WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=v_A9UYd3wSE NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: v_A9UYd3wSE): - 00:00:10: Call to Order, Meeting Minutes Approval, Corrections - 00:02:38: Scout Project: Webster Woods Sign and Trail Blazing - 00:06:47: Continued Request: Certificate of Compliance, One Sawyer - 00:16:16: Unauthorized Work, Mitigation and Restoration Discussions - 00:25:17: Enforcement Order Discussion: Non-Permitted Dredging, Blood Road - 00:33:57: Public Comment: John Scott, Dredging Company, Perspective - 00:47:51: Public Comment: Jillian Huffenegel, Forge Pond Concerns - 00:50:34: Public Comment: Irv, Long Lake, Weed Harvesting - 00:55:18: Public Comment: Paula Bush, History of Hydroraking - 00:59:10: Tabled Blood Road Decision, Peer Review Not Required - 00:59:41: Enforcement Order Discussion: Two and Six Blood Road - 01:03:41: Public Comment: Matt Salem Expertise for Restoration - 01:05:39: Continued Public Hearing: 17 Worcester Drive Septic - 01:11:56: Tree City USA Approval and Adjournment Motion Part: 1 1 00:00:10.080 --> 00:00:27.680 and call the uh April 7th, 2026 meeting of the Littleton Conservation Commission to order. Uh the first item of business tonight is the approval of meeting minutes. Uh they're from March 21st of 2026. Has everybody had a chance to uh to read these? I haven't actually. They 2 00:00:27.680 --> 00:00:43.440 were quite a lot there. Um, >> yeah, Andrew, I've got uh one correction for you. >> Sure, Michael. >> There's a a line uh uh the commission uh discussed that the objective of the 3 00:00:43.440 --> 00:00:59.359 third party peer review uh and so on and so on. Uh let me get the thing. It says uh should um uh should say likely through a combination of sonarbased baometric 4 00:00:59.359 --> 00:01:18.560 survey and push cores. Okay. Right now it says likely though a combination. Oh, gotcha. Perfect. So, we'll make that correction. Um, are you guys comfortable moving forward with approving them tonight or did you want to have a maybe 5 00:01:18.560 --> 00:01:33.439 another second look and approve them at the next meeting? >> Made a pass through. They they the first pass through was fine and I didn't catch minor things like that. But yeah, no, the substance was good. >> Perfect. Ed, are you uh >> I'm fine except the agenda has the wrong 6 00:01:33.439 --> 00:01:49.920 date on it, but the minutes are correct. The agenda says minutes of March 21, but the minutes are March 24. Ah, >> it's not a big deal because it's the agenda that just I'm fine with that otherwise. And >> Jim, did you have anything that you uh 7 00:01:49.920 --> 00:02:06.159 needed corrected or amended? >> No, I thought they were fine. Thank you. >> Perfect. All right. Well, if somebody would like to so move >> I move that we accept the the meeting minutes for March 24th, 2026 8 00:02:06.159 --> 00:02:22.239 >> as amended. >> As amended. Sorry. Thank you. >> That's all right. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right, it's been moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote. Ed >> Ed Fultai. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Kyle >> Kyle Max 9 00:02:22.239 --> 00:02:38.400 >> myself I it is unanimous. Thank you everybody. So our first administrative item of the night is scout project approval Webster Woods swing sign and blazing. Tim, did you have uh anything to add to that? 10 00:02:38.400 --> 00:03:04.720 >> Yep. So, I'm promoting a a scout over right now, Geon. He's going to give you guys a a brief review on this project. >> Uh hello, >> good evening. >> Yes. Uh I'm going to explain my project 11 00:03:04.720 --> 00:03:21.040 uh real briefly. So basically my project is um uh installing a constructing and installing a wood sign at the entrance of the Bulkley Road property of the Webster Woods and also blazing the 12 00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:40.480 orange, blue and yellow trails of the woods Webster Woods property. Yep. So, so we met with um Gon and Jim Neil, Alisa Russell and Lyall Webster to go over this. Um and we've got a a location for the swing sign staked out. 13 00:03:40.480 --> 00:03:57.200 Um LCT as well as as us, we're going to go out and we're going to actually um help Gon by putting some forestry paint on the trees um to identify which trees uh need the blazes. Um and like Gon said, he's 14 00:03:57.200 --> 00:04:13.120 going to be doing those three trails. He's not going to be doing the one that goes to um where we're hopefully going to be getting the access from 300 Foster Street. Um but that's the only one that that he won't be doing. >> Gotcha. 15 00:04:13.120 --> 00:04:29.600 >> What is a swing sign? >> What was that? >> What is a swing sign? >> So it's it's basically a roadway sign. Um and and so >> the signs we have at all the properties have you seen the signs that hang up? >> Yeah. the the board with the Yeah. with 16 00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:48.320 the little roof. I never knew they were called swing signs. >> Not the kiosks. The like the post signs that have the conservation land title on them. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Swing signs is because they the sign 17 00:04:48.320 --> 00:05:05.280 itself actually hangs from the the wooden um support. >> All right, I get it now. Thank you. Yeah. So, Gon, thank you for um you know, offering to do this for your project. Uh did you have a timeline in mind? 18 00:05:05.280 --> 00:05:23.199 >> Timeline? Well, I Well, uh I need to finish it by June because that's the deadline of my entire scouting career. I know I'm kind of pushing it with uh my entire project, but I will work as fast as I can to help to complete this on 19 00:05:23.199 --> 00:05:39.199 time. >> Perfect. So, it's a hit the ground running kind of project. >> Yes. >> Excellent. Well, you've got some great support with uh Jim and our LCT crew. Uh so, I imagine it'll uh come out beautifully. Um but did anybody else have any other questions? Hey, good 20 00:05:39.199 --> 00:05:59.199 evening, Chase. >> Yeah. Does this include boardwalks or are we only talking in that access area from the Okay, it's just that other >> No boardwalks. No. Good luck. >> Yeah. >> So, if you if there's no more questions, 21 00:05:59.199 --> 00:06:13.919 um we will need a a vote from from you guys for this. >> Sure. Would anybody like to make a motion to uh support Gon's project? >> Move that we support Gon Scout project 22 00:06:13.919 --> 00:06:31.680 at Webster Woods swing sign and blazing. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. All right, it's moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh Kyle >> Kyle Max. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston. I 23 00:06:31.680 --> 00:06:47.440 >> Chase. >> Hey, Scar. I >> Ed >> Ed. >> Excellent. And myself I it is unanimous. Well, good luck on if you needing let us know. But thank you again for stepping up to do this for us. >> Thank you. 24 00:06:47.440 --> 00:07:02.080 >> All right, Chase. Do you want to take over the reigns? >> Um, sure. although it seemed like you had it more than under control. Um, next up is a continued request for a certificate of compliance at one Sawyer. Um, Tim, you want to take us through that one? 25 00:07:02.080 --> 00:07:18.400 >> Yeah. Um, so it's been a while since I think we talked about this at a meeting. Um, but last week, um, Kyle came out with me and Lauren, um, to look at the property. We also received what the commission requested of the applicant 26 00:07:18.400 --> 00:07:34.720 which was um numbers for the deviations from the proposed or the approved plan to the the asbuilt plan specifically when talking about the um the impervious driveway. So I have that that I can show 27 00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:50.880 you guys. And I'm I just now realizing I may have forgot to send it in my in my packet to you guys. If you give me a second, I'll pull it right up. >> We got some elements of it. Uh >> we we got the word document 28 00:07:50.880 --> 00:08:06.400 with the ice built differences. >> Okay, perfect. So, I just sent it to you >> and a PDF. >> Yeah. Okay. Awesome. I'm So, I'll share it here. Um so, you can see the the green is what was um approved but but 29 00:08:06.400 --> 00:08:24.479 not built. Um and the uh the purple outline is what currently exists there today. And so while we were on site um we were talking with the property owner and we did notice that there appeared to be two 30 00:08:24.479 --> 00:08:41.440 tree stumps that were removed in the very I would say outer part of the 100 foot buffer. Um it looked like they had been taken down some time ago. Um and so we were talking about, you know, the commission may want to see some some 31 