All right, perfect. Good evening. I'd like to go ahead and open September 23rd, 2025 meeting for Littleton Conservation Commission, and we are remote. What I'd like to do first is um go ahead and approve the minutes from
September 2nd, um 2025. I see that Ed's with us now as well. Do we have any um edits or comments on minutes? >> They looked great. >> Okay. >> From me, >> I have one that I'd just like to add on
the second page under uh trails at Williams just kind of like towards the end. Uh let's see where it says the commission was concerned about how this would be enforced. I'd like to put in that Miss Seawward or Mr. faults added um recent personal experiences on walk
and saw very little evidence of erosion or disturbance. So I'd like to add with your permission add that cuz that was part of our discussion. Okay. Okay. Welcome. Kyle's here as well. Okay. So do I have a motion to if we don't have any other edits, do I have
a motion to approve the minutes from September 2nd, 2025? Make a motion that the commission approve the meeting minutes of September 2nd, 2025 as amended. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> A second. >> Great.
>> All right. Roll call vote. Uh Kyle >> is on the >> Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Ed >> Ed Fultai. >> Carl >> Malberg. I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I
>> and myself I. It's unanimous. >> Okay, great. Um Tim, you're watching the the waiting room. >> Yep. I'm promoting Joe over right now. >> Okay, great. So, we're going to go ahead and start with administrative
discussions. First on docket is enforcement order discussion and ratification of 359 King Street. You'll notice that you did receive um a letter from owner Dwight Long that was sent to the commission that also says that Joe
Cotaldo will be here representing him for the property um in his absence and he is the builder as well. U Mr. Catalo um Tim Lauren and I did meet briefly out on site today. Um so the goal of this is
to have a discussion with Mr. Aldo and then ratify the enforcement order. Joe, can you hear us? You presently muted. >> Tim, I don't know if you have an opportunity to call up any of those documents.
>> Yeah, sure thing. >> Give me a second. Okay. >> All right. I will share the EO. Um, okay. Know why it's going. It's two pages, but as you can see, this is the property
right here. Um, there's a drainage channel or stream that that goes through the property. Um, and there's a pretty large boring vegetated wetland uh on the southwestern uh part of or right off the southwestern
part of the property. Um we got notification that there were some trees coming down and um we went through Morgan and and saw some trees had been removed um between when we went back to the office and drafted up um the
enforcement order and when it was issued and received um by Mr. Long, some additional trees had uh been removed during that time period um that aren't um noted on the enforcement order. So, while we were out there um and and we
couldn't say exactly um how far the trees were from the border vegetative wetland because we we couldn't um go on site, but this was our um our estimate using um the iPad. Um so, it's possible that some of these aren't exact. You
know, this one might not be 96. It might actually be outside of the 100. Um but uh at least uh a few had been removed within the 100. Um so as you can see these are the ones that had been removed when we went out there and some
additional ones um that are unpictured up here. Um you can see a couple of them but there are some other ones further up here unpured uh have also been removed. >> Okay. Um >> where is this where is this property?
>> Uh 359 King Street. So, pretty much uh in proximity to the uh funeral home, I believe it's a couple doors down, >> two two properties west of the funeral home of Patrick. >> It's Crowley's where they had the the
animals. So, this was past pass former pasture land as well. Oh, is that is that is that the property where the >> it was sheep were? >> Yeah, it was leased to Well, I don't know what sheep you're referring because there are sheep further down toward the
highway. Um, it's not that property. It's It's further up toward town hall, past the cemetery or past the funeral home, not cemetery. Sorry. >> It's not It's not It's not the piece that built where they built the new house, is it? several years ago.
>> No, if you're if you're looking at Badgers, it's to the left couple houses. >> Okay, gotcha. >> This was leased by the farm family and uh the lease was cancelled or >> moved to New Hampshire.
>> Okay, Joe, you're still muted, just so you know. Um, so we had an opportunity to go out today as I said and I >> Oh, got two of them connected. >> So Joe, you're going to have to
disconnect one. >> All right. How's that? Is that any better? >> You're you're logged in twice, so you've got to get rid of one of them. So anyways, I I'll kind of carry on in order to keep this meeting. Um Joe also
received a copy of the enforcement order and so what they agreed to do straight away and they actually have a engineer going in tomorrow that's going to go ahead and start to flag the property. Um Tim Lauren and I asked them to go ahead
and plot the trees, come up with an inventory. Um and then a Goddard has already been hired to go in to start to flag the wetland as well. So Joe, you're actually logged in three
times now. Amber, can you help? >> Amber, if you can click him off as um a panelist perhaps. Okay. Um Tim, feel free to to jump in here as well. Um, so my understanding is
that they recognize all work has been ceased. Um, the area that the trees are down is vegetated as if it's a a pasture. Um, and then because they have they're going to try
and change some of the structures of buildings and homes. It's their intent to build a house for themselves and perhaps a couple other units with support of the planning board and obviously board of health as well. So
what we do historically is ask them to create a wetlands restoration plan and that might be in conjunction with some other work that they're doing as well. So they have acknowledged that they've stopped everything. They've gone ahead
and um asked for um the engineers to start both engineers and then they will overlay the trees that were cut and also um verify the wetlands flags as well. Tim, did I miss anything?
>> Um no, I think you hit most of it. Um I think towards the end of the uh the letter that Mr. long sent over provided um you can see kind of a draft plan of of what they plan on submitting um to concom as a notice of intent further
down the road. Uh Joe, I see your hands raised. I'm going to promote you. So, there are a couple different areas of wetlands, some that were further away that didn't have any trees that were cut. And so, I think they might be looking at some of those areas for
potential restoration as well. Um, the site is stable. The trees are still there on the property. Um, >> Joe, you're you're permitted to talk. >> Oh, good evening board members. Uh, I am representing Dwight L. My apologies for
uh my inability to get on the Zoom call promptly, but um just to follow up what Sarah said, I did have a conversation after we met this afternoon with Guarded Consulting and Mark Arnold. We'll be
working on the overall plan of the um uh first of all we obviously have to do the uh delineate the wetlands and evaluate the impacts the wetlands in the buckler zones and and go will be
doing the uh following the appropriate permits and the restoration plans. Uh just to follow up what Sarah said because she doesn't know these dates. Uh Goddard will be on site on Monday 9:29 to do the
delineation and they hope to have that done so that that can be passed on to survey and mapping consultants by Wednesday of next week. So I feel confident we should be
ready to uh present uh the necessary permitting requirements at your next board meeting. Okay, commissioners, do you have questions? >> So, for the um for this meeting tonight, what we'd like to do is to ratify the
enforcement order that was administered on I'm just trying to find a date. Tim, help me here. >> Yep. Give me a second. >> Um September 10th. >> Okay. So, we're looking to ratify
September 10th's uh enforcement order for Dwight Lawn at um at the 359 King Street. Anyone want to make a motion or if there's frigid further discussion? I'll make a motion that the the board
ratify the enforcement order for 359 King Streets. >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you. So, that's ratified. So, um >> Oh, Sarah, we just have to do the the roll call. >> Roll call vote, right? Yep. Go ahead.
>> Uh Michael Livingston. I uh Carl Carl Kyle Max. Ed >> Ed folds I >> and myself I I think I Oh, and Sarah. >> Yeah, Sarah, see where I
>> and myself I it is unanimous. >> Okay. So, we meet again on the 7th. Joe, if you could just submit what you have at that point uh prior to that, that would be great. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, board members.
>> Y >> Thank you, Joe. >> Okay. So Tim, next is emergency beaver permit spec pond outlet in your packets. Commissioners, you received an update from uh Littleton Water Department in conjunction with board of health had
pulled that. Um any questions on that? This is just an update for everyone. So basically they asked to breach one of the dams and Beaver Solutions had been um engaged for that. Any any discussions?
>> This pretty usual for dealing with beaver dams. >> Yep. >> Yeah, seemed like it. >> Okay. Um, next. Let's go ahead discussion on Williams Trail. I know we opened up a discussion and left it gosh, I think probably
I think the way we left it was asking members to go out and if they could take a take a stroll or have any thoughts on that. Um, and I don't know, Tim, if anyone's here to join that discussion. >> I don't believe so. If somebody is, please uh raise your hand.
>> Okay. I I do see Alyssa Russell in the audience, our director of land stewardship. Um, maybe Alyssa wants to join. >> Okay. Well, let's let's carry on with the conversation. Um, I'm not sure if commissioners had a a chance to go out. I think it'll be um valuable also if we
ever get rain to be able to see how um the trails are going forward. Um we had left it with the discussion that um perhaps horses and u mountain bikes or other traffic can be impacting that um and would like to know how we'd like to
proceed. There was a concern brought forth by someone on that and um I don't know if anyone has had a chance to go out or not more more recently since the last meeting of September 3rd.
How would we like to continue with this discussion? >> Like to close it. I guess my my suggestion would be to work in conjunction with the stewards and perhaps um put it on our agenda to
monitor it for the next six 3 to 6 months. Um, and whoever can get out there and we'll just keep a note on that. And if we think that there's some um interaction that's that's disturbing, I'd like to go ahead and then address it
with the um with the users of the property and maybe look at some signage as well. Um I think if we get it'll be interesting once we start to get rain how everything's going to be absorbed everywhere on all our trails.
Yeah. Does anyone else have any other discussion on that? >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Um, does anyone have anything they'd like to add for other administrative um, actions or discussions? Tim, do you have anything? >> I do not. >> Okay.
