Hey, I would like to welcome everyone to the January 6, 2026 uh Littleton Conservation Commission meeting and we are virtual tonight. Um what I'd like to do is go ahead and approve the minutes from December 16th.
Um, what I would like to do is to make note on the draft that we were submitted at the top it states December 2nd. That's a typo and the new version that we have should say December 16th. So that would be a first edit. Does anyone
else have any um omissions or corrections to any of the four pages that was sent out? >> I just had a very minor thing under the discussion of the budget for FY27. Um about halfway through it just says
however the finance and treasures departments. I would just put however the finance department. >> What page are you on Andrew? >> That's uh page number three. >> Okay. >> Yep. Okay. Anybody else have anything?
Uh, if we don't, if someone would like to make a motion to approve the December 16th, 2025 minutes as amended. >> I'll make a motion that the commission approve the meeting minutes of December 16th, 2025 as amended.
>> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Andrew, would you do us the favor as always of doing roll call? >> Of course. Uh, roll call. Of course. Uh, roll call vote. Uh, Chase. >> Chase Gerie. >> Uh, Ed
[clears throat] Fai. >> Kyle. >> Kyle, not too late. >> Carl, >> I'm Guy. >> Michael. Oh, Michael, I think you're on mute. >> I'll abstain. I was not present.
>> Oh, you can still vote on them. >> Uh, then I will uh say I They were beautifully written. >> Excellent. [laughter] Uh Sarah >> Sarah Seward I >> Chase did I already get you? >> Yes you did. >> Perfect. And myself I it's unanimous.
>> Okay great. Thank you. Let's jump in. Does anyone have anything they'd like to add for administrative discussions? Um Lauren has given us two. One is trail an update for the Massachusetts Trail grant that um we're going for and then an update with Six Cottage Way. Um anyone
else have anything that they would like to add? Um I if it's okay, I would like to add uh maybe I'm overstepping my bounds as a commission member here. Um discuss the commission's willingness to let the scouts camp at New Town Hill uh
in a few weeks. I will bring uh uh an application forward to you all, but I wanted to at least give you a heads up that it's coming. >> Okay. Do you have enough time before the next meeting, Chase? Yes, but I I I did want to get it on your radar that I will be asking and to see if there are any
substantive issues with it that I should be prepared to address. >> Great. Um All right. Okay. So, let's go ahead. We're going to start in on the 7:30 discussions and we're going to start with 15 countryside which is loming and seating and that was in your
packet. Um let's see. And that was with Goddard. >> Yeah. So I don't see Mark yet. So and he was going to speak Mark Arnold was going to speak to this. So I don't know if you want to jump to next. >> Okay. Let's let's go ahead. Um I see
John is here. Um let's go ahead and John, we're just going to put you on hold for just a second. Let's go ahead to the enforcement order 359 King Street. So that's going to be Dwight. We're going to move you over.
>> I just promoted him. >> Oh, I did, too. So, maybe he's in Never Neverland. Okay. So, Dwight, if you I don't know if there's anyone else here that you would like for us to move over um to speak
with you on this. So, Dwight, you're muted, just so you know. >> There. >> Yep, you're all set. Dwight, anyone else joining you tonight that you want me to? >> Um, I don't know. Mark said he had another meeting. >> Okay.
>> And I think Joe was gonna come on, but um I don't think there's a whole lot. I think uh Chase had asked for clarification on the um isolation of that one particular um area.
>> Okay. And and I think that last that we let also um Lauren if you want to give an update in regards to your wetland scientist that was going to go out. So if Lauren if you want to give that update for Dwight that would be great. >> Yeah. So Dwight, Tim, myself, and Andrew
uh Tibalt from Gddard met. We walked the wetlands just before Christmas um took some soil samples and Tim and I confirmed that there's no hydraological connection between what was a once man-made trench and the identified
isolated vegetated wetland. >> Okay, great. And then at one of the previous meetings, Dwight, you had submitted just a kind of a rough draft for and um in terms of trees and things like that. And then Joe confirmed that they were
the ones that were removed were red maples. >> What? Let's um just go ahead and fill the commission in on of where you are now kind of going forward with some of the plans. >> Okay. Um yeah, so we did confirm they were all red maples. Um, so we are going
to work with the surveyor and we're probably we're going to engage a landscape architect and come back with a proposal for you hopefully at the next meeting. Um, but I would like um to request
um this is what I would like and you can tell me if this is off the table cuz I'd like to know if off if it's off the table before I go down this road and then invest a bunch of money in it. where the the the trees were in
three, if you look at the stumps on the on their surveying map, they were in kind of like three clusters. And I'd like to do something similar to that, those clusters. And I'd like to bring them
closer to the 50, like the the 50 foot mark versus the 100 foot mark, just to open up the pasture a little bit. Um, and my what I'd like to do is put some obviously some trees back in there, put
some uh winter berries uh for the birds, um some summer berry food for the birds, and some nesting trees. Um, but if I I'd like to know if if that
proposal could be on the table, if it's sufficient. Um, if if you like the proposal versus if you if you're going to tell me I have to be right up to the 100 foot mark, I'd kind of like to know that now versus >> Dwight. I think it's a little bit of a
disadvantage because we don't have any of the plans up in front of us. Yeah. Um but commissioners go ahead just from your memory of this as well. >> I I'll tell you Dwight, I'm going to
half answer your question. From my perspective, I am not necessarily looking for one forone replacement in the exact locations. Um, what I am looking for is a reasonable attempt to
replicate the wetland benefits that the remove trees provided. And so in general, [clears throat] what you're describing to me doesn't sound problematic. Like the what I I struggled with prior was essentially just pushing everything right to the the property
boundary. to the extent that there are sort of islands of trees here that that in my mind is a better replication of the uh wetland and ecological benefits that those trees were providing. I'm not
entirely sure what you mean, you know, moving them closer to the 50 than the 100, but I I will say I'm not necessarily looking for replanting a tree in in the exact location from which it was removed. Okay, that's that's really good feedback. There was probably
I think there was like 20 something trees in the 50 to 100 and 15ish trees in the 50 to zero or 1 to 50. Um all right. Well, that's good. Uh I can work
with that and hopefully I'll come back with a proposal. Um, is next month is that would be we we be on the agenda next month, Lauren. >> Yep, we can we can do that for sure. >> Okay, awesome.
>> Yep. >> All right. Well, I'll work with my team and we'll be back to you. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Um, we're going to jump back to 50 countryside, uh, which is for the loming and seating.
Mark Arnold Yeah, I just promoted Mark. Yep. Okay. >> Good evening, Madam Chair. My apologies for my tardiness. I was I had >> No worries. >> Mark, is there anyone before we get started? Uh, is there anyone else
joining you that you want us to promote? >> Um, yes. The the homeowner um is also um on the call. So, if you could promote um John Reese. >> Okay. So, it just says John. So, I'm
gonna go with that. John. Okay. Okay. Great. Mark, if you could just um introduce yourself and then just for the commissioners to note um his notes were sent along in your packets. Yep. Go ahead, Mark. >> Thank you. Uh Mark Arnold with God Consulting here on behalf of John Ree.
Um um we were reached out by John. um he's having some erosion issues on his property that up directly abuts the lake there um on 50 Countryside Lane and wanted to um wanted to look at how he could ecologically um stabilize the
soils better and um and particularly how he could maybe vegetate areas um in a better manner and also maybe reduce some lawn areas and and also think about how the sheet flow um goes to the lake directly and if there's ways to kind of make it more um circuitous which would
slow the water rate to the the lake and um reduce erosion but also improve um the areas there. So, we put together um basically a buffer zone enhancement plan and and the goal of this plan is is to look at these areas that we have on the
site and how can we um slow the water down, how can we increase vegetation and and water take up um and and improve the area basically. So this is all basically um improvements where the goal is to reduce lawn and add plantings and as
part of that we also want to do a little bit of very minor um grading by adding some loom to sheet flow water on and I'll show you what I mean on the sketch in a moment but just so you know existing conditions wise. So we have a a a pipe here that comes from a gutter
here. And what happens is the water comes out here and then what it does is it the lawn has created a ridge and so the water comes out of the pipe and rather than going through um this treed and forested area um it goes along the edge of the lawn and picks up erosion
goes faster um and so that's a concern that John had. And then um we also have some areas where the the roots are very exposed which is um not helping with um the the tree health as a whole. And then and then down here in the the bottom
corner here of the lawn um we're starting to see a lot of concentration of flow through this area. So it's making it um very um um the the grass can't take the grass won't grow. Um there's very little shrubs or or or or low growth vegetation
besides the herbaceous layer. And we're looking to see how we can basically tighten up the um the current disturbed areas really that are maintained as lawn um and kind of make it more um friendly in that way. So I'm going to take you to the sketch and then I'll walk you back through what we're doing in each area.