00:08:41.440 --> 00:08:56.560 replantings to make up for those um before they issue this. We also noticed that um closer towards the the 50ft buffer and maybe within the 50ft buffer, there were I think three or four um 32 00:08:56.560 --> 00:09:12.880 replantings that weren't asked for in the original order. Um and he also the the property owner also noted that he's going to be planting um willows again in in the same general area as those new plantings are towards if not within the 33 00:09:12.880 --> 00:09:28.480 50ft buffer towards if you can see where I'm circling this section of the property. And they look like they had been installed there for quite some time. Um and they didn't appear to be dead although there was no vegetation on 34 00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:48.320 them. So, >> so Tim, were you able to So, you weren't able to find any documentation that had requested that in our original permit. >> No. And and so, sorry, I forgot to mention that. Um, the property owner kept talking about, you know, Amy had 35 00:09:48.320 --> 00:10:09.920 had gone on the site a bunch of times. We thought there was possible that she administratively approved some of the removals uh either for one or or both of those trees that were in the outer 100. that we looked through the file, we didn't see anything. So, we we don't think that that was the case. And Tim, you mentioned replantings. Are 36 00:10:09.920 --> 00:10:27.839 those replantings maybe isn't quite the right word. Plantings, those plantings that were not part of the original plan, were those >> installed concurrently with this driveway or did this predate that? Like help me understand the timeline of the 37 00:10:27.839 --> 00:10:43.920 planting of those trees. >> I I my understanding is that the plantings went in after the driveway was done. >> Yeah, it seemed as part of the project, Chase. Yeah. And there there was >> around the same time. >> Yeah. And there was quite a bit there was pro there was additional plantings, but they were outside of the 100 foot as 38 00:10:43.920 --> 00:11:00.640 well. Um at the south page view of this thing and you're basically up against the roadway along their fence line. Um and like I said, they had the intent so you haven't got anything back from them either, right? So he intended on planting willows and then he said he had 39 00:11:00.640 --> 00:11:17.440 a few other um planting ideas that he planned on precuring. Um so I had asked him to lay that out on that plan that we was looking at and provide that to Tim. >> We did get something I think after I sent out the um the packet last week. I'll share it with you guys right now. 40 00:11:17.440 --> 00:11:34.800 Um it's not very uh it's it's Not very specific, but um it shows the area where he plans to do the planting of the uh the willows. >> Yeah, Willows and some other shorter type of tree. I thought he says he had 41 00:11:34.800 --> 00:11:54.000 mentioned. Yeah. >> And Tim, I I hate to do this to you, but remind me where's our 50 foot and where's our resource area boundary? I guess it >> it actually looks like the the 50 foot. It It doesn't even appear 42 00:11:54.000 --> 00:12:10.000 to be on here. This is the 100. >> That's 100 foot. Yep. >> The dash, right? >> This is the the resource area itself. It's a stream. >> Um >> this might be the might be the 25. >> Okay. >> So, what this is missing the 50 foot. 43 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:35.200 I'm not totally dense. Okay. And how much of the do we do we have a sense of how much additional footprint is within the 50? >> It's very minimal. It's like a little 44 00:12:35.200 --> 00:12:51.440 section of the driveway right here. Um it's not much at all. The majority of the added impervious is outside the 50 >> overwhelmingly. >> And they actually reduced they reduced the amount of permitted work within the 50 cuz that the whole end of the 45 00:12:51.440 --> 00:13:11.600 driveway was supposed to extend further out and it's it did not. >> Okay. But that's just like into the road, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a dirt road. It's not a paved road. Gotcha. Okay. So, the trees that were removed, there 46 00:13:11.600 --> 00:13:30.000 was one right here, uh, and another one right about here. >> And those trees that were removed were removed because of the shed or because of the driveway. It looks like you're pointing down to the sort of southern end of the site. 47 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:48.000 >> Yeah. Um, he said that they were removed because they were dead. >> Yeah. The stumps are still in place for what it's worth. Yeah. And they have Well, we asked him not to remove it, but he had no intentions of removing the stumps. Um 48 00:13:48.000 --> 00:14:06.959 mainly because of where they're located. They're in tough spots, but there's no shed either. So, you mentioned shed, but the shed is not going to be constructed. It's not a practical area for them apparently from what he said. to construct on there for 49 00:14:06.959 --> 00:14:23.519 based on where their yard is and for all the equipment that a shed would need storage um so it still remains unfinished area. >> Oh, okay. I I guess I misunderstood that and maybe we had covered that last time because the second part of the document 50 00:14:23.519 --> 00:14:55.360 you sent Tim had like shed area differences. So, what's what's shown there? If you can go over to the Word document. >> Yeah, give me a second. I don't have that one up actually. Chase, 51 00:14:55.360 --> 00:15:19.680 do you have it up? Is can you share it or >> Yeah, let me Yeah, I have it up too. Um, let's see. This is what I was referring to. >> So, in the document you sent, sorry, you're looking at it through my Gmail, but um, 52 00:15:19.680 --> 00:15:37.760 we had this shed area differences. So, this shed hasn't been constructed. >> No, it's not going to be constructed. >> Not going to be. Okay. And the green area here was part of the plan, right? So, and we're just looking 53 00:15:37.760 --> 00:15:56.720 at the arch. Yeah. So, that this was that was the contractor's layown area basically. So, everything in that green and yellow hatching has been disturbed and had it was been whether it had been leveled out or it's just level area, it's you disturbed and has a a gravel base to it. 54 00:15:56.720 --> 00:16:16.079 It does have vegetation growing in it. It's a a weeded grass area at this point. >> Okay. >> Well, I've got my understanding of this. I other folks, you guys have questions before we transition to So, what are we going to do? 55 00:16:16.079 --> 00:16:40.480 >> No, I'm good. So then we transition to the what are we going to do part and I think you know my understanding is we had work that wasn't authorized but I I I'll tell you my my initial thought 56 00:16:40.480 --> 00:17:00.800 is I I I really really don't like this whole permitting after the fact and plans are guidance rather than what's actually going to be constructed. That That's not okay. That very not okay. At the same time, I'm disincclined to 57 00:17:00.800 --> 00:17:18.160 make people rip things out. That doesn't seem productive. It just seems punitive. But we keep having these issues. So, at some point, we're going to have to get to the point where we just say no to people. And you you have to construct what was approved or change it if you do construct it. 58 00:17:18.160 --> 00:17:33.200 >> Yeah. I I I agree with you, Chase. Um, and it's definitely a case by case scenario. I think for me in this in this scenario, mainly because the work that was done within the 50 was reduced and altered. So, you took down the plan, but 59 00:17:33.200 --> 00:17:48.559 the the bump out of the driveway that was supposed to be closer to the house. >> It was, you know, kind of flipped over onto the other side of the driveway now would drain away from the resource area, away from the driveway. And uh that strip of permitted space is now 60 00:17:48.559 --> 00:18:04.080 vegetated or has garden beds and and river rock um protecting the resource area from any driveway runoff rather than just having the driveway runoff go down the hill into the street. Sure. >> Um, so I do, but I totally agree with you that yeah, I we're starting to see 61 00:18:04.080 --> 00:18:20.160 these plans more as guidance than um, >> letter of the law type stuff. >> And that's that's reason I said case by case basis say where >> I think in the end this was probably a better project for for our resource area. I don't know if it is for the 62 00:18:20.160 --> 00:18:39.600 homeowner or not, but I would have rather have seen this plan come in than the previous plan. Ed, it sounded like you were going to say something. >> I was just saying