>> Sarah, I had a quick question on that that property that's over by credit union or workers, whatever that bank is. Um, I saw that that field got mowed and I don't know if we have any sort of if that was part of our approved
plan with them or what, but if they're just trying to make it look pretty because they're trying to sell it. Um, but it has been, you know, shaved down to >> That's a great question and it's been so long. I don't know if that was an annual mow or not. Um, so if um Tim, are you
familiar with what parcel we're talking about? Yeah, and Kyle, I actually noticed that when I was driving to Market Basket and get lunch one day. Um, it was actually the day that they were mowing it and it was a little >> shocking. Um, and then I went back and looked at the the order that was issued
and it is in um the it's might be a condition of perpetuity, but it's in there that they're allowed to to mow that annually. Um, and I was looking at previous um, aerial imageries from from previous years, and it has, I think, consistently been mowed around this
time. Um, I'm pretty sure it was conditioned that it has to be mowed um, like doesn't have to be mowed, but if it is mowed, it has to be mowed in September, October >> after after nesting. Okay, >> that makes perfect sense. It just the timing seemed seemed a little conspicuous.
>> Yeah, it caught my eye, too. >> Great. Thanks, Tim. There are quite a few based on nesting birds that we can't do until certain certain months as well on other properties, but thank you for spotting that. Okay, it's um >> question Sarah, if I may. >> Yeah, for sure.
>> Um the Powers Lane John McGen property, is that completely closed out now? Everything is where it should be. >> Well, we were waiting on on John to get the plantings in at the toe of the slope and he said he was going to um his timeline for getting those in was September, October. All right. Because
time is planting season is really, you know, fall planting. Okay. But what I what I want to avoid is this going to next summer. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I mean, it's going to stay open through 2028, right? It's got a three-year
monitoring period, so it's it's not going anywhere, >> right? Okay. Yep. Okay. Great. Let's go ahead. Um, continued public hearing abbrev abbreviated notice of intent for resource area delineation 550 King Street D4-1023.
Who's here to speak to that? >> I'm promoting >> Dave. Wait a minute. Dave Kyle raised his hand. >> Yep. I'm promoting Dave and and Gary right now. >> Perfect. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to come over to this one as well?
We've got Gary. >> All right. Is uh Gary Armstrong with us today? >> Hi, folks. Yep, I'm on, Dave. >> There he is. Hey, Gary. Good to see you. >> Likewise, buddy. >> All right. So, um I'll I'll open up uh again for the public record. My name is
David Cowell. I'm a wetland scientist with Hancock Associates. here tonight with Gary Armstrong, um the applicant. Um this is a continued uh hearing in the matter of an ANRAD that we had filed to uh verify the delineation of two
vegetated wetlands on the property at 550 King Street. As of the last hearing, I think we were nearing close. It was uh you guys had um sent this to third party peer review. Uh peer review had looked at our wetland lines. They had concurred
with us that wetland B I think was um an an isolated vegetated wetland. So it's not jurisdictional as bordering vegetated wetland. Um and I think the only reason the hearing hadn't closed was that we hadn't revised the site plan on the A series wetland. There were
there were two wetland flags that they had asked us to move about 10 to 12 ft further away from where we had delineated that. So, a couple of days following the the the prior hearing, I did send a revised plan set uh to Tim.
Um Tim, I I think I I still owe you the paper copy. You guys have the PDF. Um I will be in your neck of the woods tomorrow and maybe I can swing by and drop off the paper copies, but if you guys would like, I can share screen and and just show you um what those
revisions were. >> That would be great. >> Yeah, like I said, they were very minor. share screen. Okay, this is um it's a it's a four-page uh sheet set. Um the first the first page
is the cover page. Um I don't know if you guys can see my cursor, but these were the two flags that they asked us to relocate. Our our delineation between wetland flags 118 and 119 had had previously really just followed this
elevational contour and come across here. But we did look at this and and this is a spot where um I think it's very close in proximity to where this this drain comes in and uh yep it it jogs out here. So these were the two flags where it it jogged out and I don't
think on the the first set that I had sent you guys I don't know that we had projected the 50 foot no disturb zone which we we we projected now and then we put the 100 foot buffer zone on here as well. So this was the only revision
since the prior hearing that was requested from the the peer reviewer. the other sheets that's um remain unchanged. So, with that, I think I would just turn it back to the commission to see if there's any remaining questions or or
comments on this and if the public has any questions or comments and um see where to go from here, hopefully closing and issuing an ORAD. >> Right. So, thank you for um that review. Commissioners, any questions
for Dave or for Gary? and then anyone in the audience that might have any questions. If not, if someone would like to make a motion to close this um continued public hearing if they're so inclined.
>> I make a motion to close. >> I'll make I'll You almost had it, Dave. I'll make a motion to uh close the public hearing and approve the delineation of 550 King Street as presented tonight. Uh DP file number
204- uh 1023. >> Great. Do we have a second? >> Who was that? >> You got to pick one. >> I had Carl. >> Okay. >> I heard Carl. Yeah. All right, Andrew.
Roll call, please. Thank you. >> Roll call vote. Uh, Michael. >> Michael Livingston. I >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield. I >> Carl. >> Carl Melber. I >> Ed Boltz. I >> Sarah. Sarah Seawward. I
>> myself. I. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you for joining us. >> Yeah. Thanks. Great seeing everyone. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Carl. Sarah, all the >> appreciate everyone's time. Thank you. >> Good luck, guys. Thanks. >> Have a great day. >> Thanks again. So, oddly enough, we are ahead of
schedule and have seven minutes to wait until we can open up the next continued public hearing. >> So, um let's just talk. So, our next two meetings, October 7th and the 21st. Um I know we had kind of sent around some
different dates. I am positive that I cannot be at the 7th. Um, so at some point Tim will just confirm through roll call and I think Chase had shared that he couldn't do the 7th as well. Um, so >> and town meetings the 28th.
>> Yep. >> So we suggesting that to the 7th. >> Well, I think we just have to make sure that everybody else can attend and somebody wants to take over, which is usually Andrew. Yes, he takes over a lot.
>> Y that's good. Um and then just a couple other things that just like with with Kyle noticing I think now where things have been so dry um people are more apt to just kind of cut things and clear things. So as if you have any questions or you see something just go ahead and
message Tim or Lauren as well. That that would be great. Um Tim, any other updates you want to bring us up? Any anything exciting with MACC? Anything coming up? >> Um
we are in the process of putting together um a notice of intent for believe it's four boardwalks over at Webster. Um we went out with uh Jim O'Neal and La Webster. walk the property, walk the trails that are out
there and um surveyed what needs uh a boardwalk. And so we're I think Lauren is is working on putting that together. >> Um >> when do you when do you think you want to put that on for a discussion item? >> Still too soon. >> As a as a discussion item.
>> Yeah. >> Um with with what purpose for the discussion? >> No, just to be able to show where trails might go. Just a just a map. >> I thought you were talking about the boardwalks. Um, yeah, >> we we could probably have that on for the next meeting. >> Okay.
>> Um, the notice of intent, um, I kind of hoping to push that until the, uh, the first meeting in November, so it doesn't get on the agenda for the October 21st meeting since we're having the the public hearing for that Lakeshore Drive parcel. Um, and we
already have a couple other um, >> uh, I think two RDAs are going to be opening that night as well. >> Okay, great. We don't want that to go too long. The only other thing I have to add is that the state um issued their draft environmental impact report for
550 King Street. So, I'll be sending that around to everybody. >> Okay. Um just out of curiosity, I know we didn't I think it may not have been a great night, but how did the owl um walk go or do we anybody go or anybody hear how that went? >> I believe it had to get rescheduled.
>> Okay. >> I think it was raining. >> Okay. Homer. Okay. Other things. Uh we we're working with with Jim and um and Al Alisa to
permit a um and make a connection between Castle in the Trees through our access easement at Hagar uh and behind the baseball field to kind of connect that so the kids don't have to walk uh
along the street to get to uh to get from like the schools to to Castle and the Trees. Um but that might be a little um a little later, a little ways down the road. Okay. Do you envision wanting
the commissioners to do a walk like a tenative walk through before a path is determined? >> Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea. >> Okay. So, maybe we can throw that on for another uh another time as well.
Okay. Do you want to go ahead and move in? Although we won't open it. Move in. Who's here for 97 and 99 mil? >> Sure. >> Tomorrow there's a MACC lunch and learn how to read a storm uh water report.
Would it help me for tonight, but >> that'll be great. What time is that one, Michael? I think it's >> at 12. Yeah. Okay. How you doing, Dave? >> We have David. Dan, >> can't believe we're killing time right now. This is great.
>> It's not, right? >> It's not every meeting. >> Okay, so >> make sure you keep it that way, Dave. >> We're going to wait one more minute. Um and then what I would ask you all to do gentlemen is to introduce yourself.
>> Absolutely. >> And then you will know um there were some attachments that came in regarding 97 and 99 in your emails from Tim today. If you have any questions, we can ref reference those as well.
Okay, I'm going to go ahead 8:00 and open continued public hearing notice of intent 97 and 99 mil road DP 204-1022 construction of an electrical equipment area. Um we turn it over to you all.