So this is the uh the area here. We did a wetland delineation. And you've got a wetland resource area over here on this side here. And then you've got the bank of the lake. And basically we have um these the these solid orange areas are areas that are basically um areas that
are have been maintained in some form. Um this area here on the right is basically a forested area that has a cleared understory. So the understory has been kept clear of mostly of almost all woody vegetation. There's herbaceous but that's about it. Um, this middle area here is very similar to that. This
area here is actually um currently basically lawn. And then this area here is is a is a is a lightly shrouded shrub and and forested area with a lot of openings for additional plantings. And so what we want to do is we want to reduce the lawn in this dotted area
here, this area here, and this area here. And and what we're doing is we're taking the lawn and we're adding some loom to direct the water into more vegetated areas. Take it away from the paths that directed towards the river,
the lake, sorry. Um give it a a longer path um and keep the water off the lawn um as as quickly as possible. So that way it can actually infiltrate and and be used by the vegetation that's in the buffer zone rather than just sheet flow
the the pathway of least resistance over pathways. And what we've done here is you can see we've actually kind of created um instead of having a a more direct path to this um the the uh the kayak area here um we kind of created this little meandering path. And this
basically will discourage flow of water following the path itself. And and the goal of again is to basically take the water, get it away from the paths because the paths are the pathway of least resistance to the lake. And then inside these areas that are already have
trees and stuff like that, we want to actually add vegetation. So um in this yellow area here and this orange gill area here we want to plant taller native um buffer zone/partly wetland I mean like f you know
facultative um plants that are tall normal height vegetation and shrubs and these areas are basically areas that are already kind of tall or they're not major vistas to the lake so we can let tall stuff come back and that's our goal is to kind of bring back some of the
taller vegetation here and then along on the property line here. And then once we get a little further into the middle of the the property, we're going to plant low growth native plants, low bush, blueberry, juniper. Um that way we can fill in the understory with low growth
to get rid of all the cleared understory and actually make it an unders story that actually has some health to it while also giving us the ability to maintain a vista naturally without actually having to maintain it at all because the vegetation will naturally do that for us by staying low to the
ground. So that's really um the the plan in a nutshell. It it it the goal is to be very very much um a kind of a um John working very closely um with us and to implement this. He really is excited to like do something that's very low
impact. So um this is very low impact in terms of what we're doing. The these areas where we're adding loan no more than 6 in and that's at at only certain points probably two to four is probably going to be the average. basically bringing it in by wheelbarrows, no no
equipment, no machines. This is all hand work because we want to be very careful around the trees, around the roots. Um to keep these areas really um healthy and also kind of bring back some of these areas into an area that's more robust. We did include um a proposed um
planting um pallet basically. So we have um your tall shrubs um and also adding in ferns and and in and native um seed mixes. And then we have our our low our low growth um low um planting pallet
basically. And again the goal is to have some areas of low growth, some areas of high growth, keeping the vista naturally clear so that way we don't have to come back to you in 5 years and ask to do some vista pruning. Um that way we can kind of have something that's kind of naturally maintained by nature while
also um kind of preventing erosion. So, that's what we're our our plan is basically our we're going to be working with John closely to implement this and we're hoping that this could just be um uh commission administrative approval um in it. We do have erosion control
proposed around the loaned areas. So, if there is any issues there um those will be installed um before we do any loans. So, that way we don't have any erosion issues until those areas are stabilized um with the seed mixes and also the um the shrubs and and herbaceous plants
we'll be installing. So, that's the the proposed um plan and we're hoping that we could implement that and get it going this spring. >> Thank you, Mark. Commissioners, questions for Mark or for John? >> One thing I think you should address, Mark, is the exemption of this activity
from permitting under the Wetlands Protection Act. I had to look up the specific um exception and I I think it may be worthwhile for you to address that for the commission. >> Yep. Yeah. So basically we are working um within existing lawn to restore areas
that's an exempt activity and then um planting native plants um in the buffer zone is also would also be exempt. >> Does that make it exempt from a waiver from us as well? >> So I looked at that. I don't think it is
exempt from a waiver, but I would be willing to approve this contingent upon uh I'm not sure if the applicant is the right word here, contingent upon the applicant providing a w sufficient
waiver to the agent. I I think it's it's a pretty straightforward waiver. It's in the public interest, but >> for sure. >> I I think we should dot our eyes and cross our tees there if we're willing to go forward on this without a a full NI. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Other commissioners, >> I would um echo what she said, not to throw a a a wrench into this, uh but is that dock um currently existing on site? Um, it's it's a it's a seasonal dock.
They they he pulls it out every year. So, it's it's it's there in the summertime, but right now it's out. >> Gotcha. >> Is it permitted? >> Um, I know John I think said he wasn't he wasn't totally clear on it or John,
are you >> No, it it is not permitted. I started the process and admittedly it got so cumbersome beyond my skill sets, I gave up for just a seasonal dock. So, I I I started it, but I just got lost in the
paperwork. >> It is something that John and I have talked about trying to figure out how we can kind of square that away as quickly as possible. So, we're we're doing a little bit of digging to see if there's ways we can kind of, you know, um help him with with as little involvement from us as possible to kind of help it make it easier for him. So, that is something
we are we uh um I know John mentioned that's I forgot that he it's right. We need to work on that permit >> and and our agents might be able to help you with that a little bit as well. >> If you could, that would be that would be great. And I was going to look to God, you know, to require to have them
do it because I know they've done it for other people, too. So, their skill sets are way beyond mine when I you know, the ling I didn't even understand a lot about lingo and I couldn't answer a lot of the questions appropriately. So, I just >> Okay. >> didn't follow didn't follow through with filling it all out.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And John, you wouldn't be the first one to get hung up on the licensing. So, >> well, it's a little tough, but it's only a seasonal dock. It's not like it's a, you know, a a permanent fixture, a commercial on a active waterway. So, >> the state has really started to focus on
it, however. Okay. Um, Sarah, the other question I have, how long has the uh the vista area been clear cut down from the down from the house? [snorts] >> How long was built in ' 62?
>> It's been there a long time. >> Yeah, it's business in ' 62 from what I know. >> Just trying. So, basically was clear. It was cleared back then is what you're saying. long time ago. >> Yes. >> All right. Just trying trying to get an idea. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's a great question. Okay.
>> So, this is essentially taking and reforesting in a way. Wrong word, I know, but >> trying to put it back somewhat closer to nature. >> Correct. Correct. Exactly. We're trying to add the the vegetative layers all back in to most of these areas by giving
the actual wooded areas some actual shrub layer. Um and that will reduce erosion, add water take up, reduce um any type of um sediment from movement as well. So add wildlife habitat and and fruits and stuff like that. So all that
a benefit to everything. So really just a and it will also look nicer too. >> Okay. Um commissioners, it sounds like you're in unison with this proposal. Um, Mark, are you seeking a formal vote on
this or commissioners, how would we like to go forward with this? >> Um, m Madam Chair, I mean, a vote tonight would be great. Um, if if you wanted to wait on the waiver and and vote next meeting, that would be okay as long as I hopefully don't have to
attend. So, we can just keep John's costs low. I mean, I'm sure he could come if needed, but um if if the patient wants to just have that paperwork in place and allow the agent to correspond with us offline to make sure that that's good. If it's good, then if you want to
wait that way, you have it in hand. That's that's fine. Um we've got some time here, but I just I'd hate to have to come back to another meeting. >> Commissioners, are you good with that? So, knowing that we are of support, so if by chance there's not a commissioner,
it's um fantastic that we're all here tonight um and in unison. So, Mark, if you want to submit that and then John, if you could come for um the next meeting, that would be great. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you for joining. We're going to go
ahead and move along. It's now 7:54. Um, we're going to open up the 745 public hearing notice of intent 0 Wickcom AB DP-204 Whatch. There is no number. Um, habitat enhancement project. Okay. There's no
number on that. >> I'm promoting Matt and Scott. >> And Scott. Yep. Scott, we see you. >> Hello. Hey, there we are. >> All right. So, if you could Scott, welcome. If you could introduce yourself, that would be great.
>> Hi, I'm Scott SM from Oxbow Associates. Uh, and I'm representing the project this evening for a habitat enhancement in the buffer zone to some wetlands. Uh, can I
>> Yes. Share my screen. Yep. Go ahead. Okay. Oops. [snorts] This way. Can you see my map? >> Yep. And your desktop. There you go.