and also the shed does not get built, which is another 63 00:18:39.600 --> 00:19:05.440 positive. >> So, what's everybody's pleasure here? I don't want to sound like a broken record, but because I know it's probably not true, but doesn't seem like we have many options here. Um, I >> I mean to be clear, I I think you're 64 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:21.360 right, Ed. I don't think we have good options, but to be clear, we do have an option, which is rip out everything that was not permitted. I I I say that largely to make a point because I >> I just can't understand the value of 65 00:19:21.360 --> 00:19:37.520 doing that, but at some point I'm going to get even grouchier and start make people do that. >> No, I I I understand. Um, you know, it's like giving the building um 66 00:19:37.520 --> 00:19:55.120 inspector a plan and then when he comes back, you know, you give him a plan for a for a one-story ranch and when he comes back he's got a fourstory mansion. I hear you. Mhm. >> Um could to satisfy 67 00:19:55.120 --> 00:20:12.000 my sense of let's say equity here could like the southern portion of the site where the shed was going to be and trees were removed even though we have different plantings in different areas. Kyle, you were out there to see it in Sigia. Tim, is there any value in asking 68 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:29.039 the applicant to add some shrub replantings or something like that in there to reveitated and essentially enhance the compensatory work that they're doing to the site as a whole even if we're not doing it in a specific location or do 69 00:20:29.039 --> 00:20:47.919 you think that wouldn't work there? >> You're saying within that area where the the the tree removed so essentially that graveled area. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um Kyle didn't I think he said he had plans to add more shrubs just maybe not in that gravel area but kind of 70 00:20:47.919 --> 00:21:06.159 >> Yeah, he definitely did. and and that's I'm wondering if we ask I think he would be amendable to that unless he planned on using that for other other uses which is why I think we should ask for it right to to kind of take that area back where it can't be used as lay down yard 71 00:21:06.159 --> 00:21:22.240 storage or a parking or something like that any further um said it was used for but >> from both an ecological perspective and from a reasonleness perspective That makes a lot more sense to me than making 72 00:21:22.240 --> 00:21:38.320 them rip out something that in your opinion, Kyle, is a better project, you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I do I do think I mean the the property is gorgeous. He had he had shrubs and plantings everywhere. A lot of you could It's very new um young. 73 00:21:38.320 --> 00:21:55.120 Uh so I I think on top of what he said he was already doing, if we kind of guide him into that, I think they'd be very willing to do that. Um, and he going, you know, the next step further where I guess we're probably ultimately heading here is I don't think I'm ready. I know they want to move 74 00:21:55.120 --> 00:22:10.080 quickly with this. They have they're trying to get paperwork lined up for ownership stuff and and whatnot, but I'm not sure if we're comfortable signing off on this yet without all of that in place. I I do appreciate that that there are the 75 00:22:10.080 --> 00:22:25.200 the three or four trees that yeah, in my opinion looked like they were alive and healthy um that had already been planted. I just wonder if that's if we're going to ask to do more, can we sign off on this? And do we do we lose any teeth we 76 00:22:25.200 --> 00:22:49.039 have if we do that? Andrew, Michael, you guys have been quiet. Jim, you guys have any thoughts on where you'd like to go here? >> Yeah, based off of what we've discussed, I mean, I think our best course of action is probably to kick this over to our next meeting and ask them to make 77 00:22:49.039 --> 00:23:05.679 these additional plantings and see if they're amenable. And if they are, uh, maybe then we'll be ready to to issue. We want we don't want to hold them up too much, but I think another meeting, another two weeks is reasonable considering what's been done outside of the scope of the original plan. 78 00:23:05.679 --> 00:23:22.559 >> Yeah. And he was going to move forward with the plantings regardless. I think anyway, but if as far as location, if we could ask him about that, I think that makes sense, Sandra. Yeah. Get his buy in before we sign off on anything. I if we do that, I'd like to make sure that Tim, you or Lauren is involved, not just 79 00:23:22.559 --> 00:23:38.960 in the location, but also the species selection to make sure they're things that we are we think enhance and add value from a wetlands protection perspective. >> Yeah. Are are you guys looking for shrubs? 80 00:23:38.960 --> 00:23:55.919 >> I think so. I I I would say yes. I think because there's definitely some trees in that surrounding area, the perimeter of that area. So, I'm not sure adding trees in there if they would survive or if they would get >> just choked out by lack of sunlight >> once things fill in. >> I didn't really get species of existing 81 00:23:55.919 --> 00:24:11.840 trees there, but >> okay. >> I I think that makes the most sense, Tim, if you're comfortable working with them to let's say add shrubs. Kyle, is it worthwhile, you've seen it, to 82 00:24:11.840 --> 00:24:27.679 specify a number, or should we just empower Tim and Lauren to come up with something reasonable to add TRS? >> Yeah, I I would trust Tim and Lauren. I I mean, it's not going to be a dozen TRs. It's not even I don't even think it'll be six, honestly. It might be 83 00:24:27.679 --> 00:24:43.200 anywhere maybe from three to six, something like that. It's >> Let's say that then. Sure. three to six in the right locations in the right species that achieve uh you know some wildlife benefit 84 00:24:43.200 --> 00:24:57.679 >> sounds good. >> Yeah, I like that to limit the use in that area because I he's like he he was willing to regrass it and everything and I was like I don't think that that's necessarily the option that people are going to want to hear but yeah so I like this plan. 85 00:24:57.679 --> 00:25:15.880 >> Ed, Michael, you guys have any objections to this? Oh, that sounds reasonable. >> Yeah. No objections. >> Very good. I don't think we need a motion. Tim, you and Lauren, carry on and we'll continue it for two weeks. 86 00:25:17.520 --> 00:25:33.919 Okay. Uh well, let's see. It's almost 8:00. So, let's um let's move on to our 7:45 p.m. which is the continued discussion enforcement order non-p permitting dredge eight 87 00:25:33.919 --> 00:25:49.440 blood road as we've done in the past because these are two different enforcement orders. We are going to take them sequentially but I think it should be understood that it's not our intention to rehash everything in the two and six blood road to the extent 88 00:25:49.440 --> 00:26:05.520 that the eight blood road discussion overlaps with that but we are going to take them independently. Um so we're going to open that up. Um Tim I I think do you want to lay the groundwork? I know there are a couple 89 00:26:05.520 --> 00:26:22.159 site visits Kyle and I can speak to at least one. Has there been anything from Mass D? >> Nothing further. Nothing more than the guidance that they gave me that I expressed at the last meeting about how they suggested that the commission asked for a third party peer review to be done to determine how much material was 90 00:26:22.159 --> 00:26:37.840 removed from the area and also that the commission implement um a notice uh x amount of time for the for the area to just let it renaturalize. >> Okay. And then if if the commission 91 00:26:37.840 --> 00:26:55.559 wants to move forward with this as like with the restoration or remediation as an enforcement order under an enforcement order that's already in place or if they also want to see this done under an after the fact NOI. >> Gotcha. Okay. 92 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:17.320 >> Okay. And um Oh, did we bring John? Oh, John's in. Okay, >> John should be over. Great. Thanks, Tim. I >> I just have a question. You know, we're talking about renaturalizing. What What does that mean in this context? Exactly. 