I I do I do not think any particular decision we make is presidential. And yet when it's beneficial to an applicant, it does get tossed back at us. >> You always have the authority to go back and do another enforcement. And if it's not growing, you can always come back in
and say, "Hey, listen. You got to do some corrections here." We can have Chuck go out there and give a a plan. We're never taking away your ability to do that. >> So So I would like >> selling the property. The only I'm comfortable with that is if it's legally enforceable.
>> Yeah. So So you want to see an order of conditions that something that rides I think that's the easiest way to do it. I I would like to see something from I mean we're talking about Chuck's plan but Chuck hasn't really presented a plan. He's just he's just said leave it
leave things as is. I would like to see a plan from Chuck that actually states you know how big these trees need to be. uh what the diverse in population I mean in diversity of trees is
um something we need we need definitely need to have targets similar to if we had planted like what size would we have what size of tree would we have asked to be planted in there >> I don't already did a plan right Chuck
>> I bought I mean I don't didn't include any performance standard in it I just, you know, we're not going to have 1 in diameter trees in 3 years or anything approaching that, but we could have
10,000 foot high seedlings or two foot high seedlings. Um >> I I think what we would look to is is there sufficient density and is there sufficient diversity to indicate likely
long-term success in three years? >> Yeah. Oh, and so we keep saying three years. I threw that number out there as a standard number. If we I feel like if we think that we need longer to show that these trees will be viable, right? If three years isn't a long enough time to show that a sapling is going to be a
viable tree, then maybe three years isn't the right number. I I'm not an arburist. I don't know what that is. Right. So, >> we able to tell in the first year if this is progressing. >> I think it's more a number of trees you have in this type situation. Um
>> I mean you might have it may you might have over competition too of trees. check if there's if you get like, you know, huge amounts of tree seed seedlings all trying to grow at the same time.
Um, some aren't going to make it. I mean, that's again the natural process. You you disturb a forest completely and you can have million or more seedlings per acre and at the end of as as those trees
get mature, you could be down to 50 trees per acre. So it there's always a huge amount of mortality in that natural process. >> And I I I think one of our interests is not creating a monoculture with what does survive,
>> which doesn't seem to have happened originally. I I feel like I wouldn't expect that to happen again if it wasn't already the case. But we won't know until >> I think a lot of the uh the key to the success of this if we get rid of the
invasives that's the problem. A lot of the vines, a lot of those invasives are taking over. So if we can remove those, I think it'll give the uh seedlings a a good chance to survive. >> Chuck, how many of those seedlings are Norway maple seedlings?
>> I didn't see that many when I was out there. I fe I do I'd be shocked if we don't end up with a lot though. So I mean that's part of the invasives control is getting rid of the Norway maple that comes along. >> So it sounds like
>> oh I'm sorry. So it sounds like instead of filing an ENRAD, we can go ahead with an NOI with um maybe phased approach um initially removing the existing invasives management plan for that. Um first year monitoring of the trees that are existing on site growing up, we'll
evaluate their performance and then um just kind of tailor it uh from there. Does that sound >> so so outside of the um there are these trees are in that and the seedlings that would have the natural growth
they're within the 100 correct. So I'm just trying to get a sense for if this property gets sold the person that buys it if it's going to be a horse farm or whatever it's going to be there'll be no activity within
that area. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And Carl, I I do like this idea of a order of conditions because I think we could condition that. >> Exactly. >> Again, I don't like any of this, but if
if we're going to do it, I I like the order of conditions as a way of memorializing it. And I also think if we include in the order of conditions a performance standard at some period of time, even if it's semi-quantitative or
even qualitative. Um, right? Like there's no point in someone going out and counting a number of 18inch saplings that. But do we have robust coverage? Do we have moderate coverage? Do we have bare spots? Right. I I think Chuck I think we could have Chuck do a
monitoring plan uh with a series of transexs um that he monitors over the first year and then uses those same transacts. He could monitor for several years after just so we can
see what's going on. But I do think we have to have some type of monitoring plan. Uh, >> so what I would propose is this. Before we write this plan with Chuck, we let them go back to the drawing board. We don't lift the enforcement order, but we
express a willingness to ex lift that enforcement order once we have a notice of intent and an approved order of conditions. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I like that one. >> Thanks, Chuck. any questions that we can
answer for you to help get closest to the finish line with the first draft? >> No, I think I I understand where you're coming from. Even if I disagree, I can I think I know what you're looking for at this point.