>> Thank you Sarah. Uh my name is Dave Kessing. I'm the assistant general manager at the Littleton Electric Light and War Departments. uh presenting on this battery en energy storage system proposal at this part property. Um here with me tonight I have Steve Burn from
Citizens Energy. Um so he's representing the battery company and then Dan Severs uh with the Moren Cameron Group um rep representing the engineering side and site side. So, um, with that being said, before I kick it over to Steve and Dan,
um, yeah, so after the last meeting, we went ahead and decided to try and implement the, um, tight tank contamination that that was discussed at the last meeting. So, we're here to propose that tonight. And then
um in in trying to discuss this project further with the fire department, we were able to get a letter from them this afternoon um with with some different things that we can discuss in this meeting as well. So uh with that being said, Steve, I'll kick it over to you.
>> Thanks, Dave. Um so thanks again for for hearing us on the the project. Um just want to start with the overview that Dave went which was thorough and just kind of explain that we're gonna we we had intended to
present um a tight tank proposal as we thought that was what uh would would be something that the commission would be interested in uh for us to implement. Um, upon receiving the fire department response, we also would like to show
you, even though it has not been sent to you, a proposal that we believe meets their requirements. We had talked through this before and we're not sure if it was going to be required. So, we had not proactively sent it if it wasn't going to be something that was going to be requested from the fire department.
So, we realize this, you know, makes it um probably difficult for you guys to take a decision or make a vote, but we'd like to present that anyway. Um, we could do this in a in a reasonable fashion. We don't want to take up too much of your time, but we do want to kind of show that we have heard what
you've said and we want to, you know, meet the requirements and um, you know, adhere to what you guys are looking for. So, um, probably best if I can share my screen. Is that all right, Tim? >> Yeah. [Music]
Can you guys see my screen? So, this is the the fire department letter that you guys should have been sent. Um, and essentially, Deputy Chief Coffee um he went and was pretty specific in what he's looking for. And the way we're interpreting this is the the main thing
that he's um identifying here is that you know before applying water they would be looking for certain measures to be in place uh to allow for proper containment of any um runoff that would be there. So this is part B of what
we'll present tonight, but we'll have to resubmit and come back on the 7th. So, um or at least the 7th whenever, uh you guys want us to come back. Um but basically, he went through a pretty thorough, uh review of what their expectations would be and how they would
respond to um if there were a fire. Um in earlier discussions with him, and I think he's, you know, consistent here, uh they would they would avoid applying water. Um, that's kind of what the NFPA direction is at this point is not to uh
inundate a structure like this if there were to be a thermal event. So, this is in line with with how we would approach this. Uh, like I said, the difference being uh this vacuum truck and him looking for a way to uh contain any of the runoff water to avoid it going
anywhere near the brook. So, this was received this afternoon around 3:00 and I think Tim, we forwarded it to you uh shortly after that at like 3:15. So, you guys were seeing this as we saw this. Um, so happy to entertain any questions. I don't want
to speak on behalf of uh the fire department, but um there wasn't a lot here that was uh surprising or out of the ordinary for us given given the the technology and the location. >> Thank you for that. Um, I had a chance to review this. I I think for
commissioners, um, well, it may not be out of the ordinary for for you all. It's it's new to some of these faces here, I believe. Um, I did have a question. So, um, facilities similar to this, do we have any as the town of Littleton have experience with this or surrounding communities
with this type of structure and procedure? Like, do any of the surrounding towns have? David, David, that might be for you as well. >> Yeah. And so I I would say we we don't have this in Littleton currently, any battery storage systems. Um but is it is
very um very familiar in this area. Um other municipal departments have have been doing this for the past 5 to 10 years. And Steve, you can you can talk more on that with with your project experience. It's becoming more uh common Sarah for
these to be uh especially in MLPS because of the savings that it can bring to how the MLP um absorbs costs and you know the rate payers are paying for their service. Uh so we just did a project in Welssley uh with a very
similar solution not in the same area not near a brook or any sort of environmental area. Um and they had different requirements because of the area there. But this is no this is nothing, you know, out of the ordinary. Uh Deputy Chief Coffee is is doing
things in my opinion that are you know directionally correct for what his what he's trying to accomplish in terms of emergency response management and uh you know controlling of a thermal event and runoff uh for this area. >> Okay. I did have a question on the first page halfway down under LFP strategy um
under coordination after monitoring. It says early notification um to light and water conservation mass DP as appropriate. Um I guess my comment and question is and this is something going forward is that I would hope that
we are first off on any type of notification of any event in addition to water department because this is such a um sensitive area. um when we discuss this again if you could come up with clarification of that we would be in
that first string of notification. >> Yeah. So there's there would be an emergency response plan that would have a a contact list. Um, so the way other projects, I'm not sure how the the fire department would have this set up, but we we generally have um a a fire panel,
a central fire panel that has a dialer that goes to a central station that will call 911 directly and that essentially would then kick off a a call list to get every everyone notified. So, um, depending on how we want to do this, I mean, we would just set up however we we
wanted to get this notification out there. Um, we we've we've unfortunately had only one event and that event was in the state of Connecticut and everything went, you know, almost as planned. You know, it's it's a it's a new technology.
It's everything new for um having a third party ownership or something like this. So with the fire department, we we did have a lessons learned and we are learning from that. But it all depends on how Sarah the notification wants to happen. You know, if this happens in the middle of the night, um you know, I'm assuming that we'd have some sort of
command center, you know, and then those communications would go out, you know, in the early morning. I'm not sure you want to be part of the emergency notification, but there would certainly be a contact list and community uh reach outreach. However, however we want to set it up, that's how we would, you know, get the call list done. Well, we
might be a small town, but we're pretty uh pretty responsive here. I know when we've had spills, we have gotten calls in the middle of the night. So, >> yeah, that's fine. >> We'll see what the commission wants to do with that. So, commissioners, other questions for this uh for people here?
>> At our last discussion, Chase brought up the concern about the environmentally dangerous chemical >> that we found out about. >> Yes. And I'm going to get to that. This is just I just wanted to go in this direction for uh the fire department. So this this led us in a different
direction, but how we were originally coming um >> well before before we move over to that since you're on the fire, how what what's the plan for containment? I I mean the the letter talks about containment, but uh have you not yet put
containment in place or >> No, that and I think he's getting to that because that's the second attachment that was sent in that in that email. Okay. Because right at the bottom it says runoff control. So that's why >> yeah the the vacuum truck and the runoff control is part of what we haven't
submitted which we're going to show you. We we'll show you here what we've done so far. So >> all right. Fair enough. Sorry. >> We're we're on the same page. >> Thank you. All right. So originally uh prior to like we said about uh the fire department requesting um you know sort
of that runoff containment which wasn't surprising but wasn't anything that had been brought up. We were aiming towards how to contain um as you just mentioned, Ed, the the chemicals that are inside that could potentially leak outside. And
what we had worked through was I think these numbers may look familiar, but the total liquid volume within each container is about 50 gallons. Each container on top of um having it being sealed has a containment barrier that
can hold approximately 58 gallons. So this containment barrier is accessed through a drain valve on the lower side of each container. You can see the the drain there. So this was something that the the commissioners had, you know, voiced a concern over. Um Chase had mentioned,
you know, how do we know how this is going to contain everything? So what we had proposed prior to hearing from the fire department was to add in a tight tank. Um, and this tight tank would be connected to each one of those valves interconnected and then located in the
center of the facility. So, it did not really impact any of the, you know, outside areas or if we had to do any work within the containers, we could still get in each side and so forth. Um, and that was what we were looking to uh use to contain those chemicals. Uh so
essentially uh you know at a high level they shouldn't be able to get out the 50-gallon shouldn't be getting out of a 58gallon containment barrier. However, this provides additional protection where even if something happens and it were to you know somehow uh elevate over
those levels or get out of there. This has no place to go but that tight tank um to be um released. So, this was how we were originally coming um back prior to hearing from the fire department. [Music]
Does that answer your initial question, Ed? I I'm going to get to the runoff in a second and everything else that the the fire department or our preliminary look at what the fire department was looking at. >> And the tanks, I presume, are corrosion resistant or whatever. >> Correct. Leak proof cover. Yep.
>> Okay. Is is there anything in the plan for uh annual inspection of the tanks? >> Um yeah, there could be. I mean, we don't we don't have any official >> we don't have any official plan yet. So, of course, we can we can add that in.
>> We wouldn't want to go, you know, 5 10 years from now and they weren't being inspected and they've gotten degraded, right? >> We can put that in the order of conditions for for an annual And it can be in perpetuity. However, once we get
all the plans to understand how that can >> Yeah. And Tim can work with them on that for sure. >> Yep. So, that was our original uh response. We do have that drawn out of Bing plan. So, what the the next one is,
and I don't know if Dan is is uh up as a panelist or not, but this is the um the runoff scenario that we are um going to officially submit and propose. So, uh Dan, I don't know if you're on if you want to take this one. Okay, perfect.