>> All right. Well, here's the where the site is on some Sbury Valley trustees property. the Smith Land [snorts] uh west of Beaverbrook and east of Wickham A. And I want to get to the other part of
my Yeah, this part. And if we zoom in on here, this is uh the area that we're proposing some habitat enhancement. I'm not sure if if Matt Silverman is here from Yeah, >> Matt Matt's here. >> Electric Light and I think you might
want to say a couple of things before I get too far into this. >> Matt, are you there? >> Yep. Yep. I'm I'm here. Scott, um yeah, thanks thanks for having me everyone. This is Matt Silverman, superintendent with the water department in Littleton. Uh just before before we get into the
specific project, we thought it would be appropriate to give a little bit of context just because it has been uh over a year since the water department was has had attended a conservation committee meeting for um the larger
Trumble Well development project. So, just to kind of tie it together to that larger project, um this habitat enhancement is part of the conservation and management permit that we were issued by the division of fisheries and wildlife. And the individual tasks in
the permit of which um this project is one of those tasks are required for us to construct and use the Trumbull Well. And uh the well is the one that is being developed off Taylor Street behind the Amazon facility. So just to give you
some uh quick update on the progress because uh the project the larger well project started over a year ago. Uh we're still on schedule to complete the well and transmission main installation as well as the pump station construction
this upcoming fall of 2026. Our contractor has installed all the transmission main on Wikam. Uh [clears throat] finished paving, built the access road at the well site and performed several soil borings because
we're going to be directionally drilling uh under route two for the transmission main. And they've also uh began the production well drilling. Haven't uh finished the actual well install yet. So over the next 10 or 10 months or so, uh
we'll be completing the well installation. Uh also completing the outstanding transmission main that hasn't been put in yet along along route two and under route two. And then actually constructing the well building and all
thees on site. And this this project has been progressing in conjunction with the water man extension into Boxboro which is almost complete almost fully complete. We're just do doing the uh service connections this upcoming spring. So things have been moving along
a little bit relatively slow, but this year we'll have a lot more action on the site. And we're kind of simultaneously working with Weston Stampson and Oxbow to get uh to meet all the requirements of our conservation management permit so that we can operate the wall.
Okay, go over to Scott. Thanks, Matt. Okay. So, uh thank thank you for that explanation. And if we look back to this, what I will point you at is the purple line here, that is the
approximate access. And then the red is the habitat area we're working in. Uh, and again, this is for a rare species, but I'm going to avoid talking about the specifics of the rare species because this is all public information and we're supposed to minimize that
discussion and leave that for the de those details to the division of fish and wildlife and the natural heritage program. Anyway, we are creating a open canopy sandy habitat within this red line here. So, we're going to uh clear
what trees are remaining in there, except for a few. There'll probably be a few that we keep. Uh the Sbury Valley Trustees owns the land. Uh they did a big uh forestry project managing some non-native uh forest species a couple of
years ago. Uh so, some of this area has already been uh somewhat cleared of of big trees. So, there really aren't too many trees in here to begin with, which is nice. It It also has uh sandy soils
beneath it. Um, and we think we could are going to be able to cut the vegetation uh strip the top soil, push it uh to the sides uh and make compacted berms in those
along the edge. And we can based on the topography uh strategically build up those BMS and areas where we think there might be more surface runoff. So it won't won't run off especially towards the wetland. The access road here on the northern
side. We may change that because it really [clears throat] doesn't have to go right down the side there. And we know that the uh Subbury Valley trustees did actually do some native plantings in this area. So, we think we come around this corner and once we're into this work area here, we don't really have to
have this area here. We're also going to have erosion control around the limit of work um on these two sides. Uh and um and then within the center of the work area, we'll create uh ridges and
mounds to make it irregular uh to provide a little bit more drainage and not make it a straight ahead moonscape. Uh but there will be some uh little blue stem uh plantings which is a bunch
grass, a native bunch grass that's common in areas like this and survives well and we'll plant those scattered throughout the area and maybe throw some logs down and stones as well. Um
and then we'll do some uh we'll be doing some monitoring of this area for the uh natural heritage program as part of the permit conservation permit. So there'll be some reports on that as well that we could uh share with the commission too.
So, uh, with that said, I, you know, I think it's a little bit unusual of a project for the commission to review, but and the fact that we're removing trees within the buffer zone to a wetland, you know, is usually something that the commission is trying to
minimize, but in this case, it's required by the state for the rare species issues, and it will be a long-term benefit for rare species in the area. And uh I'm here to answer any questions you might have. We did a sitewalk I know
with a a number a lot of the members of the commission this summer. So I think a lot of you have been there already. We've walked around. Uh but if you have any questions I'm I'm here to uh answer them the best I can. And if you don't have any questions,
that's okay, too. >> I'm I'm Carl. I'm familiar with the side. I was on the sidewalk and u um fully support what you're doing. It's actually very similar to what they did over at uh what you guys actually helped
do over at uh the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge at um at the Oxbow Refuge. >> Oh yeah. >> So I'm very familiar with what you're doing and the benefits. >> Okay, [clears throat] great.
Thank you. Can I ask about the access path and what [clears throat] what that's going to look like? Is it >> okay? >> You clearing what's the what's the plan for that? >> Well, like I mentioned before, there's there's already a trail and a lot of
clearing that was done uh in the past couple of years for the uh forestry project. So, we're going to try to you use that as much as we can. Um the idea is not to have uh long-term access. It's really a one-time thing and it'll be
restored after we leave. Uh and it's just to get the equipment in there and get any material we have to get out. You know, ideally we want to leave the the cleared lom or the stripped lom and the vegetation on the site and not haul it off, but if it becomes too much, we
might have to bring some of it out by truck, but probably not. Um, so it's just wide enough to get some machines down there. >> Yeah. I mean, my preference would be if you cannot bring it into the 50 within,
you know, 10 12 ft of the the wetland, it seems like you could come right in the western edge, right? Is that >> Yeah, >> it just seems Oh, yeah. Right over a lot longer than whatever run you need to and impacting more area. Yeah. >> In this area here you're talking about.
Yeah, they were even right below your >> Yeah. So, I think the middle of that line, the red line. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We were just following an existing >> access there, but we can probably change it to that. That's a good point. >> Yeah. And go with what's what's available. I guess that makes sense. It
has less impact. >> Okay. So, so will will we be privy to the um to the uh monitoring uh results that you guys uh will be doing out there? >> Yeah, we can share we can share some of
some of the details with you. Uh you know, I think [snorts] for public information, I think for the conservation commission perspective, I think it would be valuable to have some information about >> Yeah. any invasive plants that are coming in, regrowth that might be
happening of native plants that are invading and and what that means and what we recommend uh and not necessarily all the details with the rare species. >> I just have a quick question. I think this is more towards Kyle and and Scott. After the work is done, if you do have
to create a different access point, are we as you're coming out of the project, are we resettling that road back in so that it can reveate if you already have a path as well? >> That's right. Yeah, we're not looking to make any more paths than we we have to.
Uh the it the part of the part of the plan is to uh restore the areas uh restore the disturbed areas outside of the area that's supposed to be disturbed for the [clears throat] project itself. >> Great. >> And restore that as is. And that's
something that's important to you know the people who own the property, the Sbury Valley trustees. >> Yep. And speaking of that, I do see that Dan is here. Um any >> Dan have any questions? If so, just raise your hand. Um if that's not the
case, what is the pleasure of the commission with this notice of intent? Oh, I see Scott, you don't or Matt, you don't still have a D number. >> Good question. >> Yeah, we have not received one yet. >> I don't think so.
>> Okay. So, that will harbor us. We'll have to hold off. Hopefully you'll have it for the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um but we would like to keep this open until we do have that formal D number. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. Um but commissioners, is it fairly straightforward that when that D comes in that there would be no other formal discussion that we could just move to open and close that and issue or do we want them Matt and Scott to
come back? >> I'm I'm I'm good with I'm good with it, Carl. >> Okay. Well, hopefully just let us know as soon as that number comes in, but we'll put you on for the next meeting, but it may have to be continued if it's not in yet. >> Okay,
>> great. Thank you. Have a nice evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. You too. >> It's now 8:08. I'd like to open up the 8:00 continued public hearing. Notice of intent 242 King Street, DP 204-103. Removal of existing driveway, pool, and
walkway. construction of parking lot and walkway. Um, do we have everybody? >> I don't see either Bruce or Limba. If there's someone else from GPR here,
>> if there's anyone that wants to be heard, just raise your hand. I don't see anyone that I don't Okay, let's go ahead keep it open for a little bit. Let's just jump back to an administrative
discussion. Um, and request for certificate of compliance. U, this would be for Lauren 1 Sawyer Lane D204-739 and 204-951. Lauren, do you want to talk to that? >> Yeah. So, I will share my screen here.