>> Okay. I think an important piece of what you propose will be the performance conditions. How do we know that we've succeeded? >> Yeah, I got to put I need to put some thought into that. Um, I was going to look at, you know, DCR has guidelines on what is sufficient regeneration after a
cutting to be acceptable. Um, I can't remember that number off the top of my head. So, >> that's great. >> Look at that. And we could tie that into some >> absolutely >> coverage or density along with that. >> Okay.
Um, I I do think for the applicant's sake we should take a straw pull on our willingness to lift the enforcement order. What I don't want to do is go down the pathway of, yep, this is the plan we go and then we find out that it turns out nobody wants to lift the
enforcement. I I I think they deserve certainty or at least as much as we can give them in a straw poll. David, is that >> okay with you to it? We're going to take a straw poll. We're not going to lift the enforcement order. There's nothing
binding about this. We can change our mind. Qualifier, qualifier, qualifier. But it I I would like to give you some meaningful direction here, >> right? That sounds good. >> Okay. Um let let's do that then real
quick. that this direction involving an order of conditions, performance standards, and lifting the enforcement order. Um, are we supportive of that or not supportive of that? Andrew, you want to go around? >> Sure. All right. Straw poll roll call
vote. Uh, Michael, >> I'll support that. >> Kyle, >> I would also support that. >> Ed, >> I support that. Carl, >> Carl Mber, I would support that. >> Chase,
>> I still don't like it. >> And I would support it. So Dave, you've got one, two, three, four, five that would be willing to uh lift the enforcement order under those conditions and uh one that would not. Keep keep in
mind that that at least in my case I'm I'm willing but I need asurances that legally the property is bound to being protected. >> I'm really not a fan of devel of
developers. So you're going to sell it. >> I don't want to make sure that you're going to take your money but somebody still has to be out >> well that's what the order of conditions will do. that gets recorded and it it's a blemish on the deed until it's clear. >> So, >> it's on the registry. That's fine.
>> And one of our one of our standard special conditions is that if a property gets sold, and I will admit this, this probably rarely gets abided by. Uh if a property gets sold, the new owner is supposed to be attending the following conservation commission meeting to
essentially get up to speed on on what they're required to do under that order and condition. >> Absolutely. And in this circumstance, I I would beef that up a little bit to say that we want written confirmation from the property owner that they signed
>> from the new property owner acknowledging receipt. I I don't want any like, oh, we didn't know cuz it was in the deep. >> Well, I'm sure their lawyer will know when they do the research the deed and
find out, oh, is there conditions here? >> Yep. would wouldn't be the first time the actual property owner didn't, but we'll we'll cross that bridge when we get there, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think we got a resolution to this or at least a path forward. >> Okay, great.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thanks for the time. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> I appreciate it. >> Very good, y'all. >> Um, okay. Coming back to our agenda, uh, discussion, boats and unpermitted
docks. Tim, you want to take this one? >> Yeah. So, um kind of divide this into boats and docks. Uh the the boat aspect was um we had a report that that there was a boat just um kind of parked on on
the shore of uh Long Lake. Um kind of right at the end of of Beach Drive. Uh it has since been removed. Um, so that's that that's that's why that was on the agenda because at the time it was it was still there when the agenda was posted. >> Um,
>> I mean, you're saying that they they basically um grounded it instead of having a dock? >> Yeah. Um, the other part of this was was with the docks. Um, we've been getting an increase in the amount of of complaints,
people calling in. Um, and this is specifically uh relevant for the the parcel. What is it? Uh, U1240. So, it's our property and it runs from Beach Drive all the way down to
um Aspen. I can Perfect. You're sharing it, Chase. Um, it is under our care custody and control. Um there we've been getting the increase in complaints about people saying, you know, we asked um you know,