>> Um so, yeah, can you um zoom or move the screen down so we can see the detention pond area down? So you can see the below. Yeah. So this might be easier if I can share my screen actually. Could you
>> allow me to share my screen, please? >> All right. Can you see me now? >> Yep. >> All righty. So this is the battery energy storage system enclosure area as
we've been talking about. Um from our response we're hearing from the fire department um the plan is not to spray water but in the case of water being sprayed um containment of the water around the
enclosure is important with the brook being nearby. So from a containment standpoint of storm water in this option or proposal let me show you um let me run through the this first. So, we're proposing basically a containment curve around the
enclosure um in addition to a imperous impermeable liner that will envelope basically the entire stone below the the
batteries and and basically make a a an a volume of space for that water if it were to hypothetically be sprayed to be contained within the enclosure. In this detail, we kind of call out what
kind of hard to see here, but at the low point of the enclosure, we're proposing a perforated PVC pipe. Um that will allow water to settle down to the low point of the enclosure
and be directed towards a detention basin nearby the the enclosure for storage and potential um mobile treatment unit to come out and vacuum treat any um water that has been
sprayed with potential contaminants from um any any potential fire. Um, so with this design, as you can see, this is where where we are proposing a PVC pipe to be set at the low point of the
basically enveloped containment area that will drain during um during normal storm water events or rainfall events. Water will will drain through the stone, end up at the low point and be picked up
by the PVC pipe and come an outlet towards a detention pond where it can be stored for um potential treatment and basically buy more time for the emergency vehicles in um mobile units to
come out and either vacuum the the water out and treat it or potentially remove the stones or soil or it would be stones because the the detention pond would mainly just be rip wrap with an imperable um liner as well. Um but we
have also talked about in the case of um having part of an emergency response um the potential of being able to close off the connection. So that any water that is sprayed within the the um
footprint of the the battery energy enclosure would be able to be able to stay within here until um the emergency crews are able to come out and pump it out. And now with the um
for them to be able to pump it out, they need to be be able to access it. So, we're proposing a clean out close by either to where um they would be able to shut off the naturally flowing to the detention pond and put put their vacuum
hose down into the cleanout and remove any contaminated water from this area. Um, so I think that's basically the the gist of our uh our proposal here. Um,
I'm open to any questions you have or thoughts or comments. >> Up until now, I had thought you were putting these all on a concrete base, but this is showing stone. >> So, these are all on concrete um pads here, but the surrounding area is is not
concrete. That's uh crushed stone material. >> Okay. >> Um that we are kind of showing in this detail detail here. >> Yeah. the found the the the equipment itself that is on concrete foundations it has to be but the surrounding area would always have stone
in it. This this is showing a little different uh base. So um based on what the fire department wanted, we want to show essentially a way that the water is going to leave the site. It's going to go into a you know one way and if if there is no on a normal day it's just
going to flow into that basin as as Dan had said. But if there is all of a sudden an event, then as part of what the fire the deputy fire chief put out there before they sprayed, they would close that they would close that lock. Um they requested us to have a vacuum
truck on rapid call, which I had never been requested. So I've started to look at that with Clean Harbors. And essentially before they sprayed, they would have a whole bunch of stuff in place. So anything that was sprayed was picked up by by a truck. So there would be no runoff um if they were to use
water. So that would be part of the plan. We don't have that defined um you know or documented but that would be part of what we would need to get fire department sign off and is typically you know a condition of approval that we we've received from other towns. So just trying to over overexlain what we're
what we're you know proposing here. That's all. >> And part of the annual maintenance plan would be basically testing the valve. make sure that like Yeah, >> I I know the shut off on my kitchen sink
froze up because I didn't keep testing it. So, >> okay. Other commissioners have any questions? >> Yeah, I I actually have two. Uh when I read the uh the fire department letter, it seemed like there was a distinction
between using water in the surrounding area just to keep keep it cool versus actually hosing down the equipment. Is that the case or or have I just read too much into it?
>> Um but I don't I don't want to speak for the fire department. My understanding is that they they would have a different approach if they were just cooling uh the surrounding area versus if they were uh spraying water to extinguish the fire. I believe that's correct. Okay.
I'm not sure if they were um I mean it'd be their call if they were to to need the valve to be closed and have a truck there or if they would just allow the the regular water to flow because it would just be you know cooling like it would be raining only it'd be you know um
from a from a fire hose instead of you know from the air but >> yeah but just not in the stone and not in the enclosed area just around it to keep it from getting too hot. Yeah, Michael, that's that's how I I understood it as well. I think their
their goal is a more defensive approach to let the batteries suppression system uh do what it's supposed to do um in in in a best case scenario. >> Okay. And my other question was for that
um uh containment area, is that enclosed or is it or is it open? And I'm just wondering if it if it rains and it fills up with rain water, do they have to empty that out first before draining
from the uh enclosure? >> Are you talking about the the catch basin? >> The catch basin. Yes, that's >> Yeah, I think that would be uh free flowing is my understanding. Dan, you can you can correct that. I think I think that's just meant to to have
everything direct towards one way, Michael. And then I don't think we would have any restrictions on that um in a in a normal case scenario if it just rained. I think it would just flow that way. So it would it would almost be like that's our storm water management would
be to get the the water to flow that way. Uh similarly to how I think we were projecting to to have the water flow anyway uh based on what I understood of the plans, but Dan can confirm that. >> Well, I I'm thinking more in terms of an
emergency. You know, if the uh uh the pond there is already full of rainwater just through the natural course of things and now we have an emergency and have to actually contain the chemicals. >> How would that end up?
>> I think the idea would be that the water would never really be staying there for longer than a day or less. it the point of that would be so that we have an outlet for the actual piping from the enclosure not for really storage of
contaminated water. Um the the closing of the of the valve here is is so that you you know obviously you shut off the ability for the contaminated water to leave this upstream area. Um, yeah. >> And depending on how much we want to to
go for basically void space within this enclosure, we can spec out the the crushed dome to be a foot or two. Um, but that's just depends on how much we really want to go um go after it for as
much um containment volume we really want to to have. Um, >> yeah. So we can prov >> I understand that. I I guess I I'm more concerned about the pond already being full >> because it's been because it's been
raining and now we have an event where we want to open the valve and there's no place for it to go or you know don't don't we have that backwards though Mike? Yeah, >> I think you're going backwards in a
vent. You would want to close that valve, >> correct? >> You let it freeze. >> I actually wish I could draw on this. It would make it a a lot easier. >> Sure. So, I see where the valve is. Okay. Uh, it's closed,
right? Because, you know, stays open. >> I think it stays open. >> Okay. It stays open. uh day by day the uh the pool is filling up with rain water. >> It's infiltrating water constantly. So,
there's going to be um a base. Our our initial thoughts were to have it not drain, but because of um what we've been hearing with the potential for spraying around the area, we think that we could maybe get away with not having it be a detention be more so um a retention or
just maybe even a rip wrap outfall so that there is no need for um having a basin. Really, it's really just to have a a place where this water during normal flow hours will outlet. So we could just have basically a rip wrap outfall here
so that during normal flows water will not basically erode its way down to the river more so it will just be able to um safely make its way without you know causing any erosion issues. So that is good point and >> we'll take
>> let's say there is an emergency then where do you where do you pull the water out of that's contaminated? So, >> so that's where the the um a cleanout will be proposed right upstream of that close that close off valve at grade.
>> Um that fire the fire department would not spray until they had all the things in in place. Michael, that's one of the things that the deputy fire chief was clear on. He needs to have some things ready before they would spray water. So they so we ensured that they weren't um
you know going into the brook. So that's why this is part two of what we're proposing. >> Um because he he wants that to have that to have that in place so the water can't go anywhere. So that would be closed. And by closed we mean that there'd be a you know some sort of truck or something
there collecting the contain the water that that is being sprayed. >> Okay. And that's a distinction I was looking for. I thought that the valve would be opened the pool would be filled with contaminated water and then removed from there.
Yeah, that's that's not how this would work. We we had similar kind of conversations on our side, not fully understanding it. So, I I completely understand what you're saying, but the way this would work is that they would there would be a process in place before they start spraying. So the fire
department would not my understanding again I do not want to talk for the fire department. My understanding is they would show up to the site and then they would have some things in place that we would have to you know be part of the same emergency response plan everyone agrees to that they would have someone manually close or connect that to you
know this on call rapid response unit that would be there to collect the water. So, you know, from our from our viewpoint, this is, you know, something that would eliminate any sort of contaminated water from uh you know, going and getting to that brook. That
is, you know, the main the main concern here. Um, >> now if I can just remind the commissioners, you do have a similar setup which we had to activate. David, I don't know if you were on the water department then when we had the spill on 495. You do have a wear for uh old school, you know, you got to turn turn
the wheel to get it down. If the commission wants to look at that. So, where you've got your basin, if you wanted to kind of elevate that a little bit more on the rim, you could go with a wear system as a double backfall as well. If that's something you wanted to
look at, we do have something like that in town already. >> Yeah, >> that is basically what we were initially thinking with. I think you mean kind of the same thing with a weird being able to have the water come out over.