So this is a request for a certificate of compliance for it's two projects actually. Um do you see that? >> Yes. >> Me zoom in a little bit. Um
okay. So this is they're as built. Tim marked up the deviations but just to highlight them. The approved driveway and the existing driveway footprints are different. Um but all of the deviations
occur outside of the 50-foot um buffer area. This gravel parking area was installed. There was supposed to be a shed here that was never built and is not going to be built, but this gravel parking is
there. Um yeah, and there's a a little bit more landscaping here than was approved. Um, so basically we're asking if you're okay with these deviations then we'll go from there and if not we'll address this. >> And you have two separate D numbers.
>> Correct. There were two separate projects. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So as a point of order we need to vote on each individually. If someone would like to make a motion. Um, let's do the 739 first. >> Can we pause for a second before we vote
on these? >> Sure. Yeah. I'm a little troubled by the degree of deviation from the plan. If if that gravel parking area wasn't approved and it I mean my rough estimate
is we ended up with more paving than was approved. What? >> But didn't Lauren say that there was supposed to be a shed that didn't get built and that's where the gravel is or did I misunderstand that?
>> No, that that's correct. There was supposed to be a shed here. I >> do not know how large the shed was supposed to be, but this gravel is certainly larger than just a shed. I on one level like looking at it
would we have approved what was built? Probably maybe. Um but also what [laughter] what are we doing if people are just going in and building whatever they darn well please and then coming back and
getting approval after the fact? I'm I'm >> a little confused here. Yep. So, what are your thoughts? Do you want to go ahead [laughter] and >> I don't know. I just don't like that it's different than what we approved, >> right? Do we want to go ahead and have
some commissioners go out and just see and to see what has been done? If it is just gravel, if there's any way to reveate or do something else. >> I think that'd be helpful. And just to refresh my memory, too, was this the house on the east side of this plan? Was
there supposed to be like a little deck off the side of the the building if I'm remembering correctly and we didn't approve that? I'm just trying to refresh my memory of the site. >> Yes. So, if I if I I was not here when that this was approved obviously, but if
I followed the plans correctly, there was a deck here that was not approved, not built, and this kind of bumpout deck was approved and built. Gotcha. Okay. I know exactly which house and which plan. Thank you. So, other commissioners, we've got a
couple options. Do we want to just put a pause on this and um relook at this at the next meeting in hopes that one or two commissioners can go out with um Lauren or Tim? >> That sounds good. >> Okay, everybody good with that?
My other ask here is that I would ask the property owners to provide us with an estimate of the permitted driveway area. >> Mhm. >> And the constructed driveway area and the area of
gravel parking that was added versus the area that was proposed to be disturbed under the original plan. I'd like to see how different these really are. So Lauren, that might take them longer than one meeting. So just use your best
judgment of that. You may have to push them out two meetings. Okay. >> I will also say this gravel was snow covered when we visited. So >> Okay. >> Delaying may make sense. >> Yeah. Okay. Let's come back to the 8:00
um which was notice of intent 242 King D 204-1030. anyone join us? Okay, we're going to wait one minute cuz then we're going to move on to the 8:15. >> I can give a short update on our end if
you'd like. >> Um, without them here, I would probably wait. We did receive um comments from green, however. So that's that's in your packet, which was the back and forth
from the engineer in green. Okay, we're going to go ahead and close that. And my watch says 8:15. Continue. >> Not not close it, right? We're going to continue it. >> No, we're going to continue it. >> Okay. >> Sorry, did I say close? >> Yeah, >> I meant like timing of it. Yeah, >> sure. Yeah, I understood. [laughter]
>> So, we're going to move it to the date of the next meeting. Yep. Um, okay. 8:15, continued public hearing, notice of intent 87 to Hadawan Road, DP- uh 204-1027, construction of two family residents.
Okay, Lauren, let's see. So, John, you're here. >> Yes. >> John, anyone else that's joining you that we need to move? >> I believe it's just me tonight. >> Okay, great. if you could introduce yourself to the commission. >> Absolutely. Let me share my screen too.
Just so good evening. John Clifka from Mccardi Engineering here tonight representing the applicant Habitat for Humanity. Um this project hopefully looks familiar to all of you. It's uh been some time in front of you. Uh the
reason for the delay was we had a pending uh application with the zoning board. Uh so at the last EBA hearing we did withdraw our application. So we were proposing this as a two family. Now alternatively we are electing to
uh design and you know build this as a single family with an accessory dwelling unit. So there's no changes to the the footprint or proposed improvements. It's uh simply just the
difference between a two family and a single family with an accessory dwelling unit. Um so we're here tonight seeking an order of conditions for the proposed improvements as shown. And you know if any commissioners have any questions,
I'd be happy to answer them. >> Where is the uh accessory dwelling unit? So, it's it's it's a little up in the air on which side the the footprint of the building itself isn't going to change. Just maybe the layout inside. So, it would either be the left to the
right of of the box that's shown there. >> So, you're building a duplex in a different name. >> Well, it's a it's a single family with an accessory dwelling unit. >> Yeah, I get it. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, commissioners, um, anyone
have any questions? It has been a while since John was in front of us. >> John, were there any other pending permits from like BO or I know the CBA kind of got stalled. Um, >> was there any
>> Yeah. No, so we were that was kind of the big holdup was zoning. Um, this will does have to get approved by the board of health, which I believe has happened. Um, I I'm not totally 100% sure on that, but I believe it has been
filed and approved for the septic system. >> You think it has or >> I I apologize. I I it has been some time. I believe it has been. Um, but I I can obviously double check.
>> Didn't we say the last time that we needed the permits to be completed before we could do our piece? >> I believe we did. >> So, I apologize. I wasn't at the last meeting. I think it was someone else from our office. And my understanding
was that it was the ZBA um the the board of health permit in regards to the septic system. it's, you know, it's outside of the buffer zone. Um, so I didn't see it, I don't think we believe to be as uh pertinent or at the time to
be approved prior to coming for this board. John, I've got a couple questions for you and I apologize if we've addressed these in the past and I'm dredging up old things. Um, the one, this is going
to be frustratingly nitpicky, but let's put the erosion controls right on the 50ft buffer zone instead of just ever so slightly inside of the 50ft buffer zone. um that I think
a as drawn would technically warrant a waiver. Um and I'd rather not go down that pathway. Um number two is um and if it's addressed in the notes, I apologize. Snow storage here I think
very obviously belongs to the I assume north is up here. um to the northwest of the driveway, but I'd like that specified and I'd like you to account for how that will be managed. In other words, what I do not want to see is snow
storage to the southeast of the driveway within the buffer zone. Um, and I think that needs to be explicitly called out. And I think you need to account for making sure that whatever snow storage mechanis uh approach is going to be used
or snow removal approach is going to be used, you know, whether a plow or I don't know, whatever you have have in mind that they've got the right turning radiuses and everything to do that. Um, the other thing that I want to raise
here is that I think we probably want to see some sort of demarcation. Essentially, what we don't want to have happen here is the southeastern portion of this property turned into lawn right up to the property line. And I think
seeing some sort of demarcation there to maintain at a minimum what's within 50 ft although I would defer to the wisdom of my colleagues maybe that's further out as um undisturbed you know maybe mowed once a year or something like that. I think that would be important to
maintaining the integrity of the resource areas that are right there. >> Sure. Yeah. I I think we'd be amendable to all three of your points there. Um, as far as the demarcation, I I guess I What did you have in mind? Like a split rail fence or like
boulders? I I've just done it a couple of different ways in different towns. So, just kind of want to see what the the preference of this board. I think we typically like boulders um or something more natural looking rather than fencing um or a sign, you know, a
planted sign. But I know most residents don't like those. So boulders is generally okay with me. But again, I defer to the wisdom of the commission. I do think >> what is most important is that it is demarcated and it's clear to the property owners
what is acceptable there. I'm a little more agnostic about >> Sure. Yeah. No, we can we can definitely, you know, make a revision to the plan and add in some boulders along the 50 after, you know, I pull back that that silt fence erosion control barrier.
So, >> another NIT, your plan still says proposed to duplex. I know it's a duplex in name only. It's a single family with a accessory dwelling unit, but you
should update the plan to reflect that. Is is that the plan the file name or >> Oh, I'm looking right at the picture. It says propos on the I apologize. Yep. >> No, we can we can make that change as well.
>> Um, quick question to the commissioners. In the past when we've um had discussion on boulders, we've given some guidance as to the size or diameter and um distance between them. Do you want to give John thoughts on that or just have
him come back with um what he believes uh best for that property? Big enough that the homeowner is not likely to move them around. >> And how far apart would you like those boulders?
>> What's the total length of that property line there on the southeast edge of this I I don't know that I have that that information off the top of my head. Um >> it looks like >> what am I at? I'm at 20 scale.
>> I mean >> close to 100 feet. >> Yeah, looks like 100 feet. >> I I'm envisioning, you know, four or five boulders across there to demarcate it. Something like that. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay.