we live across the street. We we've asked if we are allowed to put up a dock there and we've been told no u because it's town property. Our neighbors, you know, one of our neighbors has has put up a dock there since and there's nothing being done about it. Um
and and so I wanted to to bring that up and see what you guys thought and and what the path forward would be on this cuz it is we are getting them more frequently. >> If someone's putting a dock that's on
not on their property, it should be removed. >> So there to my knowledge are quite a few of these docks um that have been there for for some time. Um, >> just in this photo there's four, I think. One, two, three, four. There's
also something mored out in the water, a play structure, things like that. There's a couple more over here that I think are a little hard to see. Particular image. There's one over there. >> Yeah. Do we have a I'll say a policy. It's a little strong for play structures. You know, if somebody puts
one of those uh big water bouncy things that where you climb up and jump off of it, do we have any standard on that? >> Is are those anchored to the the bottom? Then they should be >> they should be permanent. If they're if they're touching the lake bed, then it's
considered land underwater bodies and waterways and they should have >> that trampoline has been anchored out there for as many years as I can remember. Yeah. >> So why wouldn't we be trying to something then? What am I missing? >> Well, that's kind of why we're bringing
this up, is >> nobody has brought it up. This is the first time. >> Okay. >> Nobody nobody wants to wade into that if you'll excuse me. >> No, I get that. It's kind of like what what happened with uh with Casey where you know we made him renov
whatever the word is fix the property but his neighbor 30 years ago had made a nice you know oasis because we didn't have the requirements to place at that time. Um, does this fall into that same thing that it was put in before we had
the requirements or is this one of those, as the title says, unpermitted, therefore now we're going to enforce uh the the rules? >> I I think there is a distinction to be had here in that this is not just his
unpermitted historically on their private property. This is this is all town land, right? Like >> trespassing at this point, right? >> Yeah. The entirety of the land between Lakeshore Drive and the lake is town owned, not privately owned.
>> And we're creating we're inadvertently creating winners and losers by ignoring some and telling people that ask no. There's talk about moral hazards, right? Like >> I I will note the one exception to that is is on the corner of Aspen where that
section just recently transferred over to the town. Um is if if you're looking at um it's towards the the bottom left chase um that little strip um >> I wanted to put the ADA path
>> exactly and I think that just went into effect was it last year or or something. Um whereas previously that dock was on their property determined by the land court decision. But for the rest of of that property,
that's that's what Chase said is is applicable. >> So the question is >> always been ours. >> Do do we be the bad guys and have them >> docks? I'm assuming
>> every landowner back behind there is going to be like, "Okay, I'm putting a dock out there." >> Yeah. No, no. I I I'm not advocating that we ignore it. I'm asking the question of is that where we're we're headed. It feels like maybe it is.
>> I don't think we have a choice. >> Yeah, I I would agree. The fact that they they're putting it on town land. If I were to put up a a treehouse on town land, I'd be told to take it down. That's kind of
>> I think we as a commission might make a recommendation to the select board. I think we also or at least we want to let them know. I also think we should have a discussion with town council about how this unfolds.
>> I totally agree. I don't think this is something we dive into and contact each doc owner. I think we have to choose our path very very clearly. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Can you guys hear me? Uh, so the other thing I might point out too is, um, aside from docks, there
are actual structures on these strips of land as well, including, you know, parking areas. Uh, I think there are some seating areas. So, >> kind of bike racks. So, once we're down this path, it's it's going to get pretty heavy.