>> So it would be right at the end of the Yep. Exactly. >> So this is the low point that >> and that would always be open. It's just like another thing that you just have to test and be able to shut it. >> So just something to think about. Okay. Um
>> Yep. >> Can I just mention one other thing Sarah? So before before closing, I just want to throw out there, I'm not I am not sure if the commissioners feel that the tight tank and this piping would be necessary from the fire department's perspective. They want this this uh is
where they were, you know, their recommendation was. Um so I would just ask that when we come back that would be something of a discussion point just to see if the tight tank would still be required. Um absolutely
>> if there is containment on within the containers and then we have this in place then you know >> do do we require both it's been a healthy discussion. I think it's a it's a good um unfortunately didn't get in time enough but I think it
it's uh it behooves us to kind of be able to digest this a little bit further as well. >> Yeah. And you guys did say that uh Chase was not going to be there on the seven. So, if there is any way for us to, you know, get his thoughts cuz he he was the
the main person that was, you know, raising this concern. Um, >> for sure. And we can ask him to look at this recording and get some feedback. Back to Tim or back to me. Okay. >> Questions. I haven't had it. >> Yep. Go ahead, Kyle. >> So, I I definitely appreciate this
approach, this the bathtub that you've created. My only question, I haven't seen any sort of um details on you creating a perimeter. I I don't know what that perimeter is. I don't know the size of that, height of it. Um you know, what's going to be the volume of this bathtub you created. So I
Yeah, I appreciate that detail, but doesn't show how high. Like I guess it's 8 in of crushed stone. Okay. I didn't see the 8 in. Um so I has there been any sort of calculations to say, especially now that you have some information from the fire department where they've laid out some volumes. Um, I certainly haven't tried to do any quick
calculations here, but if they're throwing down 50,000 gallons or whatever the numbers are that they had in their report, is there a concern that this bathtub fills up and would go over whatever your containment burm height is? So, is the burm around the outside is only 8 in as well, or is there a
higher impermeable? Right. So, I get the crush stone is 8 inches, but is the whatever the >> the edge the sides of the bathtub is that only 8 in >> your slopes. Yep. >> Yeah. Am I Am I correct though that if the fire department's pumping 60,000
gallons of water before they do that, the um truck or whatever it's called would be over by the valve collecting all that water. And so it really wouldn't matter how much they pumped as long as that truck can handle that much volume
>> provided the truck's there. Yes, >> exactly. That's great that they say there's going to be a truck there. I truck breaks out on the side of the road or something. it would have to be or they couldn't do it. >> Yeah. So, we Kyle Kyle, unfortunately, I don't think we have the answer on the on
the technical question that you were asking, but our understanding we have to we haven't talked to Deputy Chief Coffee. So, again, I don't want to speak for him, but my understanding is that they would not their intent is not to extinguish, you know, any sort of fire and do uh the level of, you know,
gallons per minute or whatever they had in there. Those are um some stats that he was showing out there. So, we we need to confirm with him what level he is looking for to have containment here because you're you're right. I mean, his his comments say that they would need the the truck to be in place before they
would would start spraying. So, um you know, does that mean there's more than one truck? Because you guys know the size of the truck. If they spray it, you know, whatever those gallons per minute that they were saying or whatever gallons per hour, we're going to need a line of trucks that are there to extinguish this. But I I my understanding is they're they do not
intend to have um something like that where they're, you know, trying to extinguish this like a a car fire in the middle of the highway. So, we need to confirm that. So, the intent here was not to get into the specifics. It was really to bring you guys up to speed on where we are and we can, you know, come
back and, you know, if you guys have specific questions about this that come up, then let us know. we can uh have some of those, you know, calculations and a better understanding of what this would actually be able to do and if it, you know, if it meets what uh the fire department is looking for. So, we we
still have some work to do. The intent here, which I was trying to say on the outset, is just to give you guys as much information as we have because, you know, we we delayed the last meeting so we could have some of this information. We got it late this afternoon and just wanted to show that we are, you know,
>> here's here's where we are. Here's what we're here. >> If there's some things that we can tell you, these are these are things that Chase I guarantee will ask you. Volume like even the volume of that infiltration basin, right? Like >> right >> will that hold the amount of storm water that would be collected inside of your 8 in or inside of your containment areas.
I think I there storm water calculations are a big part of what we look at when we're inside of our resource areas. So we just want to make sure we're controlling contain. >> So this this wouldn't be a storm water really thing. This is a fire response. Well, but no, on a regular basis, it's going to control storm water, right? On
any anytime it rains, it's going to collect storm water and bring it to your infiltration basin. Correct. >> Yes. We just talked about having it as a rip wrap outfall with actually not using any storage capacity just for free flowing water. So, this is kind of isn't
really what we're going to be presenting next week. This was just what we had on to uh basically show you what our our kind of draft or uh ideas are of the things and bring up. >> So it it's helpful and then we'll try and everyone just as I said can take
this time to digest and come up with other questions and you all can formulate more for for the next meeting as well. >> Yes. And and as far as the tight tank versus this option goes, I don't believe it would be a good idea to have a tight tank with this just because of the proposed liner situation. I'm not sure
how that would work with having a tight tank and a liner. >> Yeah, you're gonna compromise your liner by having to put a penetration. >> There's no way you're gonna have a tight tank with a liner. >> Yeah. We're not going to have just 8 in of crushed stone. We're going to have more substantial void space that can can
um basically hold as much water as we want while being able to pump out and treat that water with uh the emergency vehicles. So, we're going to come back next week with a lot more information, a lot more calculations, and hopefully have it nicely teed up with um everything that you're looking for.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Have a nice evening. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it's 8:33. 8:33. We're going to open the 8:15 continued public hearing, notice of intent 64 Beaverbrook Road, lot 1, DP 204-1018,
construction of a shared driveway. And then following this, we will have lot three. Who would like to speak to this? >> Ryan, you're muted. There you go. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> If you can introduce yourself, that
would be great. >> Absolutely. Yeah. For the record, my name is Ryan Vickers. I'm a civil engineer with Dillis Roy Civil Design Group. Um, you guys are probably used to seeing Greg Roy here present this project. Unfortunately, he can't be here tonight. So, I am trying to fill his shoes, which are tough shoes to fill,
but I will do my best. Um, I have been working on this project uh throughout the permitting lifespan. Um, but I just haven't been presenting it. He has uh I will be sharing a plan at some point. Um, I know the last hearing that we had for this project was in July, July 8th,
where Greg Roy was uh covering some of the major uh plan related revisions uh that came from the initial opening hearing. Um, and then at that point, we were waiting on peer review from Green International because this project is being filed concurrently with a storm
water uh for a storm water management permit. Um and since July 8th, we have received uh the peerreview comments from green and we have addressed those comments and have updated the plans accordingly and um those plan related revisions are in the plans that are in
front of you now. Um so if we want I can go over just those revisions or since it's been such a while I can go over the project in its entirety. Um whatever works best for you guys. Uh, commissioners, up to you. But my first
thought, Ryan, is because it has been a few months, do a cursory overview and then go through line items on um what the comments were. Commissioners, what would you >> Yep. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. If you can share your screen, that
would be great. >> Absolutely. Bear with me. Are you guys able to see uh this colored plan? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you for coloring it, by the way. >> Yes. I uh I did uh review the last uh
hearing and I saw Greg did not bring a colored plan, so I wanted to make sure I didn't make that mistake as well. So, uh this is 64 Beaverbrook Road. Uh we are representing Michael and Hannah Grar who live in this uh single family dwelling over here. Uh right where my
cursor is. I I kind of hatched it just for clarity. They have a paved driveway and access out to Beaverbrook Road here out on the right. Um they approached Dillis and Roy to have us pursue a um driveway uh a common driveway here that
you'll see to access uh a substantial portion of their uh lot area that's located in the rear of their lots. You'll notice uh there is a wetland system that bisects their property from the front to the back. Uh so this proposed common driveway uh does include
a wetland crossing. Um there's there's no other way to access the rear of the lot. So unfortunately we do have to go through that wetland. Uh the common driveway would provide access to two single family houses as proposed. Um
hold on. And um as part of this, we also have uh a storm water management permit because in the town of Littleton, I'm sure you know, if you're greater than 1 acre of disturbance, you need to apply for the storm water management permit. So uh it because of that, we have two storm water
management areas proposed which were just peer-reviewed and revised. Um, we also have a mitigation area for wetland replication which um has been revised from the original uh opening hearing but
not since the last hearing on the 8th. We've kept that the same. It was uh during the initial uh proposal it was located over here and we had a storm water system over here and then on the ETH we came back and we flopped those because um I wasn't on the sitewalk but
apparently the grades lend themselves much nicer over there for a wetland replication area and we also increased that to a 3:1 replication uh ratio rather than the initial 2:1 wetland replication area. Um so that's the
project. Um and uh since then we we received um peerreview comments from Green International relative to the storm water. Um I do have that open here as well. Um their comments in general were I would say minor in nature. Um not
a lot of plan related revisions since the the last plan that you guys saw. uh I would say more so um a lot of um revisions and tweaks to the Excel sheets in in the stuff that's included in the appendices within the revised storm water report as far as uh recharge
volume, water quality volume and and stuff like that. But um that being said, there was a a a handful of uh plan revisions which we could um go over. If you want or prefer, I can actually go like line item by line item or I can just hit the plan related revisions.
I'll leave that openended. What would work best for you guys? >> Tim, have you had a chance to go through some of these? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. How would you like to proceed with this? >> Um,
I I think if you could do line by line in a >> Yeah, absolutely. >> That would that would be beneficial. >> Yeah, no problem. I'll if if it's okay, I won't try and flip back and forth too much. But um so the first two comments are or we'll just start with number one.
An erosion control barrier is shown on the details. Um that was our mistake. We had all the specifications and details shown for erosion control barriers, but on the actual plan itself, we didn't show the location of that. I think there was a layer issue on CAD or something, but that's the by us. So, uh, our
response is that the erosionic control barrier has been, uh, added to the revised plans. And I can flip back and I can show you guys where that is. Uh, that's going to be on the downhill side down gradient of all of the proposed work here. I tried my best to get that dash line as close as possible. Um,
everything south of of this proposed work is up high. So, we're flowing down into this site. So, uh, we reinforced that edge of clearing, um, right up against that 50 ft line coming around and we brought it up to here. So, added erosion control barrier to the plans.