So, John, it sounds like um we would like to have you come in with a revised plan and also verification um in terms of the board of health. Is that what we're tracking? Commissioners, anything else?
>> Are there any other permits that may not have been approved yet? I >> I do have one question about a permit there. Does the dry well need to be approved by the board of health as well, John? No, no. >> So, I guess I just, you know, don't
shoot me for asking, but would would the board be amendable to making those conditions of approval or it would be the preference to to continue? There's probably some minor minor plan changes um that that we could provide.
I I think it's a challenge because you did put that right on you're kind of on that 50 coming through that Chase brings up a good point about the waiver I think. >> Right. So there's no work proposed in it
that that the erosion control line does cross it. Um but that that could easily be pulled back. >> Well, yes, it has to be pulled back. Yes. But I'm just saying commissioners, what would you like to do
>> before we go down that pathway? I have a couple one other question that may impact this. John, are you proposing to remove any trees as the result of this? >> We are we have one tree within the 50 and and 100 foot um which we do have on
note six that was identified out the field during our sitewalk. >> Yeah. But not in the 50. That's the 52100, >> correct? Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And so you're proposing to replant five trees. >> Yeah. Just to provide some additional
screening um to the neighboring properties, the applicants, you know, more than willing to to provide that. >> Um one other change I I do think you should specify evergreen is pretty broad. Like I I don't think what we want to see is
five arborites sitting up front. Um, so I would also ask you to to provide more specificity in terms of what you mean there because we want to ensure that it's a native species and something that's going to um have a high likelihood of survival.
>> Okay. So native native being the big um talking point, right? So, and Lauren or Tim can help you with lists of what we typically like to see.
So, I I would say all these changes, John, in my mind, they're Yes, each one is small, but I think in aggregate, I'd rather see just a clean plan. >> Yeah, sure. We have no objection of providing it. um this, you know, it
would just be whether or not coming back to another meeting in my mind. Um >> okay, before we jump on on to that, I'm going to uh interrupt for just a se a second. We do have um someone in the audience that would like to ask questions or speak. So, I have just um
unmuted them. If you could um introduce yourself, that would be great. >> Yes. Hello, it's Marie Ellen Lions. Um, I am the a butter that lives at 79 to Hadawan Road and um I I guess I'm a little surprised because I was at the
zoning board meeting and I know John, you were also there and then Habitat withdrew their application for the for the duplex, but this is the exact same plan. And um I guess I'm a little confused. So I guess as when you said an
accessory dwelling, so they're planning to have one owner with with someone living, you know, with them because that was not at all what was discussed at that zoning board meeting. >> Sure. Uh so Marion, yeah, we were
previously going for them for zoning relief for a duplex. a a single family with an accessory dwelling unit is a buy, right? >> Right. Absolutely. I I agree with you. I have one. It's just that they they kept saying it was not an affordable option
for Habitat to be able to do that. I know they were planning to sell each unit separately and you wouldn't be able to do that with an accessory dwelling. So, I was I was just looking for a little more clarification >> because obviously this is a complete difference from the last meeting where
you guys withdrew the application, but I know before you I know you were encouraging a vote. U [clears throat] but I think there's a lot to be said about this plan like just verifying some of that stuff. I hadn't heard the septic approval and or any of those things had
uh really changed since that last zoning board meeting. Yeah. Yeah. So, um again, the uh it's not the preference. It it was the preference of us to to go for the duplex to have those two owners,
uh to kind of align with Habitat's model. Um but they've, you know, instructed us and they've elected to to proceed with the single family and accessory dwelling unit. Yeah. >> And and just to be clear here, I think Marielle Ellen, the the use of the
property is not within the Conservation Commission jurisdiction, right? We're we're only here to look at the the Wetlands Protection Act and town bylaw impacts. >> Yes. I I'm sorry. I was just It's confusing because it's the exact same
plan. So, I just, you know, before you start giving approvals, I thought you'd probably want to know, you know, for sure what that this plan is an accessory dwelling unit rather than a duplex, which just changes whether it will be
approved or not. That's all. >> Yeah. And and I think where we're getting to Marielle Ellen is and and John is that I do think John the aggregate of all these little changes is we we would like to just my preference would be to to have you come back. I realize it's a small burden to do so. Um
but all of our meetings are virtual. So hopefully it's not too much of a burden. I'd like to see it tight and cleaned up. And frankly, what we saw with the um uh the plan we looked at a few minutes ago where things deviated drastically from what was authorized sort of factors in
my my mind here. I want the original plan to be right. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Okay. So, um John Lauren will um coordinate with you that you can have everything in for the next meeting. Um and we will look forward to seeing you again then.
>> Very good. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for joining us. Yep. >> What? >> Okay. >> Okay. It's now 6 uh 8:31. We're going to go ahead and open the 8:30 which a continued public hearing discussion of current and future land use of town
owned parcel U12-14-0. Um okay. So, um, first of all, my apologies for a couple weeks ago before the holidays. I'm bailing on you guys at the last minute. What I would like to do here is,
um, we have and what was circulated by the agent was some feedback from that Dustin Neil had submitted that was I my understanding is a summary of his discussion with a number of residents there and the proposal therein differed
a little bit from what we had discussed in the past. So, what I would like to do is rather than us teasing out additional options tonight, I would like to open the floor to additional public comment because uh a month ago when we heard
this um the alternatives hadn't really been something that the public had had access to. I would like to get feedback on those, hear from what Dustin has to say, and if we could promote Dustin while I'm chatting, that would be a good thing. um hear what the public has to
say on those options, then I can consider that feedback and come back to you all with um a more refined list of options. >> Um so, understanding that, what I would like to do is ask the commission, given
that Dustin I think is summarizing feedback from a number of folks, if it's okay with everyone, I'd like to give Dustin probably five minutes, six minutes, more than our typical three minutes here to sort of go through those things. Is that okay with everyone? >> Sounds good.
>> Okay. Dustin, are you uh connect? >> I am. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. >> Are you able to sort of summarize things for us and let us know what um you and your neighbors are thinking here? >> Yep. Absolutely. Exactly what I was thinking. So, thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it. Also, thanks to
uh Chase in particular for uh reaching out and uh arranging a walk with me. So, um, the last time that we spoke about this meeting, I it did seem like there was enough variability that it would have been unclear, um, what the
different, um, doc maintainers kind of would be open to and what were good solutions that kind of hopefully met everybody's needs. Um, and so I volunteered just to kind of get everyone that I knew together, seek out as much information as we could about who's been
maintaining those docs over the years. um in some of our cases more than 20 years. Um and I did that in the interim and Chase reached out and walked the shoreline and kind of discussed the conservation commission's goals and we talked about the history and the
community access to the lake and comparing the lake to um different conservation lands and access challenges that are dealt with um kind of on a routine basis in other areas. Um, so I did get with those dock owners and the
summary uh is essentially that there are eight unpermitted docks between the beach and the end of Aspen kind of near the edge of Prowy. Of those eight docks, we identified five of them that have uh,
you know, identified maintainers that have been keeping up those docks and so forth. two of them um are apparently abandoned that no one uh was able to be identified to step forward onto. And I want to also make the point like this isn't sort of my opinion. This is
collectively the group of everyone that we could get in touch with. So I'm kind of reporting out on behalf of the group um not on myself. Um, but of those the two that are kind of not necessarily derelict, but they're not owned, not
necess not actively maintained by anyone are the two at the foot of Dogwood and Birch, respectively. And then the one that's all the way at the end by the last house at the bottom of Aspen, those owners told me that they're not able to use it anymore and we're planning for
its removal anyway. So, um there is sort of potential for uh removal of three kind of I wouldn't say without objection because others um have potentially stepped up and may be interested in adopting those abandoned docks if there was an opportunity for one of the
solutions that we'll um get to. Um from a uh in a general perspective, everyone that I talked to that has been maintaining docks are strongly in favor of maintaining them for lake access. Everyone supports public access. I don't think anyone really ever had an
intention um for these to be seen as private docs. We understand that that's uh was [clears throat] sort of ever on the table. Um and everyone kind of sees the docks as really not any different than um the boardwalks that we have in many conservation lands in town. They're
in fact just very short boardwalks that give people access to observe wildlife, fishing, uh boat launching, that kind of stuff. Um, everyone agreed that the personal liability of of seeking a
private license for a public dock was probably untenable. That practically no one was open for kind of seeking out this kind of specialized insurance to address personal liability for a situation like that. It's probably not
uh not something any of us wanted to pursue. Um and then lastly as far as the number of docks uh we see that as a result of the existing demand that has been illustrated over decades. So we think that the current number of six to
nine docks seems very well suited. So we do advocate for most or all of them remaining as much as possible. um that would also help preserve the most motivation and kind of exchange of work for maintaining docks in order uh to continue steward stewarding the the
strips of land across from all of the abutters and stuff like that. Um if we were to if the commission were to reduce the number of docks, it could also make for kind of a tricky selection process, which ones remain, which ones goes away.