So essentially we're talking about remediating conservation land back to conservation land >> potentially. >> I mean Andrew, you wouldn't want me to put a bike rack in your front yard, right? >> No. >> And not to be like so blunt, but I just
like I think that's the way it has to go. >> Yeah. Seems >> it's not going to be an easy path. I agree with that. It's going to be difficult and it's going to be trying. It'll be difficult. going to be some very unhappy people >> of course >> but like you said they don't own the
property and if we're not careful they will own the property through adverse possession >> so luckily they can't do that against the town but um still not a good situation >> yeah so is is talking to town council to
make sure that we do it the right way and letting the selectman know because we're going to be ruffling feathers is is that the the thinking >> that that's my rationale. >> Okay. I want to do this >> in the full view of everyone. If we're going to if we're going to do this,
let's let's just be >> straight and open about it. >> Yeah. No, I I absolutely and it's not they're right. It's not fair if we tell somebody they can't do one and and they you know it's kind of what happened to what was the gentleman tonight where he said the tree came down in his
neighbor's shed and when we were there we found out about his and it also happened over at um uh um across the street from me when we were the cottages. We were there checking out one and we found another. Well, how is this
any different than that? Of course, I wouldn't want to be the one being told I have to take it out. >> And it might be helpful too to maybe bring the Long Lake Neighborhood Association uh officers in to kind of
bounce this off of as well as we kind of dive into this. >> So maybe what here here's what I would propose we do. I would propose that two weeks or four weeks from now, we have an officially
posted public hearing to take public input on how we manage the existing structures that are on town land under the care custody and control of the conservation commission on the shores of Long Lake. When we do that, we make sure
that we prior to that have informed the select board that we're going to have it's just a hearing. We're not making any decisions, but we do want to get feedback and input on that. We will inform the select board. I think we also want to understand from town council what the process would be to remove or
not remove or notify people of those. Then we get the feedback from the public two or four weeks or whatever it is and then we schedule another meeting to discuss it, potentially vote on taking certain actions. I think tonight, Tim, you're just looking for taking
temperature, right? because it wasn't a posted vote. So, we want to we want to be clear about where we are and are not. >> Does part of this include notifying the abutters? >> That's where I was going. >> It feels like it does.
>> I would I would imagine I mean if >> posted as a public hearing, Andrew. >> Yeah. So, if it's a posted public hearing, it's going to require the same level of butter notification than any other public hearing that we would uh
typically post. >> It's a lot. >> It's a lot of abutters, but >> a lot of >> what I wouldn't want is someone saying they were blindsided. They didn't see the hearing, >> right? We've already the select board has already gone through that of being accused of stuff like that. So, follow
if it costs us $1,000 to send notices, then that's what it costs. Yeah, >> it's it's a price worth paying to ensure that everyone feels comfortable that they were fairly heard and the process was above board. >> So >> So maybe it's not it's certainly not two
weeks out then. Maybe it's not even four weeks, >> right? But we sounds like the general thought is that we move in that direction to at least gather public input, gather community organization input, gather
select board and maybe even park and uh uh park and rec commission input, right? This has certain implications for them as well given that the rest of the lake access is through their property they have care custody
and control over and then we schedule a public hearing on it. >> Doesn't this bring in the the whole situation with the O'Neals and and they being accused of expanding their property into
the town uh town land. I was thinking the same thing, Michael. The the the people that said they were taking advantage of us. >> I mean, I think it's the same fundamental concern. I think my understanding of that is
>> that it's occurring on a different side of the property line than it is here, but it it's the same fundamental issue. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I would propose then Tim, maybe in two
weeks you can report back on what that process would look like. Like how many people would we need to notify? What would the timeline be? If you can come up with a essentially a schedule for us. >> Yeah. >> Hey, we not notify people on this date.
We'd have a hearing on this date. We would potentially meet with the select board on that date. And then I would suggest in the intervening two weeks um we ask the town administrator for leave to meet with town council to talk about
what this looks like and get any other input from them on what the process should entail. >> Do you do you guys want to be involved in that discussion with town council or do you want me to just have that conversation with them and and Lauren? >> I think someone should be from the
commission. We should have somebody somebody around. >> Just make sure you and Lauren, you know, don't go crazy on us. >> Yeah, >> we wouldn't want that. >> And then we can have a discussion two weeks from now on and what what does the
process look like? >> That all sounds good. Yeah. >> Any other comments on that before we move on to the very last item? which was so many sticky notes.
>> Uh oh, two items, 58 Hartwell and Powers Road. Uh Ed, you were looking for an update on Powers Road. Tim, do you have anything on that or do you >> I do actually. Um >> was it last week? Uh is it last week or the week prior? John actually reached
out and he had removed the objectional fill objectionable fill on the slope and at the the top um of the slope as well um and we he didn't have erosion controls at the bottom. We asked him to
to get those out there as soon as possible um because that's part of his restoration plan is to have erosion controls at the tow the slope. Um, but we we said, you know, once you have those erosion controls down, you have the green light to to continue with the the restoration plan and working with
Matt Marorrow. >> I did see a row of big rocks. What at what appeared to be the end of his driveway? >> Yes. So, he's got those at the along the the top of the slope right now.