93 00:27:18.480 --> 00:27:37.360 >> Especially where a lot of the where the work was done was literally underwater. >> Well, it is. And you know I'm I'm just asking in the from the point of view is you know uh are we allowing the invasive 94 00:27:37.360 --> 00:27:56.640 weeds to come back? >> Was the intent of his work to renaturalize it? Is that >> Yeah. No, that's what I mean is I I don't really know what that means now. >> Yeah. I I think we to the extent that we choose that to be something that needs 95 00:27:56.640 --> 00:28:13.360 to be done. Michael, we're going to need to talk about what what that means. I would say at a minimum that means we're not going to go out and disturb the sediments there. And I would also think we should consider things like um 96 00:28:13.360 --> 00:28:31.520 eliminating motorboat traffic over that area so that we're not, you know, it's what we saw in some of the um I'm not being at all clear. I apologize for my ineloquence. What we saw when we looked at the site was there's a lot of sediment mounds out there and things and 97 00:28:31.520 --> 00:28:48.559 to run motorboats over that risks turning those up as well as all the seeds and everything that's already in them. Um and and actually moving around additional invasive species that's in that. So I think that would be a thing that we would want to talk about in the renaturalization, right? allowing the 98 00:28:48.559 --> 00:29:04.320 sediment bed to come back to a more stable place so that motorboats are not churning it up any more than they would need to. And right now it's it's somewhat more prone to that potentially. Um I don't know that that's me just 99 00:29:04.320 --> 00:29:21.039 spitballing. >> Yeah. No, that makes sense. uh particularly since we'd already talked about um the sentiment just kind of drifting back in now uh just because that's what it does. >> Yeah. Um I think a couple things to 100 00:29:21.039 --> 00:29:36.960 note. So I think uh all of us most of us were out for a site visit what about a week and a half ago. Um Kyle and I we followed up from that. Kyle and I did a site visit yesterday 101 00:29:36.960 --> 00:29:52.799 with uh chest waiters instead of hip hip waiters that the hip waiters weren't going to get the job done and took some I think interesting video out there and Kyle went out with an augur to take a look at it. Um I'll I'll summarize. We 102 00:29:52.799 --> 00:30:09.279 sent Tim a site visit report. I don't know if that's been circulated yet, but long story short, um there's we essentially walked a transex from the shoreline out into the area that was dredged and this is true of both eight 103 00:30:09.279 --> 00:30:26.000 blood road and two and six. So, we sort of worked along the shoreline. Um there's, as the property owners described, there's a pretty clear shelf out there where it it gets deeper pretty quickly and then it stays relatively flat. um once you get past that shelf 104 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:41.360 that's close to the shore. One of the things that I I think and Kyle correct me if I'm wrong, but certainly I noticed was um once we got out into the area that we think it's it's hard to figure out exactly where it was dredged um because the shoreline keeps moving with 105 00:30:41.360 --> 00:30:57.679 the water rise. Um there was definitely noticeable changes in sediment texture once you got out into that area. closer to the shoreline, it's there was um relatively thick deposits of soft sediment when we got out further. And I 106 00:30:57.679 --> 00:31:12.720 mean like the water's right at my chest waiters kind of, you know, we're in 4 ft of water probably at that point or maybe even a touch more. Um >> there was there were areas that were didn't have much or any soft sediment. 107 00:31:12.720 --> 00:31:29.760 It was uh much coarser grain sediment and you could feel that in your boots, right? they're not dropping down into the sediment. Um, I took a couple of videos and you can definitely see areas in those um videos with a um phone in an underwater case, right? So, nothing too 108 00:31:29.760 --> 00:31:47.600 scientific here, but um where there's there appear to be areas of exposed gravel rather than soft sediments, which is consistent with having dredged it. Um there was also areas in like 4 ft of water that looked like um excavator 109 00:31:47.600 --> 00:32:02.480 tracks which is in not surprising because it was an excavator that did the equipment but or did the work. Um but I think it does speak to the rate of sediment accretion out there that sediment accretion is not fast enough to 110 00:32:02.480 --> 00:32:19.200 have masked those tracks yet. And I'm sure over time it it will. Um, but that's not surprising to me. You know, sediment accretion of a few centimeters a year is pretty typical. You know, uh, we don't typically measure sediment 111 00:32:19.200 --> 00:32:34.640 accretion in feet per year. So, this is only a month or so. So, you wouldn't expect a ton of sedimentation in there, which is also consistent with seeing some of the gravel deposits and and so on. Um, Kyle, any any other observations you want to note there? No, I think you 112 00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:51.919 you nailed it. >> Um, so I think where that left me is there was some discussion two weeks ago about whether or not we would be able to identify with underwater surveying 113 00:32:51.919 --> 00:33:09.840 methods whether or not we could identify the footprint and the depth that was um dredged. I think it is it remains in my opinion reasonably likely that we could. It may not be possible. It may be 114 00:33:09.840 --> 00:33:25.279 too chewed up to to sort it out, but given that we saw different sediment textures, a baometric survey might help us sort that out. But we also had questions two weeks ago about, frankly, whether or not the juice was worth the 115 00:33:25.279 --> 00:33:41.919 squeeze to do that. And I think that's one of the things that we should probably discuss tonight given that and we haven't gotten estimates but a a baometric survey or an underwater camera survey are going to cost thousands of dollars you know not tens of thousands 116 00:33:41.919 --> 00:33:57.279 of dollars but definitely thousands of dollars and if that is a good use of resources and time or if we would prefer to look at this maybe in a different way. So, with that preamble, I think we'll open it up. You know, Mr. Scott, I 117 00:33:57.279 --> 00:34:13.679 I don't know if you have any comments. I don't think things have changed much, but if if there's anything else that you want to offer for the record, we're certainly interested in hearing it. Um I I've spoke to a a company that does do 118 00:34:13.679 --> 00:34:30.560 lake restoration and they said that doing a sonar really would be extremely difficult in an aspect like that where when you drain the lake the water freezes which is why we drain the lake and pushes sediment back to shore. So it would be basically entirely pointless. 119 00:34:30.560 --> 00:34:46.079 It's not like it's a a channel that's got pretty even sides and even bottom and you can clearly tell where there's a different area is. Um I think that'd be a very very hard thing to do and just be wasting our money for what reason? I mean we're here to help 120 00:34:46.079 --> 00:35:02.079 the town and help make the lake better. And the company also stated that shy getting a permit there isn't a single thing we could have done to do our job better than the way we did it. Everything was frozen. We used a boat ramp spread on agricultural fields. I 121 00:35:02.079 --> 00:35:16.720 don't think it's possible to do it any any more right shy. We didn't get a permit of course and we'd be happy to help. I'm I'm not going to speak for Irv here, but I'd be sure we'd be happy to help, you know, with the town's dredging permit that 122 00:35:16.720 --> 00:35:32.560 they're going for. And I'm sure would be willing to help, too. And, you know, we put our time and resources to helping the lake versus just hurting us financially. I don't think anyone's here to hurt you financially. I think you hit the nail on 123 00:35:32.560 --> 00:35:49.680 the head though. You said shy of having a permit and had there been a permit, we probably wouldn't be here today. But at the same time, I'm I'm also inclined. It doesn't make sense to spend money 124 00:35:49.680 --> 00:36:06.000 just to spend the money. So, um, you know, what Chase described makes it pretty clear that we can that, you know, one, it's clear something was done, which we already knew. You admitted it. Um, but likewise, we also know, and you could see it when 125 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:21.520 we were there, the water all was coming into into your area. Um, so eventually things are going to come in. I I'm not an expert on how to how to remediate remediate I guess remediate um this but 126 00:36:21.520 --> 00:36:36.800 me personally I would rather see us spend the effort on a more productive manner than just to have you spend you know however many thousand dollar and end up where we're 127 00:36:36.800 --> 00:36:54.640 at today. It feels to me >> and I think one of the things that weighs in on that too, Ed, is what we've heard from both the residents at 8 Blood Road and two and six is the number of truckloads and the volume 128 00:36:54.640 --> 00:37:11.920 of those trucks, right? Like we what we heard was six truckloads on the order of 10 to 12 cubic yards per truck. And so one of the things we have to weigh is if there is value in getting a more precise 129 00:37:11.920 --> 00:37:29.440 estimate of that volume or attempting to get a more precise estimate of that volume by surveying the lake bottom. >> Now what say there was six yards, 60 yards, 600 yards. What would really change? 