Um, it could also sometimes the topography could uh dictate that, but it it I think it would be pretty awkward. So, let's get to the um the the three options that we discussed. The first one I know is probably not the favorite of the
commissioners, which is the concept of licensing private or semi-private docks. um owners or at least some of the owners would be open to that arrangement if it's possible. Reason being that it's the closest to historic use, easiest and
clearest kind of to manage and it maintains the existing um longstanding use. Um it also has the highest potential to raise funds for restoration of the lake. The middle option here seems like it it might be the best solution, but I don't want to uh get
ahead of ourselves on that. Um this solution is to sort of license to keep the existing docks but make them public property maintained by the abutters as a service. Um and offer licenses for some
boat slips on those docks. So think maybe one side of the dock with licensed boat slips um to a butters or others that uh would sign up for it and then the other side of the dock open for public launching and kind of more
temporary use. This one gives certainly has the maximum potential for access and equity across the neighborhood which I heard was a major concern we heard was a major concern. It allows continued boating in a nearly the asis um kind of state but is uh would be controlled and
properly permitted of course. Um it preserves the existing kind of maintenance incentives that in exchange for maintaining stuff uh neighbors would be more motivated to maintain the strips of land across from our homes as we have done. But we certainly would welcome guidance on that as previously
discussed. Um it would also help relieve pressure on the beach and the boat ramp. Um, this arrangement would also have the clearest liability management. I believe that public docks would fall under the town's kind of uh recreational use statutes. Um,
and stuff like that. You guys certainly would uh want to consult with town council, I'm sure, about that. Um, the cons of this solution is it does require some management. Um there is sort of an unfunded maintenance of that, but most of the neighbors are willing to continue
maintaining um the dock. All of the neighbors that stepped up are willing to maintain the docks as they have been during the years, which is typically uh pretty minor, but would be an expense we're willing to um absorb. Um, and it
has the potential to limit uh the maintenance um incentive of the parcels across the way because it's not exactly the same um as before. Um the comment for that one is that boat slips in exchange for the care and maintenance kind of becomes a win-win where we
preserve the access for the abutters and get public access and it creates a kind of community asset that we be you know stepping up to maintain and fund. Uh the last is really a hybrid option. Uh the potential to mix options one and two
because it doesn't have to be all of one or the other. If we did that, it would kind of solve both of the sets of challenges and address equity without restricting access. There still be lots of public access. Even if there were a couple of privately licensed stocks. The reason that would be good is there's a
couple of uh ones that are close to one another. It could make it difficult to sort of decide which one stays and which one goes. But if we went with the hybrid option, it would give the commission some flexibility um to sort of not take anything away, but have a solution for everybody involved. Um the only problem
with that one is it doesn't fully address all of the concerns that we've talked about before. Um but then that flexibility also helps address some of the location and topography choices, right? Some of the docks might be on a hillier um uh slope that might not be ideal for public access anyway. That
kind of stuff. Any questions about these? >> So Dustin, what you're proposing for number two, and I think as I work on developing these alternatives, I would want to bring town council in to think about these, but it's
presuming that it's legal. Um you're essentially proposing there that like one of the conditions of the license is that the LE is responsible for putting in and taking out the dock in
exchange for having access to half of that dock. Is that >> do I understand that right or some version of that? >> We're not looking for special uh permission or anything like that. Access to a slip is certainly not a condition of doing it. Um but everyone is open to
maintenance and seasonal removal or whatever standards you guys uh think are appropriate. >> Okay. >> I I will tell you too just sort of thinking about this and commenting one of my challenges that I see with number three and sort of this hybrid approach
is picking winners and losers. um that I don't know how we do that equitably. >> Yeah, I I think we were trying to get at this to actually address that problem because if say eight docs were reduced to f uh three, you'd be picking winners
and losers in a much more drastic fashion than if you were adopting a hybrid situation where and I don't think it necessarily would mean a winner because someone got a private license. a few of them are kind of tucked in and in tight little areas or one right next to a public dock isn't I don't think is a
big deal but it would allow kind of both people to be winners just in different fashions. >> Sure. And I it I'm keely aware of your point about choosing winners and losers and other options too. So >> Sure. >> Okay.
Um, the other for the sake of the commission, one of the things that I want to do after tonight is get back with town council and talk about and think about what the liability management would be. I know either Tom or touched on this a little bit, but I I
would want to with some of the alternatives that we've talked about and with these, the question really becomes the same in terms of what does the town's liability policy cover? what uh risks are we taking on? And I think if
we were to choose one of these that has any any docs, whether it's something we've already talked about or this more sort of wholesome uh set of docs, we would want to be clear with the town administration and the select board
on the same page that if there is liability that the town is taking on, we're doing that with eyes wide open. >> Yeah. and our group, you know, welcomes that level of informed participation as well. >> To to be clear, I'm not sure that the town doesn't already have liability. So,
it just becomes a matter of managing it. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think most of it falls into recreational use statutes where if the public is accessing publicly accessible land as long as things are as long as there's not sort of an obvious known hazard that folks
when they're doing it for their own benefit that there is not a liability there just as the town is not liable if someone happens to whatever turn an ankle on a conservation trail. So to summarize, Dustin, what what you're arguing for and and I think the
the sort of group of closest to Butters is looking for is a an option that actually has more docs than I think the most dock intensive alternative that I put forward a few weeks ago. >> Is that right? I think I had like three
or four as the top end. And you guys are arguing for six, seven, eight somewhere in that realm. essentially mirroring what's there. >> Yeah, we think we think what's there is a a a product of demand in the neighborhood that reducing stuff would
actually create more pressure on the beach and stuff like that. >> Why would reducing the docks put pressure on the beach? Because the n so these are not used
strictly as private docks. Folks around the neighborhood use them all the time. Particularly, for example, kids fishing go from point to point all over the place, right? So if you have the same number of users and a lower number of docks, you end up with more people per
dock. That's all. And it gives people different, you know, angles and different times of day to fish different parts of the lake and things like that. it it would uh preserve the current amount of community access, >> but it has nothing to do with the beach.
You you said it would put more pressure on the beach. >> Well, if folks have to launch if folks have to go across the beach or to the boat ramp, collectively, I've called them the beach. Um it would force them to go all the way down there where depending on the location of three docks, you might end up with people that
say come down Emerson, but if there's not a public dock handy to there, they have to go all the way to the beach. That's all. So that Chase um so these would be um these would be on town conservation land.
So we would be it wouldn't be park and wreck that would be managing these or discussing maintenance and that kind of thing. It would be us. Correct. Correct. And that's where I think
one of another thing that I need to resolve with council is our ability to do that because on one level these are recreation devices. On another I'm amendable to Dustin's argument that these these are just these are
functionally no different than boardwalks in terms of recreational uses. So, I think we I think I need to explore that with council to make sure that that's if that is something that we want to do. Or let
me say it this way. >> I don't want to put an alternative for us to vote on in front of us that ultimately couldn't even be implemented because it's inconsistent with the Ricks. >> Right. >> Yeah. And I and I think to the point you're getting at, it's also not any
different than say in a butter to a conservation land that happens to have a foot path from [clears throat] their property connecting onto a trail that's not an official trail, but there's a worn foot footpath for them is sort of not much different than a foot path down to the shoreline of the lake. And I
think a doc is actually >> less impactful than >> well the the I think the the the difference is that we would be encouraging people to use these docks for fishing and
boat access or something like that as opposed to the scenario you just described. >> Yeah. I I don't Do you discourage neighbors from accessing conservation trails from their backyard?
>> Well, we don't, but these docks should be on conservation land. So, it's different, >> right? Their footpaths are on conservation land also. I get what you're saying. There's just a little middle ground there. Dustin, >> isn't that you're asking apples and oranges there? It's a huge difference.
If we sanction the docks, what we're saying is we are actively supporting private property on conservation land. And from my perspective, I have a concern
with that. Well, we're proposing them being public docs >> ma ma maintained by the land owner. >> Yeah, it's certainly a middle ground, right? Where it if we look at this as
let's say half the dock is licensed then then there is some pseudo private aspect of it and yet the dock itself is still public property. So it it it is >> a boardwalk is not a perfect analogy
here. There's some pseudo private piece to this and yet it is still fully public. >> To be clear, if the town wanted to do full maintenance for it, we'd also be open to that. We thought this was a better option for you. >> Yeah.