Um, and if you guys have any questions at any point, feel free to interrupt me. Um, how will I see? So, we added additional erosion control notes. Um, pertaining to the type of uh, erosion control. I can flip over to the detail
that we are specifying for that uh which is on page three I believe which is over here. Uh just some additional specifications uh notes on when those should be installed are included in this new plan set like you know prior to construction and they must be approved
by the Littleton you know location must be approved by Littleton Conscom and whatnot. So um we made sure we included those notes. Um, so one of the comments that uh Green International had is one of our infiltration basins was uh let me
see if I can hide this so I can flip back. Yes, our northern infiltration basin up here was uh too close in proximity to our proposed uh reserve leeching area. It was uh you'll notice that we've modified the contours here to
ensure that that infiltration basin uh does have that 50-ft offset which you can see by that gray dashed line there. So any storage that we take credit for on that basin is most definitely 50 ft from that area. Um, and that was achieved by slightly uh sliding this
reserve area a little bit and manipulating some of the proposed grades which were originally left as is, but to get that to ensure the storage was outside the 50 foot, we kind of manipulated those around. Um, so that'll be built in there.
Um, on top of that, within that comment, um, this was a fantastic comment that one of our, um, both basins are on a fill slope on the back side of the burm. Um, and this was a really good comment and and I this comment uh had we
included two storm water basin cross-sections. So, you'll see here um, this comment prompted us to propose an impermeable core because that is a fill slope down there. Uh there was concerns about you know the infiltration kind of breaking through that burn downhill. Um
so uh we we've specked an impermeable core to prevent that. We have some mass DOT specifications included on those. Um so that was that was a really good comment from them. Um let's go back here.
Yep. Is recommended. >> Okay. And now the next comment pertains to our proposed swale. So you'll see here just as like um uh an overview of where the low and high points are. I know Greg touched upon this, but just I
know it's there's so many lines that you know you're coming in on this common driveway and this is kind of coming down at a at a gentle slope. and we've proposed a curb along that northern side to add a gutter line that uh originally dumped into this little infiltration
basin. Um but what we've done now is we've kind of beefed up our TSS uh removal which I will get into later in the comments. But um so that's a low point there and that's in the the next low point is down here.
And we have this uh this portion of the driveway. We have this super elevated to dition into a grass swale. As you can see on those grades here, um there was a com this comment um requested us to extend this grass swale all the way over
to this basin burm uh to ensure that that runoff from the from the driveway would not bypass that burm there from the 242 contour. Um, when we address this comment, I wanted to stay out of the, you know, there's still uh disturbance proposed within that 100
foot buffer zone, but the tie-in grading with that swale and extending it um would have created a lot more disturbance if if we carried that swale in. And um so to combat that, we ended up just proposing a uh field inlet with a deep sump catch basin at the end of
that grass swale uh to convey that runoff over to a sediment for bay uh which is new, but we'll get into that. But rather than extending the swale, we added a field inlet there, which we thought was more uh preferable in terms of of of added disturbance and to ensure that that uh runoff would make it to
that basin. Um the last uh one of the last comments here on this first section is this was just a a minor comment about one of our outlet control structures. Uh we had a silly configuration of a of a 4-in
orifice going out to the pipe. So I can show you that on the detail version. We're talking about this outlet control structure right here on this basin. Um I'll show you what we revised it to. Uh let me switch over to that plan where we
have all the here we go. Um so we now have we're looking again we're looking at this here this outlet control structure. Uh so this this outlet pipe coming out of that riser is now revised to 6 in. It was a 12-in pipe with a 6-in
orifice drilled which um hydraulically doesn't make much sense. So, we got rid of that orifice and just converted that to a 6-in outlet pipe. Um, and I'll keep I'll keep running down the list here. Um, so draw down calculations uh were
not initially included in the um submitted storm water report in the first place. Um, and that's because, and I know Greg was bringing this up, um, is that this project uh wouldn't uh trigger uh wetlands protection act storm water
standards given that it's only, you know, it's four or fewer units. Um, however, you know, pursuant to the Littleton uh local storm water bylaw, we do need to be compliant with all of the standards. So on you know with this revision that you see here now we have
brought uh this project um to my understanding fully in compliance with all those storm water standards. So something like the draw down calculations we asked for a little bit of relief for because our basins were originally a little bit smaller and um
they you know we provided the calculation and it was a little bit higher than what was required. So um we went out there and we did testing on site to ensure uh what type of soils we were dealing with and we provided draw down calculations uh in the revised stormwater report to ensure that both
infiltration areas will draw down and and dry out within 72 hours as required in the storm water management uh manual. So, um, following up with that, um, this is kind of a similar answer. Uh, the
recharge calculations have been updated and included for both basins. Again, we needed to get some test pits done to figure out what our in design infiltration rates should have been. They're actually better than what we first expected. We thought we were dealing with some sea soils out there, but our test pits uh, was actually
showing some some sandy lom and uh, lomy sand out there. So we um we're working with some uh bee soils out there. Uh so with that and then some tweaks to the outlets on elevations, we were able to meet the required recharge volume for this proposed project in full compliance
uh including water quality volume of 1 in. Um which is fantastic. Um yes. So um that's number two. And then Okay. Yep. Water quality volume. We just talked about that. And um as as part of
Littleton's uh storm water bylaw for new development uh they do require 90% TSS removal which is uh 10% more than you know the 80% that's required by the state but Littleton has 90% which uh can be a little difficult but um so what we did again I was talking about that we
kept the same low points but we introduced deep sump catch basins equipped with a hood and those deep sump catch basins um and this is pretty much one of the bigger plan related revisions that has been before you now is that we we added the deep sump catch basins into
a series of sediment forbays which will then overflow through an emergency spillway into an infiltration basin. Um and that BMP train when you do add it up you get to up to 92% efficiency doing it that way. Um which is much more than we
originally proposed with just sediment for bay into the infiltration basin. We now have two additional uh treatment practices um and a structural one. So that's um always a safe bet there. Uh and the O andM for this project has been updated to in you know for for a deep
sunk catch basin and sediment for bay uh to ensure that type you know routine on&m procedures happen. Um so with this site is now uh providing a 92% TSS removal on all the paved area because it's all being captured within those uh
low points and being distributed into those bond ponds. Um the following um comment is related to the grass channel which we were taking credit for as a uh a TSS you know like a like a treatment
device. Well, in this iteration of the plan, as I described, we introduced that um deep sump catch basin at the end of the grass swale. So, rather than designing this swale um with with a lot of uh depth and volume, it's it's just a conveyance method to get down into the
deep sump catch basin where it will receive its primary treatment. Now, um so that is comment 10. I should have been listing these off. I apologize. So comment 11 the settlement 4 bays not sure what it
was. So we have now revised um this comment to uh really detail out the settlement sediment for bays and give you the required minimum volume of each sediment for bay which is a function of how much impervious uh well how much
impervious surface is draining to that sediment for bay which we didn't include the first time. So uh we now ensure that these sediment 4 rays do provide enough treatment volume for how much impervious service is actually getting there. Um on
to 12 uh inspecting grass channels. So that's now considered a drainage channel with a um catch basin at the end of it rather than a grass channel which uh has a higher uh maintenance priority with with keeping it clean and mowing it. But
now that's just to route some of the storm water runoff from the driveway to that catch basin which has its own section in O andM. Um 13 signatures for the O andM plan condition approval. The applicant has no dispute with this requirement. Um you
know they the GRUars will be uh in charge of the O andM for the structural BMPs that we just talked about. Um I mentioned that uh some test pits were lacking. We didn't have any test pits uh within the storm water management areas. We have uh gone out there and provided those and have
included the uh test pit information on the plans now on page uh three I believe. Yes, soil test data. You can view that all here. Um like I said, a lot of the texture is sandy lom lomy sand sandy lom. I think
it's all that's all of it. Um it was good to do those to ensure that groundwater would not be an issue out there with our uh storm water management areas. Um the one at the corner there, there was actually no groundwater or refusal or modeling uh encountered on
that one. Up along the northern one, we got estimated seasonal ground high ground water at 2366. Bottom of pond is 239. So we ensure the twoft offset there. And because we're within uh you know you need 4T but if you're within 2
ft you need to provide a groundwater mounting calculation to ensure that the infiltration won't pull up that groundwater through the bottom of your pond. Uh we have included that uh calculation in the revised storm water report. Uh which it does not pond more than I I forget the difference between
23 you know uh 23 it won't poke through 239 elevation. It stays below the bottom of our designed pond. Yeah, if you want that number, we I can go pull that up and look at it. Um, the checklist uh was included in
this uh submission. Again, uh it was our fault. We didn't include the Massachusetts Stormwater checklist on our initial filing because we were under the uh purview that this project doesn't trip state, you know, the the wetland protection act standards, but then we, you know, it was on me that the locally
you do need to include all of this. So, you know, again, we brought this project into compliance with the storm water all 10 storm water standards and included that storm water checklist for compliance. Um, our modeling had been increased uh our 100red-year storm event uh increased
to 7.98 in um that was one of the comments from green. So, our basins uh we wanted to ensure the capacity of the basins uh you know and we wanted to ensure that there'd be a foot of freeboard with within each one of those basins. Um I I forget where
I I am positive that we do uh provide a foot of freeboard. Um I forget where I narrate each each elevation, but on the 100red-year storm, we do provide a foot of freeboard in both basins, meaning your ponding elevation is a foot below
your top of burm elevation. Um that's something uh Green will definitely be looking for. Um and he and this was a similar revision. One of our previous basins was undersized where we didn't have that foot of freeboard. So um you know with
the revisions mentioned uh you know better test pits, higher infiltration rates and then you know tweaking the basin's outlet and whatnot. We got that to to uh basin one to have a 1 foot of freeboard. Um here is a comment. Um the wershed plans
indicate there is one discharge point to the north instead of indicating multiple discharge points because there's multiple wetlands on site. And I'll bring up the map here. Uh he wanted us to clarify why the wetlands were not considered individually as discharge