130 00:37:29.440 --> 00:37:46.079 So if you were to go above 99 cubic yards, the state would require that you get a water quality certification permit with chapter 91. >> Water quality certification in what regards? >> Uh so like a drenching permit. >> You didn't get a permit. Yeah, 131 00:37:46.079 --> 00:38:02.800 >> right. We have separate from us. >> But but John, let me emphasize here that this isn't just a paperwork issue. And I I appreciate that your um who you reached out to thinks it couldn't have been done better, but I'm going to tell you that we 132 00:38:02.800 --> 00:38:17.920 certainly would not have allowed you to go do the work the way that you did it if you showed up and said that's what you were proposing. And some of the things that we would have looked at and asked you to consider would have included 133 00:38:17.920 --> 00:38:35.599 um erosion controls around the work, right? We don't want to run sediment off into the lake and move it around. we would have asked you to look at or we would have wanted to understand this project's impact on things like turtles that are 134 00:38:35.599 --> 00:38:52.320 going to nest in that mud at that time of year and whether or not that was the right time of year to do that. Um, we would have wanted to understand the quality of the sediment and whether or not it it should have and and made sense to apply to upland fields. Um, and there 135 00:38:52.320 --> 00:39:08.079 probably would have been water quality monitoring to go along with that to verify all these things. So, I I don't want to I I appreciate that at the end of the day this may have looked very similar, but I don't think we should take for granted that it would have 136 00:39:08.079 --> 00:39:25.280 looked very similar. And simply saying, well, we just didn't get a permit really undercuts all of the things that we would have looked at and changed potentially when we got a chance to weigh this ahead of time. So let I I don't think it's 137 00:39:25.280 --> 00:39:40.160 productive to go down a pathway of all the things that should have been done. I think it's much more productive to look forward and say what is the appropriate response to what was done. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to learn so that we could apply for something like this in the future 138 00:39:40.160 --> 00:39:56.560 >> or know what questions to ask to try to help the town out in the future with their 5,000 yard permit. >> Understood. Yeah. And and it's a fair question. Um, here here's one of the things that I've been kicking around and understand 139 00:39:56.560 --> 00:40:12.320 that this is not um I think we'd have to talk to town council about this. Um, one of the things that was important in my thinking as I looked at this was I 140 00:40:12.320 --> 00:40:28.720 assumed, forgive me for the assumption, but I I assumed that this was primarily done to enhance beachfronts, like access, the quality of the beach. When we got out there and looked at it, it was clear to me that 141 00:40:28.720 --> 00:40:46.240 um it it really wasn't just to do that. And it did strike me as much more consistent with invasive species management than just managing and enhancing the recreational quality of some private beaches. That factors in my thinking not insignificantly. 142 00:40:46.240 --> 00:41:01.680 >> Sorry, I I confused it. You I feel like you said the same thing twice about enhancing the beachfront but also removing ad invasive weeds. >> I they were they're very I mean the kids don't like swimming there and they they're a tangle hazard. I mean, they're 143 00:41:01.680 --> 00:41:16.560 they're terrible. And you could see where you're walking, it's only 4 ft deep there. I mean, we walk in the water. We try to get our kids to learn to swim in that area at just just deep enough so their feet aren't touching. >> And with the weeds, it's terrible. 144 00:41:16.560 --> 00:41:35.599 Absolutely terrible right over there. >> And my takeaway was that that was the objective, not just to like make the beach more recreation friendly, right? It it was to manage the invasives. Ed, I'm sorry I cut you off. >> No, no, that's okay. I was just about to 145 00:41:35.599 --> 00:41:51.760 say that uh that I think John was not understanding that that you were heading toward this wasn't a beach improvement. This was a invasive species cleanup. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um that said, I John, one of our 146 00:41:51.760 --> 00:42:07.440 problems and and this applies to two and six is we we fundamentally cannot have in Lake Madawanaki, every individual property owner going it alone to figure out how to resolve what's immediately in front of their 147 00:42:07.440 --> 00:42:24.880 property. And to be clear, not on their property. um that that's not a a reasonable pathway to address the a collective problem of invasive species in Lake Meowanaki >> and that's where we're stuck a little bit. 148 00:42:24.880 --> 00:42:43.200 >> Yeah. Would we be able to go in by hand then? Like what's kind of a gray area then? >> The there have been hand removal. Um there have been hand removal. uh processes that have been done before. 149 00:42:43.200 --> 00:43:00.000 So here here's here's what I'm thinking and I'd like to put it out there. Is there a way that we could ask the applicants to uh not applicants the the residents of a blood road and I think this will come to two and six as well to do some sort of restoration to recognize 150 00:43:00.000 --> 00:43:15.440 the fact that there were things done not exactly the way we want but let's say more productive restoration or even let's say make a financial contribution and John I don't I'm not implying you're good with this but I want to keep the 151 00:43:15.440 --> 00:43:31.839 options open um a financial contribution to a more productive exercise for the lake than just making them pay for surveying activities or something. >> Offering inind services to help in you know offering trucking or when the town 152 00:43:31.839 --> 00:43:49.280 gets their their permit and machine time or anything like that be willing to offer. I I think that's what I' I'd like to explore is whether or not the commission is willing to look at restoration more broadly than just in the context of this prism of sediment. 153 00:43:49.280 --> 00:44:03.839 >> Yes, >> that is consistent with how we've handled others where we somebody took down a tree, you know, we didn't say, okay, you know, that's what you want. even though that's a terrible place to 154 00:44:03.839 --> 00:44:20.640 put it back, but instead give us three over in this other better place. You know, a terrible description, but >> yeah. >> Yeah, >> makes sense. You know, people want to get a permit done, they have to put a sidewalk on one side of town to, you know, appease the other side of town. 155 00:44:20.640 --> 00:44:36.800 >> Yeah, kind of. >> What I want to avoid is the moral hazard of permitting after the fact, right? I I I do think, John, that the fact that we don't have a permit and didn't get to evaluate those things, I don't want to 156 00:44:36.800 --> 00:44:54.240 be unnecessarily punitive, but I also think we can't have that. >> Yeah. I mean, you got a job to do. >> Yeah. Pays like crap, too. >> In a different way. It kind of falls in the same category as the previous uh 157 00:44:54.240 --> 00:45:10.240 review that we just finished, you know, after the fact. What is what is the commission's appetite to request or or maybe consider things up to and including 158 00:45:10.240 --> 00:45:27.599 um inind services or a financial contribution to the broader key invasive restoration needs that the town has and if that's something you're willing to consider I I think we should table this and talk to town council about where the lines are because I it's not 159 00:45:27.599 --> 00:45:42.960 totally clear, but if you're not willing to consider it, we won't waste the effort. >> I think doing something in kind's a great idea. >> Uh there's plenty to do and uh um you know, having hands on it would be I 160 