>> Um, and he he the way he pitched it to us was, you know, it's it's kind of memorial memorializing. All right. Nothing is gonna happen, you know, beyond that point. >> So, is they they're staying they they'll be there permanently. >> I you know, I have to go back and look
at the plan. I know he had boulders proposed on some part of that property >> in that general area. I don't know if it was exactly there. Um but I think he was open to if the commission didn't want him there, you
know, asking him to to remove it and he would be open to that. Okay. >> How did the fill look? Let's get to the real >> like overall overall it was it looked like he got the majority over >> was just something that was sufficiently
dumped and I was I was definitely a little concerned that it was more extensive than >> just keep digging. Take out the whole slope. >> Yep. >> Does he have a completion date of some kind? I I'm not sure if
>> you know it he tends to drag this out. So >> yeah, >> I'd like to see it done before we go to the winter. >> Yeah. I'm not sure we had because I I think was it Matt originally proposed
doing that work back in was it April? >> Mhm. Um, but that got pushed and and we had a bunch of rain this spring and I think that's why it got pushed and it took John I know John had an injury and then it took him a while to to get this work done. I mean, I could certainly ask
if he's willing to to come back to the commission just to talk about a timeline on these things. >> I'd rather you just ask him to write down what the time and I can I can provide you guys an update. >> Yeah, that's that's that's fine. I just want to say it moving to completion.
That's all. Gotcha. Forward progress >> or what? >> Forward progress. >> Yes, definitely. Yes. Always moving forward. >> Thank you. Okay, Tim. Last up is you on 58
Heartwell. >> All right. >> I'm going to share some some pictures here real quick. Um, >> and just to be clear, Tim, you're just looking for some general guidance on 58 Hardwell. will see it officially in a couple weeks. >> Correct. Yep. So, they they they put in
their request for uh certificate of compliance, although it was after the meeting got posted, so we couldn't get it on for this meeting anyway. It was going to get pushed no matter what. Um we went out there to do the final uh site inspection
and we noticed that this hill. So for this project, the order conditions um almost all of the the project was was that was within our buffer zone was grading. Um and it's this slope right
here. And what you're seeing is uh is stump grindings. In the in the plan, the notes say that any disturbed areas are going to be reveated. Um and obviously this is not reveated. So
it it was kind of a question of they their position was that this slope was too steep to to reveate. Um and they wanted to to get the certificate of compliance was just leaving this stabilized with with stump
grindings. And I I had spoken to Amy about how this um has this been done in the past and and she said I to her knowledge um it was it was never seen as like a permanent stabilization method um good enough to
sign off on a or issue a certificate of compliance but it had been used you know frequently or or often um for people who are looking to do temporary stabilization. So, I guess the real guidance I'm looking for is, you know, when this
comes in front of you, are you are you okay with issuing a certificate of compliance for stump grinding stabilizing a slope or are you looking for it to be vegetated as it was proposed and approved in the plan?
>> I'd say I'd say vegetated as approved. I I agree. Stump grinding a permanent solution. >> Okay. Didn't we just say that earlier with um um I forget the property, but essentially he put stump grindings and it was mentioned that that's a short
term at best. >> Yeah. Um yeah, their their reasoning for this was that it was it's in their words, not mine, too steep to to vegetate. >> That's when you need to vegetate. >> There's there's nothing too steep to
there's nothing too steep to vegetate. >> All right. I I would simply point them to the right side of the bottom photo. >> Yeah, >> took a good point. Yeah, >> I got you. Okay. And I think Tim, you
could express we understand it's more difficult and you may need to put down an erosion control blanket to do it that it it's not that it's trivial, but it's it's very doable. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I've seen in fact down the
road from us they put this like a burlap something or other you know that and and the seed grew through it. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> They did that over at Monarch too on their slopes. >> Yeah. So
>> okay. Yep. That was it for me. >> Okay. I believe that brings us to the conclusion of our meeting. Anything else you all got? >> Okay, then I think we need a motion to adjurnn.
>> I move that we adjourn. >> Second that one. >> All right, final roll call. Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Kyle >> Ed >> Edi >> Carl >> Carl Melbour I
>> Chase >> Chase emphatically I >> and myself I we are adjourned >> have a good Yes. Bye.