But if the town decided to not allow them at all, >> which is, you know, may or may not be the option, but if it did, then there wouldn't be no maintenance. There'd be no more liability than we
have on any other conservation land. >> That's correct. But we'd be drastically reducing the uh accessibility to the lake. And I think the public feedback you've gotten so far though has been on both sides. that they could spend 80 or 90% in favor of of continued public
access. >> But to Carl's point, it is still town property. So, someone still has to go, just like Board of Health has to do inspections. Um, conservation would still then have to find the time in the budget to allocate time to have people
go and do those inspections. um because they are just like we have to do trails and have some stewards that help with some of that but we have to be responsible for those docks and for the access and for the environmental impact. >> Yeah.
>> And Yeah. And the do the docks would be have signage associated with them and the stuff we normally do with conservation land. And >> yeah, and that's one of the things that I want to tease out when I put all these alternatives together is, you know, like
if if we did go down the pathway, whether it's um a fewer number of docs like I had proposed to up to what uh the group that Dustin represents is proposing, there would, I think, be
requirement for us us the conservation commission really Lauren and Tim um to go get licensed es for whatever docs we do decide to uh to approve because at the end of the day what I think what we've heard from council is there is no
pathway here that doesn't involve the town being responsible for the docks and licensing access >> right and I think it's very interesting that tonight as one of our administrative discussions is budget so um this as we have that discussion after
this um hearing we have to think about these things and the time and the the funding for these as well. >> I I think the most productive next step would be if there are any other comments from the public, we can take those um or
comments from the commission. But what I'd like to do now is sort of take this, get with council, package this up into a suite of alternatives, um, and consider here what we hear what we've heard from the public in the development of those as well as what we've heard in previous
hearings from the commission. >> Yeah. And I I never intended to go through all the Q&A, but the uh the neighborhood group put together kind of our uh interpretation of the Q&A that was put forward by the commission previously. So that's here for um reference as well.
>> Okay, that's great. >> Thank you for your input, Dustin. We're going to move you back over as attendee. Thank you once again. >> Thank you. >> With that, are there any other comments from the public on this topic before we continue this? >> So there we go. As an attendee, just
raise your hand and I will move you right over. Okay. So, we're you're now allowed to talk and if you could please identify yourself um with your address, that would be great. >> Hi, this is Kathy Odwire,
uh 33 Lakeshore Drive. Um I appreciate all the work that Dustin and everyone on the board has been doing or the commission, sorry. Um I everything had tonight has been about the docks. I I'm curious about the um reing that was
discussed earlier at other meetings and uh want to know where we stand on that. >> Um where we stand with that is that will be one of the alternatives um or packaged into one of the alternatives.
Um if you recall there were really sort of three aspects to this decision making. One is what do we do with what I call the landscaping and vegetation. Two is what do we do with canoes and kayaks and and associated storage. And three is what do we do with
the docks? I think if you look through what Dustin put forward, there's some element there of also maintaining the access to those docks, which fits into some of the vegetation and management. One thing that Dustin didn't address, I
think, is how canoes and kayaks get sort of fit into that, but I don't think that is all that important there. So, at the end of the day, there will be an alternative that I put forward that that really essentially considers returning the Lakeshore Drive to a as natural of a
state as we can given what currently exists. But the other end of that would be maintaining o open vistas and maintaining dock access. We haven't made any decisions on those. Okay. So there's no other hands up. Um
commissioners, any discussion or questions? Oh, I spoke too soon. Okay. Um, Emily, I'm just putting you up to speak. And then Blaine, Emily, >> uh, this this is Emily Squires at 57
Orca Drive. And, um, >> Emily, can I I I just want to be really clear here. Sorry, I don't mean to cut you off. The way you're labeled is the Littleton Sustainability Committee. Is this a comment on behalf of you or on behalf of the sustainability committee?
>> It's on behalf of me. I just don't know how to change that label. >> That's fine. I just want to be clear about the record. Sorry. Go ahead, Emily. I didn't mean to cut you off. >> Yes, this this is from a personal not from the um sustainability committee. Um I'm I'm concerned about um some of the
proposals. Um um if we do have docks approved, um does that mean other people within Littleton will have the right to come in and say they they have the ability to do
the same thing, put in a dock, have half of it for their own use, they maintain it, >> um and so on. Um because if you're trying I'm looking for something that's fair and just to come in and say okay someone has an unlicensed put in an
unlicensed um structure in a off of public land and because of that they have preference to um you know some of these scenarios that were mentioned. Uh so if you can address that and depreciate that. Yeah, it Emily I think
at the end of the day what we will not do and is not on the table at all is a cattle call for anyone that wants to put in a dock. I do think one of the things that is motivating our thinking here is
that the docks that are currently there, although unpermitted and although um on public property are also the result of a essentially a longunning handshake agreement understanding. And so there's
also an equity question here about not sort of pulling the rug back from people who rightly or wrongly understood from the town that they were allowed to do this. So there will I I am certain there will not be an avenue I'm not proposing
an alternative that says anyone that wants to can come in and put in a dock. What we would say though is that if someone wants to one alternative, we'll say a finite number of docs, we'll define what that number is and if someone wants to take responsibility for
that and probably giving sort of first right to look at that to um people who have historically done so and and an exchange license access that may be an option. Um but it won't be just a cattle call. Anyone that wants to be a defined
and finite number, not to exceed number. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, up next will be Blaine. >> Blaine, you're up if you want to speak. Sorry, my mic was uh off. Blaine French, 7 Emerson Drive.
Um, [clears throat] I just want to briefly say that, um, I think the letter by Brown and Mitchell pro perhaps to sum things up best in in in stating
that things uh, have and are working uh, without problems uh, as they are. And it it seems to me that there's no problem here to solve really other than [clears throat] clarification of of what is um
uh you know proper use of the of the land and the docks. I I don't see an equity problem if the dogs are made public. I agree with Dustin and others that the current number approximately the current number is best. I don't see a um issue
[clears throat] for the town if the docks are left designated public and maintained by volunteers. The neighborhood is already very good at um volunteer activities. We've um volunteers have removed invasive plants,
organized trash pickups, and so forth. I I don't see don't or would not anticipate a problem with the dogs being maintained by volunteers. I also am a little puzzled by discussions of liabilities or uh new liability because
it seems to me I I don't see a difference in the liability with public docks versus someone just walking on the land as it is or fishing or launching from a log that's lying in the water or a rock that's in the water. I really
just don't see how the these small um low impact uh tiny docks are add uh liability and um
in terms of uh people outside of Littleton um using the land. This is a great pond and my understanding is that uh uh any anyone has access to the pond. I
certainly and as um was stated we're not wouldn't um expect any uh private use of the in fact I forget if I stated it but I think my opinion is that everything should be
public. I would not be in favor of any sort of private um um use or even uh you know exceptions to the to public uh use. So in summary, it it just seems to me that there's very
little if any problem here to be solved other than clarification of of u proper use. I [clears throat] I I would like to address that, Blaine, because I I do think it's uh notwithstanding the fact that
everyone here has everyone here who has maintained a dock there has argued that it's always been maintained in the public interest. Um we have very credible complaints um as well as our own individual experiences
that suggest that that is not always been the case. And the issue that we are trying to resolve here is that in fact as much as it is public land and it is public access, it has not in fact
consistently and always been handled that way. And that begs for and and and I appreciate um Miss Brown and Mr. Mitchell's commentary that we're regulating something and creating bureaucracy where one doesn't exist. But our role here is is to ensure that
public access and public resources are managed in the public interest. And the fundamental issue that we are trying to resolve is that for whatever reason and I acknowledge it's not always consistent. Um that stopped happening and it started to be treated as private
land and that that's a problem and that can't happen. Hence yeah a bureaucratic process. >> Yes. If if I could just say one more thing I agree completely with that you have the responsibility and that's what I meant by clarification
is that if in the past there has been some [clears throat] misunderstanding or um for whatever reason some treatment of of certain things as private. That's what is uh seems to me a question of clarification. just you know clearly
state in ideally in some very short uh public statement or document what is the proper public use of the land. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Okay. [laughter] I I do want to let
everyone know I we've had now I think three hearings on this. My expectation is uh two weeks from now we will take this to a close and and vote on it probably with a recommendation that we then take to the select board and and so
on. But um I I would anticipate that uh next meeting is our last public hearing on this. For clarity on that, Chase, you're looking for some additional feedback from legal counsel based on these last two discussions since they were present.
>> Correct. Yeah. What I need to do is uh consolidate all of the information that we've gotten, feedback that we've gotten, public input that we've gotten, letters that we've gotten. um consolidate all of those into some alternatives, run those through council, run down any legal issues with council,
and then bring forward to you all a range of alternatives that we can discuss and debate uh and make a decision around. Ideally, with I would not expect all of the legal issues will be 100% resolved, but we would like to have confidence from council that if we
choose a path, the legal issues are resolvable. That's >> well. Yeah, exactly. As I'm saying that, I'm thinking maybe that >> you just laid out You just told me that you're going to lay out, you know, maybe new alternatives at this point now, too.