points. So um with the colors, you know, wet uh your wetlands are the dark solid dark blue line. Um, and I have a when we analyze this property, everything's kind of flowing from south to north. Uh, so on our watershed maps, uh, that are
included in the revised storm water report, we consider, uh, kind of this northern property line as design point A, which was used to analyze the flow coming off the site. Um he this comment is asking why didn't we analyze this as design point A this is design point B
and then this larger you know uh wetland design point C and analyze them separately. Um our response to that is that off this property there's a there's a really large wetland over here um that's a map DP wetland right off this property and all of the areas flowing to
each each one of these um pond or wetland areas uh most definitely is tributary to that larger wetland there. So really our design point A is is that larger wetland that all of these flow to um which would um
which would uh you know you'd you'd have one design point rather than splitting up this you know this whole property into three design points. It it all does flow to one direction. Um so and then the final comment is a comment regarding our um area of
analysis for drainage. Uh we did init initially we cut our analysis off for studying the runoff along the project perimeter on the property lines. Um, with this revision, we looked to the south because the south is higher. Uh,
and we brought in, we had went out there and confirmed some survey and some topo to understand how much of that southern area was actually draining to the property and especially the areas in which are draining to our proposed storm water basins to ensure that those basins
have enough capacity to withstand the runoff coming from those areas. Uh so those updated watershed maps are included in the revised stormwater report where you can see the subcachments have been expanded to each basin. Um
and that was that was long-winded but um if anyone has any questions please feel free. Um but that those were all of the comments that that we uh addressed from Green International. Let let's let Ryan catch a breath for a second
and let's see if any of the commissioners have any questions for Ryan. >> Thank you for going through those points. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I I have one around the driveway uh
where it crosses over the blue lines. The original plan said that that was going to get filled in and we talked about instead putting a a bridge there. >> Yes. Yep. Yep. So, our initial plans we
uh and and Greg and um Greg touched uh base on some of these points, but there wasn't much discussion after because we were waiting for peer review to come in. So, if we want to talk about some of those things, I'm happy to. This being one of them. uh the original design, we kind of had a a quote unquote standard
uh driveway covert, you know, underneath that would be, you know, filled around. Uh and then after our first meeting um in a site visit, we realized that spanning this would be much more preferable, especially given the grades out there and the width of of it. So, we
are still proposing that three-sided culvert with the natural bottom to allow that flow to to to, you know, continue there. Um, we do have a cross-sectional detail included of this area. Um, you
know, o o over on page three here. Um, same detail as as the same uh project that that Greg presented on July 8th. But yes, we are spanning that. >> So, o open bottom. >> Open bottom. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, the animals that go there now with the open bottom would be more inclined to use it. Okay. >> Yep. And there's some wing walls there. Um, another major portion of the of the project that Greg kind of touched upon
last on July 8th is that we introduced uh the these boulder retaining walls to really try and reduce and mitigate the amount of tree removal on site. Um, you know, it is woods. It's not developed. So, there is a substantial amount. Uh in our last submission, we did include a
tree removal exhibit detailing the select trees that we or understand need to be removed. Um but um the revisions that we had just made with Green International's comments uh still stand
with our tree removal exhibit. There's no additional trees to be taken um that we surveyed um since then, if that makes sense. which is still going to be taken quite a few for that's a fairly long driveway. >> Yes. And we have the we have this uh
tree removal exhibit if and this was submitted for July 8th for the July 8th hearing. So it is it's all you know some of this line work might be a little bit old because we tweaked a couple things. Um >> if this is something you guys would like to see with the brand you know our brand new line work with this superimposed
over that's something we could absolutely provide you with. But you're you're stating that the number is not changing. >> Number is not changing. The the trees in red that we show here um are still the same. You know, there's no new trees that would be converted to, you know,
red slated to be removed with the revisions that we made since then. Um it's the same that those portions are are the same. >> On your other map, you showed where the snow snow removal zones would be.
>> Yes. And is that the little curvy spot up by the house on the top? >> Yes. So I can zoom in here. We have two locations uh for snow removal um depicted. And I'll just use this. So we
have this is a straight shot coming in here. We have snow storage here. >> Okay. >> That's not that's not the best color to use. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. So we have a snow storage spot there, you know, with a emphasis on being outside of the 100 foot buffer
zone. It's a straight shot coming in and you're coming down. So we, you know, we we selected that spot. And then we do have snow storage marked out here on this flat spot here as well as you would push it coming down here. Um,
those are the two locations that we have uh delineated. >> So what part of this is going to be lawn? Okay. So, and I'm asking specifically around fertilizer and getting into the wetlands and all that.
>> So, Okay. Yep. Um, we have indicated here we have the proposed limit of clearing here. Uh, it's the green is tough to see. Um, but I'll make it darker. Maybe I can make it a little darker there. >> So, everything inside of this line, it's
still tough to see. I mean I can use a highlighter but everything within here >> is is slated to be lawn. Um rather >> than the restoration areas you know depicted over here we have the wetland replication area and we have a whole
detail with some overseating and wetland friendly plants there. Um but as far as the basin and the areas uh upgradient of those towards the houses, you know, this area is supposed to be lawn area.
>> So your snow storage relative to the size of the driveway seems rather small. Um I mean look at all the driveway they're going to be plowing and you've got these two little spots for snow.
Um, is that that doesn't feel like it's going to be big enough. You're coming Well, you can't see my finger, but you're coming from all the way from the right >> down the driveway, >> right? >> Splitting off to go to the house up in the top. >> The one on the bottom, he only gets
really the long section of driveway for the most part. So you you've you've got a lot of driveway >> and you know salt in that snow and other crap in that snow maybe stuff from a car
>> is it doesn't feel like enough or or you know to keep it out of the wetlands folks. Am I wrong? No, I think I think it's a valid point
for sure based on the distance. >> And then of course the lawn is just so big that how are you going to keep or how are they going to keep the fertilizer which everybody knows that you know to have a nice lawn you you you do use um keep it out of the wetlands
especially since you're uphill of the wetlands for the most part. Was there any discussion around that? Um, no, there was not. And this could be a situation where, you know, just like you're saying, everything is flowing down that maybe there's some language
included in types, you know, fertilizers, definitely pesticides or something like that that's prevented on this site. Um, that could be an option. We can talk to the applicant about that. Um but everything is you know a lot of this
uh area that is flowing down towards this larger wetland will be picked up by this swale and brought over to the infiltration basin. >> Um >> and you know so we have this swale starting up here. I know it's it starts picking up everything here. So, you
know, you know, you're coming down even like here, you'd be coming down and you'd be hitting this swale and then you're going right down this swale into this area here where it's then discharged into the basin. >> Um, and we do have an on and m which which kind of describes uh when to clean
those things, right? And and when to and when to um perform those procedures to ensure that they're still, you know, uh working at efficiency. Um, so if if it's a overland runoff issue, those will get taxed first. And so I think that would
just stress the importance of the on andm on those particular areas, you know. >> Mhm. >> All right. I'm not an expert on how much that can handle, if that's enough for the lawn, but I do feel that the snow removal is way too small.
>> Okay, that's something we can definitely explain. And Ed, uh, also looking at that lower snow removal, I can almost guarantee that it's going to melt, walk over the driveway, and
then freeze. >> Oh, yeah. >> Um, I I I know this area very well. And, uh, >> and they're going to use salt to to minimize that, a lot of it.
Uh it just I'm just saying it maybe I I don't know what consideration could be made but I'm I'm sure that that's what will happen. Uh particularly if this is they they leave uh all the trees that are there. >> Okay. That is something that we will
explore and um I'll have to get back to you on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Other other questions or comments for Ryan? >> I'm just >> Oh, sorry, Sarah. I'm just curious
>> with with um the tree removal and the driveway, the crossing, everything going in within the 0 to 50. Has a waiver been submitted for this? A waiver request? >> Yes, a waiver request has been submitted for lot one um which is where that that
work again. This is for This is an NOI for lot one and lot three. Uh and I kind of just blasted through both sites there. Um but the waiver request was submitted with lot one for that disturbance within those areas pertaining to the wetland crossing. Yes.
>> Um I believe that's something Tim you reached out for uh early in the process and and we got back to you on that. I cannot >> right what was the justification for the river waiver request in this instance
>> um jog my memory uh so the the wetland totally bisects this site so there's no other way to access this uh rear of their property so we chose a location that is the most narrow you know part of that wetland to minimize that
disturbance as much as possible to to access the upland area in the rear of the site. Uh so it we believe that we're you know with this design is the um we're we're trying our best to mitigate the damages there. >> I see. I'm just curious because usually
it has to be public health, public safety related in order to work within that particular area. Um I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but I'm just looking at this plan and I'm like how um how does this compute? And I think it might be nice to have Tim
could recirculate that waiver so that we could read that. Andrew, that's a great point. So my reminder also is that we do have So we're talking about lot one, which some are in conjunction with lot three. So Ryan, when you're ready, I'd like to
close the lot one. >> Yes. >> And then open the lot three while they do run kind of simult. >> Understood. Yeah. Sorry for the confusion. >> No, no worries. So, with the applicant's permission, I would like to continue
this hearing on lot one. If I have that permission, we would close it. Okay. So, we're going to close that. And now we're going to open the continued public hearing. Notice of attempt 64 Beaverbrook Road, lot 3, DP 204-1019,
construction of shared driveway. So let's if you can tell us now some of the the nuances of lot three which does not require a waiver. >> Correct. In your words. >> Yes. Uh in lot 3 does not require a
waiver. Um no work within the 50. It's held uh that was part of the July 8th revision is that we did have some grading spilling into that 50 foot wetland offset but we have since pulled that out. Um so there is no grading or any alteration within
that 50- foot offset. Um and the only other disturbance within the buffer zone is is uh associated grading with a septic area and the storm water management area. Um as you can see highlighted by those yellow areas um
over here. Okay. Commissioners questions. So I think you heard some of our concerns previously when we were discussing one as it pertained to three as well. >> Yes, >> I believe so. >> Okay.