And we're going to them and come up to a conclusion by next meeting. That's >> specificity to the alternatives that we've put forward anyway. You know, like um if you recall last meeting, it said three or four docs was an alternative. Well, which three or which four? Um and
you know the what we've heard now from the residents is potent or at least some residents is that they're looking for maybe more uh docks than that. So I think we need to run some of the legal mechanisms down to do that. As I'm saying that though, I'm thinking two
weeks might not be enough to get all that back from council. So I would suggest if it's okay with you Sarah, we don't take this up in two weeks, but we take it up in four weeks. Yeah, I think it's it would be hardressed for them to listen to the the last meetings and take
all the dialogue in. So I just don't want them to be rushed and um and maybe such that if we could have them if you felt it necessary, Chase, to have them come back in um to speak with us as well. >> Oh yeah, I would I would absolutely want to.
>> Yeah. So just Sarah, one more thing before we close. Uh just there's there's like small little pieces to chase and involve like you know can boats stay overnight on the dock you know is there I mean there's
certain things that that are also going to impact this like there's specifics right not just putting the dogs up but then use is a whole another topic and not sure if we're going to get to that point.
I think my plan is to go partway down that pathway, Carl. Like um essentially answer the question, if we license access to the docks, would we allow whoever we license it to to have a uh a boat there
overnight? Yes or no? What about temporary uses? Yes or no? you know, like >> but beyond that, those may be things that it >> what we would have to be is confident that we could resolve some of those issues if we choose a pathway. Um, but I
don't necessarily want to do the work to get every one of those details squared away for every alternative. >> Yeah. >> Because it's probably not a great use of time. >> Yeah. >> And speaking of time, we still have some other things we have to discuss. So,
Chase, if we can move on from this discussion, if you feel that's okay, I would like to do that and thank everyone that was an attendee. Um, and yeah, that that would be great. So, that way we can move on and carry on with our meeting tonight. >> Yeah, I think we're all set.
>> Okay, great. Okay, we're going to jump back to um discussion items. Let's go ahead and start with the MA uh Lauren, I'm gonna turn this over to you for Mass Trails Grant.
Yeah. So, this is an update. I Tim had talked to you all about putting in a Mass Trails application for a Braille Trail. Um, this got a little more kind of cumbersome, I think, than we expected. So, for trail construction
with a mass trail grant, we would need to meet the it's called FSTAG, Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines, um, and that requires a soil analysis to determine if we can have a natural trail
or if it needs to to be paved. Um, there's a whole lot of grading issues. It needs to be, you know, less than 5% grade. Um, so Tim is proposing to not apply for the Mass Trails grant and instead to put in a CPC grant
application in the fall to to move forward with a Braille Trail. Um, and he's thinking the fall just because we have a lot of other projects that we're thinking of doing um in CPC in the spring. Um, if we move forward with a
CPC application for the Brail Trail in the fall, we would then work with the highway department and the building department to create ADA parking spaces. Um, and we're still thinking of YAP. Um, so what Tim is really looking for at the moment is both, you know, thoughts on
this and then scheduling thinking about scheduling a sitewalk at YAP when there's no snow cover for people who are interested to see where he's thinking of it. Cool. And I did speak with uh Tim the other day very briefly about this just the the
really high bar that uh the um the state's looking uh for from us for this. So I agreed, you know, uh CPC sounds like the best route to get that uh standard uh braille trail compliance without all the extra headache. So I'm
happy to help them put together the application when or and learn as well when um we're ready to move forward for the fall. When we do that sitewalk, um, can we extend the invitation to the
disability commission? >> Yeah, maybe. >> Andrew, do you know how to get a hold of this Diane Croy lady? >> I I've heard of her. I think I can probably through. [laughter] >> If you if you can connect with her and make sure. Yeah, >> happy to do that.
>> And we have discussed this with her as well. So, >> yeah. >> Okay. Next, Lauren up is Six Cottage Way. >> Yeah. So, this is just an update that Six Cottage Way was in litigation and we were told today that the appeals court
affirmed the Conservation Commission's amended order of conditions that was issued to Miss Kazokus. Um, so this is hopefully the likely the end of the litigation process, but there still is an option um for an additional appeal by
the um there is still an option for an appeal though, right? Another one. [clears throat] Okay. >> Yeah, that could happen. >> Okay. >> Would that be to the Supreme Judicial Court though? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. This has been going on so long
that I have emails in my inbox from Keith Bergman about six [laughter] college. >> Oh no, that's just so long. Okay. Um, let's see. So, Chase, you already told us about the scouts. You're going to get
back to us the next meeting. Um, Lauren, FY27, conservation budget presentations. >> [snorts] >> Yeah, this is just an update that the budget presentation has been scheduled for February 4th at 6:30 p.m. at the police department. That is kind of super
Saturday, but February 4th is a Wednesday for us. >> Okay. So, I know Ed you met, was it with um Kyle or who when you guys who or No, who >> was with me? >> I dropped that up. Okay, so Michael and
Ed. >> Yes. Okay. It would be super helpful if either of you or both of you could put that on your agenda. That would be great. Okay. >> What was the date?
>> Um, yep. So, it's February 4th, 6:30 p.m. at the police department. >> 6:30. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what day that is. >> I believe it's a Wednesday. >> Okay. >> Sarah, can we go back to New Town Hill
real quick? I I just wanted to take sort of a straw poll of folks. Are there any major concerns with an application for the scouts? Let's say 15 scouts, maybe 20 to camp on top of New Town Hill again. >> Is it similar? Are we talking past use?
Same. >> It's exactly the same thing as what they did last year in the airport. Assume it wouldn't change much, right? It's the same group and they're >> carry in, carry out, leave no trace, all the all the good scout practices. >> Are they going to have open flame? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do you need to talk to fire
department as well? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, this is identical to this is going to be a yearly thing you guys. It was very successful uh the last couple years. So, I imagine it will be. Um, Chase, when you put forth that date, do you want to have a rain date or
backup date so we can do one approval? >> Yep. That's the plan this year. >> Okay. >> But it if if um things go according to plan, it'll probably be the last weekend of January, which is why things are a little tight. Still time for us to hear it. Well, not us. I won't be voting on it, but uh for the commission to hear it
two weeks from now, but I think they would like to start planning it. >> Great. Okay. What was the date you were talking about? >> Uh the 20. >> Yeah, either the 24th or the 31st.
>> 20th then. Okay, I get it now. >> Okay. Um just cuz we jumped around the agenda quite a bit. I'm just going back through. I think we've hit all the targets. >> Oh, I completely forgot. There was one
more thing. I know annual reports are due February I want to say nine. Um, did you guys see any emails about that? >> Lauren, have you seen that yet or has Tim? >> I have not and Tim did not mention it,
but I can check in with him. >> I can check really quick because I think Lisa sent an email out. Let's see. >> I just assumed that Tim and Lauren and others had gotten that. Andrew, can you forward that to them when you get a chance? >> Absolutely.
>> Okay. And then as a memory, who helped with that last year? Wasn't there someone that helped Tim with that report >> and February 13th is the due date. [laughter] >> Thank you.
>> Hey, Sarah, I got a question to Lauren on the Braille Trail. >> Yep. Uh, hey Lauren. I just wondering uh how many brow trails are in the state? Any idea? >> I don't have an idea of a number, but
there are certainly some that we've looked at as examples. Um, >> so not not so it would be something unique for the as well Littleton as well as the state if we can get a rail trail established. >> It would certainly be unique for
Littleton, not for the state. There are some elsewhere. >> All right. If if you could just I'd just be interested in knowing approximately how many there are. >> Yeah. >> Lauren, do you recall any within our communities?
>> So, Actton Arboritum has an ADA trail. I'm not sure if it's a Braille trail. >> Okay. Um, >> and similarly, there's an SVT property that has an ADA trail, and I'm not sure
if it's specifically Braille, but >> and the the the other thing I was wondering, it would be it would be helpful if we got like a a partner like the Perkins School um to help support this even letter
form. >> Yeah, certainly. I I mean this is this is new to both Tim and myself. So I think the more help and support we can get >> and I know the more the more support letters you get for things like this, it's it's always helpful. >> Yeah.
>> Just doing a quick look. It seems like there's quite a few especially at the mass sanctuaries. >> All right. Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Anyone have anything else? I think we've
done all our administrative discussions and hearing. So, it's 9:17. If someone would like to make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Do we have a second? Second.
>> All right. Last roll call of the night. Carl >> I >> Ed >> Edai >> Sarah Dar seaw word I Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Kyle >> Kyle Max >> Chase
>> Chase >> and myself I we're journed