>> So three avoids a waiver just because you put it on one. They're both using the same driveway. They both break the same barriers, but you don't impact on one. Yep. Well, the impact is
on both actually, but >> right. Yeah. >> Technically from standpoint, you only put it on one of them. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. When we submitted that, I took that literally and and figured the the disturbance was on lot one, which would need the waiver request. But I do
understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. I mean, you it's >> Yeah. I don't see us approving three if we don't approve one. Right. If we don't grant the waiver with one, then three doesn't get constructed. So, >> understood. >> Your two yellow lines by that by that um by the the main driveway. The left one
is 100 ft. The right one is 50 ft. >> Um sorry, could you repeat that? >> The two yellow lines that you've got there. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Left one I can read is 100 foot. >> Okay. The right one is 50 foot. Okay. Yes. >> I thought that I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. >> Yep. Yep. No problem. Sorry about that.
Mhm. Any other questions or comments for Ryan? I presume that these are all far enough away that grass clippings and other uh natural autra
will have plenty of places. We've had other lots where we put had them put signs say don't put clippings here and stuff, but this looks like it won't have that issue. >> No, but I think we might have to put some snow storage signs up, like
designated snow storage. >> Yeah. >> And that would be in the order of conditions, but we could have placements for those. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And Ryan, I may have missed this, but what's um what's the material being used for the proposed driveway? Is it paved?
Is it permeable pavement? Crushed. >> It is. It is paved. It's It's a uh I believe we have a cross-sectional detail for that. Um it's not it. It follows the uh town of Littleton's driveway cross-section. So,
it is just your basic pave half inch um hot roll, you know, asphalt. That's that's what the intention was is it for it to be paved. How >> what What was that? Sorry. How how wide >> uh this is, I believe. Jeez, let me
double check just to make sure because that is uh I believe 16 ft, but let me scale this just to be sure. >> So, there's going to be a 16 ft dead zone for the animals >> with respect to the wetland crossing, >> with respect to any animal wanting to go
from one side of the driveway to the other that they don't have that problem today. I just want to make sure I understand that >> it is it is 16 feet correct. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And Ryan, and I should know this, but
are two other feet on each side of the road kind of like uh crowning and then down? >> Yes. Correct. Yep. There's a shoulder on either side. So, y >> I guess I'm I'm just kind of still hung up on this.
on the waiver. Correct, Andrew? >> Waiver. Yeah, I It's probably something we should have mentioned a long time ago because we've we've hung up projects on wetland crossings in the past here. Um I know we've continued them on, but we've
Healy Corner comes to mind, right? Like that is very similar to this project and I don't think we're very comfortable with um the proposed options. I I am curious and I I had just wrote down written down some notes in terms of
if all other options have been looked at is there an economic impact w portion of that waiver which I don't think there is but >> I think we can start to look at that a little bit more. Um asked Tim to kind of dive into that a little bit. Didn't we
find that on lot number one that there was some a building down in the picture down below it? Um would there be any kind of driveway situation that could bypass the wetlands by coming out that way? Probably not,
but I'm just asking. Um um I know that there is a development um south of this but I as far as is you know ability to connect to it I I I can't answer to that as of right now. >> All right. >> But noted >> I think there's quite a steep slope
there. >> Yeah. >> As well >> it it does go up there. Yeah. Yeah. >> It maybe not an option and I just >> appreciate it. >> All right. Have we discussed we've been focused on
this the work inside the 50 and wetland area and there's a a replication area, but have we talked about any sort of plantings or the that tree removal plan is pretty significant? um the the amount of trees that are being >> cut from resource areas, right?
>> You got to take every tree out where that whole lawn section is. >> Yeah, I understand. And we haven't talked about any sort of replacement or replication of that. Correct. >> Ryan, have you have you presented that at all to us? >> The um that was loosely part of that
July 8th meeting. Uh so we have we have the tree removal plan that you're referring to where we indicate um uh size and type of tree to be removed with the work as shown there. And then as far as uh mitigating that, we did
update the plan for that July 8th last time. This wasn't a brand new revision, but we do include a uh proposed mitigation plantings for removed trees. Uh we have 23 of them shown as of now in locations here that span, you know,
right there. Um and then we've also got some within the buffer zone along the downs slope of the infiltration basin burm over there including over here. Um so we do have some mitigation trees uh proposed. Um um definitely open for discussion on that. Um
>> yeah. Are those just locations or do we have types and >> just locations as of right now? >> We do have how many you're taking out and how many you're replacing. >> Yes. So Ryan, that's really a whole um
process and plan in it in itself in terms of really the conscious thought of what's being taken out and what's going to be um reestablished in its place. >> Understood. Yep. Y >> if you stay on the one second,
>> you're showing trees on the top and and on the driveway, but you don't show any trees in any of the rest of the spot where the houses are. And yet we know that there's all kinds of trees in there. >> It's outside of our purview. It's outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. >> Oh yeah. Okay, that's true.
>> We had survey locate the trees within that buffer zone area >> or animals. Um, can I just u pause for a second and ask the commissioners their thoughts on this as we have circled back around um
regarding the waiver. >> Um, and it may be that we've gotten ahead or they've gotten ahead of themselves where we really need to have thoughtful discussion about the waiver. I'm uncomfortable sending them forward
to do more work until we have come to a decision if this waiver is going to be accepted or not. I don't want them to do more in terms of restoration and such, but that's that's just my opinion. So, I'm going to defer to you all on that. That's a good point, Sarah, because if
the project isn't feasible, there's no sense in going through all these other steps. Um, Anyone else feel the same way? >> Well, waiver is a big part of the project. So, it would seem it needs to
be at least considered to be almost approved before spending a lot more money. >> Other commissioners, I'd like for everyone to voice their opinion. Could you just
review what the basis is for the waiver? >> Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing. >> Their their response right now. So for how is the actions in the public interest necessary to avoid taking necessary to prevent the safety hazard or water dependent? It just says given the configuration of the BVW relative to the site, there is no other alternative
access to the site. So it it doesn't really answer the question other than >> but there is no other alternative access to the site. Correct. Like like I said before, there is that development. The grade >> might have to be within I believe it has
to be within the ownership of the applicant. >> Okay. >> Tim, are you there? >> Y >> thoughts on this. >> Uh I know this was something that I that I brought up in our initial um discussion with uh Greg and Ryan uh and
Martin. Um, I can certainly um look into this more and um I mean you can make the argument that the the wetland replication being a 3 to1 ratio
is in the public benefit. I mean, um, we you guys can ask for a revised waiver that kind of details that >> Mhm. >> section a little further. >> Sorry. Sorry. I think Kyle had mentioned
that this is very similar to Haley Corner. >> Yeah. >> Proposal. I agree with Kyle on that. I believe there were other options with them though in terms of access. >> They did have I think I think you're right Sarah. I think they hadn't done as
thorough of a job exploring alternatives. Um and that was where we got hung up before the project kind of fizzled out for a bit. So, with your permission, I would like to task Tim and perhaps if there's another commissioner or two that would
like to be or or one or two, not three, um commissioners that would like to kind of just delve into this a little bit more just to look at the historic piece as well so that Ryan um we can help guide you if it is uh a revision of the
the waiver as as Tim had mentioned. >> I understand. Yep. >> So I think certainly to take our comments and and feedback from tonight. Um but I would hope do the commission feel that this is a good path for us to
before we task them to go uh more forward on this with development to make sure that we have a clear path for a waiver. >> Seems reasonable and I they've heard most of our concerns, right? if they they want to continue forward with those
the comments we've made them that's >> right and know that ultimately we are going to need a a robust um um restoration plan. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. So um with your permission Ryan we would continue you to the next meeting
which is October 7th. >> Okay. Yes. I agree. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening. All righty. >> Thank you. Take care guys. Yep. >> Bye-bye. Um, so it's now 9:23. Do we have
anything else that we want to address? If not, may I have a motion to close September 23rd, 2025 meeting? >> Uh, Sarah, there continue to a later date list has a couple of enforcement orders on there. What happens with
those? So, those are ones that Tim kind of keeps a rolling list on. And so, there are some that may be in waiting um to bring forth, you know, restoration plans or vegetation.
Um yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's a great question. Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All right, last roll call of the night. Sarah >> Sarah Seward. I >> Michael.
>> Michael Livingston. I >> Ed >> Ed Fultai. >> Kyle >> Max. Goodbye. >> Carl >> Carl Milberg. I >> myself I it's unanimous. >> Okay. Good evening. >> Thank you. Good evening.