00:45:42.960 --> 00:45:59.200 think more valuable than um extra dollars, the dollars we can find, I think. >> Okay, >> I would agree with that. I think um as Michael pointed out, we need all hands for invasive plant control. John and his family care, you know, about the lake 161 00:45:59.200 --> 00:46:15.839 and I'm sure want to help out wherever possible. And I think that's more valuable and at the end of the day as opposed to saying, "Okay, you know, pay the town x amount." Um, absolutely. They they offer very unique 162 00:46:15.839 --> 00:46:32.560 options because of the equipment they have and the skills they have um and what have you. I I'd rather see something like that than to ask them to, you know, shell out some number of dollars. Okay. >> Just to go do an underwater survey to 163 00:46:32.560 --> 00:46:48.240 >> measure a thing that Okay. >> And not to backtrack on that, Chase, but what would be the end? So, say an underwater survey is what we request. What do we get from that? We get a footprint. >> Do we get a depth? We don't get We don't necessarily get a 164 00:46:48.240 --> 00:47:04.160 >> best case scenario. >> Yeah. best case scenario and this is could be a lot worse than best case is we could use it to estimate a volume >> right but I'm and I am incredibly skeptical of that and that's I agree that that's the route maybe the 165 00:47:04.160 --> 00:47:20.079 appropriate route but I am very skeptical that I agree we get an area I think that's a no-brainer we can get that a volume I struggle getting something more accurate than what the residents have provided us with um might 166 00:47:20.079 --> 00:47:35.200 be different in my mind too, Kyle, if we didn't have some, >> albeit somewhat crude way of estimating volumes. You know, trucks times volume. Okay, we >> we know we're 60 to 80. >> You're in a ballpark. >> 50 to 70. 167 00:47:35.200 --> 00:47:51.119 >> And I'm just not sure in a small area that we're talking that a survey, an underwater survey gets us closer than that. So, we proposed alternative here, I think, is hands and feet above a better option. We do have a couple of attendees who'd like 168 00:47:51.119 --> 00:48:07.599 to speak. So, let me um if it's okay with you guys, let me uh allow them to speak. I think Miss Huffenegel, you were up first. So, if I'm doing this right, you should be able to comment now. Could you please identify yourself for the record? >> Hi, I'm Jillian Huffaggle. I live at 41R 169 00:48:07.599 --> 00:48:25.040 Beaverbrook Road on Forge Pond. And one of the things I'm a little concerned about is that we're doing this a little bit in isolation. Um, I had someone from the conservation committee out to my property to talk about the water lines on the westward side. And I want to make sure that we're doing this as a cohesive 170 00:48:25.040 --> 00:48:43.040 effort. Um, this is a shared body of water that is enjoyed not only by residents of Littleton and Westford, but it's a public body. We have people from all over the area in a 50-mi radius that enjoy this body of water. And the concept of allowing time for regrowth 171 00:48:43.040 --> 00:48:58.160 and preventing any motorboats from traversing that particular area just simply won't happen. We cannot prevent boats from going in that area because the body of water, even though the Westford Police Department has rights 172 00:48:58.160 --> 00:49:14.400 through the EPA to police the waters, they're not staffed to police the waters. And so there's no way to prevent boats from traversing that particular area. I'm very much in favor of the neighborhoods coming together and the towns coming together and focusing on the inkind donations for the 173 00:49:14.400 --> 00:49:30.160 remediation. And one thing I would love for the committee to clarify for me and any resident on the lake, am I going to get in trouble if I rake my kids swim area by hand? It's my understanding that even plucking weeds by hand is 174 00:49:30.160 --> 00:49:46.960 considered dredging. So if I go out with my rake to make sure my kids can swim safe safely, what happens to me? What happens to Michael, my neighbor, three doors down, if he's out there baking? I would just love that clarity. >> Well, since you're in Westford, we won't 175 00:49:46.960 --> 00:50:03.680 do anything about it. Um the next comment is and Miss Huffenegel to your point about um boats traversing it. I think we're we're talking about an area of the lake where we appreciate that you pro we 176 00:50:03.680 --> 00:50:19.359 probably couldn't eliminate anyone from going across there. And we have no intention of policing it, you know, and posting a police officer there, but is certainly within our jurisdiction to prevent the two properties that were immediately adjacent and who were also 177 00:50:19.359 --> 00:50:34.800 involved in the dredging from traversing that for a period of time. And that would be entirely consistent with an enforcement order. So, um, Irv, I'll, um, hand it over to you. V if you uh you 178 00:50:34.800 --> 00:50:51.760 should be able to >> comment on Chase. >> Yeah. >> Tim, didn't you say or didn't do I remember you saying that there is an actions occurring to combine the 179 00:50:51.760 --> 00:51:08.400 Westford and Littleton for some kind of conservation thing on the lake. >> Yeah. So, we're we've talked with Westbird about uh getting into an intermunicipal agreement uh to have the herbicide treatments uh done this 180 00:51:08.400 --> 00:51:24.480 upcoming year and in subsequent years um with Westford to address the invasive species. >> And and Tim, could you you're probably going to ask the same thing I was, Kyle. What has Littleton done historically there or what has the Long Lake 181 00:51:24.480 --> 00:51:41.280 Neighborhood Association done? Um, my understanding is it was kind of getting and and this could be wrong. Um, my understanding is that it was kind of flipping year to year where Littleton would pay for it and then Western pay 182 00:51:41.280 --> 00:51:56.800 for it the next year and and back and forth. That's my understanding from from when I spent some time over at the water department. Um, I don't know if it was like that, you know, for a long time or if that was just like, you know, two years prior that that I was there. 183 00:51:56.800 --> 00:52:12.400 >> So, the long the short story there there has been applications applied over the past years. >> That's >> Yeah, far as I've been told, there's never been anything put in this lake >> or or >> That's correct. I've lived on this lake 184 00:52:12.400 --> 00:52:28.000 since I was 12. We've never used pesticides. >> They were doing eco harvesting. harvesting. Yeah, >> that's when they were doing the the >> no pesticide. >> Littleton would pay for one year, Westward would pay for the next. >> And we currently have an open and 185 00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:46.480 approved order of conditions for herbicide application in the lake and we're waiting for the right time of year to apply that. Correct. >> Right. And one thing that I did want to add in talking about contributions with inind services is, you know, we have our 186 00:52:46.480 --> 00:53:02.240 forecast right now is that we're going to be doing herbicides next year and and you know, who knows what that the following year is. With the the concept of of trucking uh material offsite not being very clear, right? Because we're doing herbicides, you know, there might 187 00:53:02.240 --> 00:53:18.559 not be any trucking offsite. One of the things we do have on the horizon is is permitting boardwalks at Webster and uh Cascal in the trees which I would imagine the state is going to require wetland recreation for that. So there's going to have to be some sort of excavation of material there. So that's another thing that you guys can think 188 00:53:18.559 --> 00:53:35.920 about. So it's not on it's not going to happen on Lake Madawanaki, but it's you know other conservation properties. And I also think in terms of responding to this enforcement order, there's also the opportunity to do let's say uh indirect restoration things like shoreline 189 00:53:35.920 --> 00:53:50.800 plantings or something like that in the property that the the property owners own. Um, I think we're getting a little bit off topic because I I do want to focus on this enforcement order, but I think it's important for everyone to understand that the both the towns of 190 00:53:50.800 --> 00:54:07.040 Littleton and Westford are actively involved in trying to figure out how to manage these things, including creating like management plans and herbicide applications and um and physical removal in the past like eco-h harvesting. Um, 191 00:54:07.040 --> 00:54:25.440 Irv, I'll I think you should be unmuted. >> I think I am. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Great. Um, you know, honestly, we realize that what we did was not permanent and not correct and we take 192 00:54:25.440 --> 00:54:43.200 responsibility for that. Um, >> no, I'm a fast learner. I'm not going to I'm not it's not going to happen again, you know. And um and it definitely was our intention to help the lake. I mean, truthfully, can I say in 30 years, I've 193 00:54:43.200 --> 00:55:00.880 been in the water two times. So, it's for me, it's nothing to do with the water. We didn't even put our boat in last year. So, um you know, whatever you need us to do, we are willing to help. Um I think you >> No, last year um they approached me when 194 00:55:00.880 --> 00:55:18.480 they were doing the weed harvest. I believe that's what they called it. Um they backed their trailer in, you know, right down my boat ramp and stuff and I, you know, absolutely, you know, I was there to help, you know. Understood. 195 00:55:18.480 --> 00:55:33.839 Um folks, we will come back to you when we get to the I just because we have these separate, I'm going to um we will come back to you. Um I I think it's largely the same, but administratively we have to handle them a little bit separately. Um, I have someone with 196 00:55:33.839 --> 00:55:49.280 their hand raised. Paula's iPad. I'm gonna allow you to make your comment. Could you please identify yourself? >> Paula Bush, 31 Madawani Trail. Um, I just want to say that we have had hydraing done on this lake 20 or more 197 00:55:49.280 --> 00:56:05.280 years and I was always the organizer of it and we um would get individual property owners to hydrate in front of their house. They would put the debris on the shore and the homeowner was responsible for removing it. 198 00:56:05.280 --> 00:56:20.880 >> Thank you. >> Have as many hours >> and you could have as many hours as you want. You just paid per hour. >> You paid per hour for it. >> Yep. And it's only been in the last couple of years that it's been handed over to the clean lakes committee. But I was always in charge of getting that permitted and contacting all the 199 00:56:20.880 --> 00:56:38.160 homeowners on the lake and then we would um have them hydro rake in front of each property. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yep. >> So, um, coming back to Eight Blood Road, what I've heard from, 200 00:56:38.160 --> 00:56:57.000 >> um, what I've heard from John Scott is you would be willing to contemplate a broader >> set of >> responses. Sorry, >> I think we've got someone unmuted here. 201 00:56:58.960 --> 00:57:15.200 Yeah, I think we're good now. Um, and John, it sounds like from the commission's perspective, we're willing to sort of explore those things, but we need a couple weeks to check in and understand what what range of, let's say, incind services or something might be available to us to to handle 202 00:57:15.200 --> 00:57:30.079 restoration. So, um, we're going to table this for a couple weeks unless there are any other comments on this. >> We can't lift enforce an order. What would that change with the area? >> Hold the enforcement order and either to 203 00:57:30.079 --> 00:57:46.480 hold me to my word on helping the town out. >> So since you don't trust me is what it is. >> It's John. It's not that we don't trust you. It's that the enforcement order process we would we want to memorialize and this is true for everyone. We want to memorialize what the restoration 204 00:57:46.480 --> 00:58:03.680 expectations are. And it's it's not you. It's the way we handle all enforcement orders. It's the way we handle orders of condition. it it's just a documentationbased process. >> Hey Chase, can I ask one other question? >> Um, you can. We're going to come to you 205 00:58:03.680 --> 00:58:18.640 in just a moment though. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Um, >> Chase, did did we want to perhaps make a decision on whether or not to require this underwater survey or not at this time, or do you think that's premature 206 00:58:18.640 --> 00:58:35.680 to to go around and kind of get a consensus from everybody? Uh yeah, I mean I think that's that makes sense to me. It sounded like nobody was in favor of it. >> I thought we were a poll earlier and we 207 00:58:35.680 --> 00:58:52.880 were all more inclined toward the uh the inind uh but not spending money for the sake of spending money. >> Perfect. Okay. >> Yeah. I I think directionally that's alter. >> Yeah. Some sort of other alternative. I'm not necessarily >> convinced that it's service or something 208 00:58:52.880 --> 00:59:10.319 like that, but it's something other than an underwater survey. I don't think we get any value there. >> And to your point, Andrew, what we won't be doing in the intervening couple weeks is um asking for peerreview quotes or underwatering surveying uh capabilities. 209 00:59:10.319 --> 00:59:26.000 >> Excellent. >> Just table that then. >> Perfect. Yeah, cuz I wasn't sure if we were talking about this in two separate categories, you know, possibly still requiring that and, you know, inind or, you know, payment down the road. So, no, that that's great. 210 00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:41.680 >> Okay, very good. So, John, we'll pick this up in a couple weeks after we've had a chance to check in with folks on the town and administration side. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, now we're going to move the mats over. You should be promoted to 211 00:59:41.680 --> 00:59:57.599 panelist now, which means should be able to mute and unmute yourself. See if we did that right though. >> Okay, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. So, um, just for the record, we're going to open up the 212 00:59:57.599 --> 01:00:13.520 discussion of the enforcement order associated with two and six blood road. I think the observations that we've we discussed um in the context of eight blood road very much carry over to two and six blood road in the context of what we observed in the sediment. So 213 01:00:13.520 --> 01:00:29.839 Matis to the extent you folks would like to make a comment. Go ahead. >> You want to be? >> Yes. My only is just a real quick question. Um I wanted to start doing a little cleanup around my house and I know we couldn't do the beach but I can do above the beach. Is that correct? 214 01:00:29.839 --> 01:00:45.040 like right outside of my house. >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. And I don't think there's any issue with you doing, let's say, normal beach maintenance, right? You're raking the beach and things like that. >> Raking getting the leaves out. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure before 215 01:00:45.040 --> 01:01:01.359 I started. >> Do you have anything? >> Yep. Um, I think that you actually had a good idea, Chase, about >> Actually, it implies that maybe I haven't always had good ideas. spending money on the lake and uh it's going to help everybody on the lake and 216 01:01:01.359 --> 01:01:18.000 it's going to help the lake, you know. I I would um support that and you know, donate money or put money >> towards the, you know, to >> Yeah. to towards uh helping with the lake. You know, >> I I think that's what you're hearing 217 01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:34.640 from the commissioner is that there needs to be some recognition that we didn't do this the right way, but there's no interest in making it punitive for the sake of being punitive. And to the extent that we need to rectify things, it should be done in the collective good. 218 01:01:34.640 --> 01:01:50.880 >> Yeah. And also, you know, I did I I didn't think of that, but the boats would stir the mud up more that with the wind blowing or whatever, the mud might settle more naturally. >> So, I like that idea you had, too. >> Yeah, I I do think that's something 219 01:01:50.880 --> 01:02:05.359 we'll probably take up in a couple weeks is um asking both sets of residents to to not take motorboats over that for a period of time. And we'll have to determine what that period of time is. So, >> yep. 220 01:02:05.359 --> 01:02:23.280 Um otherwise are you folks generally comfortable it it sounds like and I just want to get confirmation with this idea of let's say indirect restoration sorts of work as opposed to surveying the sediment. >> Yeah absolutely you know and see if we 221 01:02:23.280 --> 01:02:38.720 can get them into uh pull the weeds up again with a I guess they call it some kind of a rake or something like that. >> Yeah. I did believe they did that last year or it might have been the year before they pulled up a bunch of like uh invasive weeds and stuff. It was some 222 01:02:38.720 --> 01:02:54.160 kind of like a rake or whatever and they dumped into a dump trailer that uh I think uh Chucky Bush was part of it organizing it or whatever. So >> yeah, we've historically done that 223 01:02:54.160 --> 01:03:10.240 >> and we're moving in the direction of >> or whatever >> to to give to the town. Maybe, you know, spend it here on the lake would be better instead of that or where you know. >> Yep. >> I support that. >> Okay. >> You have something to >> I do not. >> Okay. 224 01:03:10.240 --> 01:03:25.920 >> Commissioners, any other comments specific to two and six blood road or good with uh following the same direction as eight? >> I'm good. Sounds good. >> Okay. So, um, >> Mats will continue this for a couple weeks and let us check in with some 225 01:03:25.920 --> 01:03:41.680 folks on the town side to see what makes sense. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Sorry. Thank you. >> I apologize. I actually There is one public comment and I do want to allow that public comment. >> Miss Huff Negle, you had your hand 226 01:03:41.680 --> 01:03:56.480 raised. Go ahead. >> Thanks, Chase. Um, so there's a gentleman in Westford named Matt Salem who is essentially like the tree commissioner but also part of the conservation committee. And prior to doing that job, he worked for an 227 01:03:56.480 --> 01:04:12.720 organization that helped restore lakes and also build plans for herbicide treatments. And he has worked locally at another lake in Westford for years to help restore that lakes's population to remove invasive species. I think it 228 01:04:12.720 --> 01:04:29.119 would be really good if this crew could get together with Matt Salem and talk about what are some of the restoration considerations that we would want to have based on the types of herbicides that we would choose and what is the plan for the application of the 229 01:04:29.119 --> 01:04:46.559 herbicides. He said that at um uh one of the lakes in Westford they did a 2-year intensive treatment and after that they just had to do maintenance. So, I'd really love to see something like that come together for Forge Pond Lake Madawanaki. >> And it is Miss Huff Negle. I don't know 230 01:04:46.559 --> 01:05:03.839 to what extent Mr. Salem's involved, but Littleton and Western are coordinating on this. The Littleton is working on plans for lake management. So, I can't speak to the you know, Mr. >> I was here a couple days ago. He said he his expertise has not been tapped yet. 231 01:05:03.839 --> 01:05:18.960 >> So, I think I think it would be good if this gets tapped. Th this happens at a municipal level. So, we'll let the the Littleton professionals and the the Westford professionals come together and they'll pull in the resources that they need when they need it. >> Lauren and I have been in contact with 232 01:05:18.960 --> 01:05:39.440 Matt Salem over the last couple weeks talking about herbicides. He's a direct contact for Westward when talking about the interview. >> Tim, I appreciate that. That was less dismissive than Chase. Thank you. I'm curious. >> I think we're out of public comments. So, with that, we'll move on from 2 and6 233 01:05:39.440 --> 01:05:54.799 Blood Road and we'll move on to the continued public hearing for a notice of intent 17 Wester a D file number 2041032, replacement of a septic system. >> Chase, this is Jim. I'm going to have to sign off. I just want to say before I left, I thought that was a very good 234 01:05:54.799 --> 01:06:10.240 discussion. I appreciate the very common sense public benefit kind of orientation the commission took to that matter and I I'm I'm very pleased to see the kind of constructive and you know positive way that you and the other commissioners came to came to a solution there. So that was good to hear. I'm sorry I can't stay on but >> no worries. 235 01:06:10.240 --> 01:06:25.440 >> Nice thinking. Thank you all. Good night. >> Good night Jim. >> Um Tim, do you have anything to say before we hand it over to Nathaniel to talk about this project? >> I've got nothing. >> Very good. Nathaniel, the floor is yours. 236 01:06:25.440 --> 01:06:42.079 >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, I don't remember if you allow screen share. It looks like you do. Do that. >> Great. So, for the record, my name is Nathaniel with Stamp Scam McNary and this is 41 17 Worcester Drive. >> Uh, so first um news on the matter is that uh the biggest reason this was 237 01:06:42.079 --> 01:06:57.839 continued from the last meeting was that we were waiting for uh board of health review and approval. We obtained that at the meeting. I believe it was 2 weeks ago at this point. Um so the board of health um approved of the plan all the review technical comments were satisfied. Uh they granted the waiverss 238 01:06:57.839 --> 01:07:14.400 that we are asking for. So board of health approval is um taken care of. Um following the last meeting with the commission here um I made some changes to the plan which I'll go through. Um so of the board of health approval being granted. Um one of the things that was requested was uh buoyancy calculations 239 01:07:14.400 --> 01:07:29.280 on the tanks uh the tank and the pump chamber. um we've added them to the plan to the plant over here. And basically to summarize what the purpose of that is um it just demonstrates that the weight of the tank and the soil on top of it overcomes the uh buoyant force that the 240 01:07:29.280 --> 01:07:45.119 water exerts on it if it uh when the tank is sitting in the water table. So basically you combination of the weight of the tanks and the um cover that they have they overcome that. So there's no basically the calculations demonstrate that the tanks will not become uh 241 01:07:45.119 --> 01:08:01.599 buoyant. And then I also added a little detail and notes regarding um dewatering uh per the concern that was raised about that about uh the fact that this is pretty um that there is you know there is a water table present in the soil that we observed in the test pits at a certain depth and that there potentially 242 01:08:01.599 --> 01:08:16.799 might need to be a need for dewatering. We put basically a detail that it should be discharged to a watering still. Um and there's an accompanying note that goes with it. And then we add a note about how there shouldn't be any stockpiling within 50 ft within the no disturb. Uh which basically precludes 243 01:08:16.799 --> 01:08:32.799 all the usable area of the site. Um just for the record, I did talk about this with um the applicant and um who you know is not just the the owner but also is a is a builder works construction is is you know is going to be coordinating this. Um and it's his agreement that you 244 01:08:32.799 --> 01:08:47.600 know there's basically no room to stockpile on this site. So, he's well aware of the fact that basically everything left to kind of be um taken off uh site as opposed to left on site just because of the fact that there's no available space. Um that's pretty much it. Um I can go over the details of 245 01:08:47.600 --> 01:09:04.000 what's proposed again. Um just basically to summarize though without rehashing anything I've already talked about the last meeting. um you know replacement of a septic system. Um we're looking for um basically a waiver for the work that is taking place within the 50ft no disturb zone which uh which includes 246 01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:20.880 installation of the subject tank and the pump chamber and any associated lines and site work that go along with it. And just again to summarize the reason that they are within the 50ft no disturb zone um is because of the limited site and available space there. Uh there's no other space really to place these items 247 01:09:20.880 --> 01:09:37.120 that would be outside of the zone. uh there literally is not the physical available space to put them elsewhere and also maintain some degree of an appropriate setback that uh the subject regulations require. Um so with that um I'll take any questions of course. Um 248 01:09:37.120 --> 01:09:52.000 that's that's it for my presentation. I'll give it back to uh Chase. Thank you >> Chase. One thing I do want to add is I think Sarah was the one that brought this up at the last meeting talking about setbacks from the property line for the uh septic system. Um it I spoke 249 01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:08.480 with Francis about this. Um all they would need to receive for that is the variance from the board of health. Nothing from building. >> Okay. Yeah. I think that the way that this law is laid out is uh unconventional to say the best to say 250 01:10:08.480 --> 01:10:26.159 the least. So it's good to know that we're at least looking at that as a town. Um, Nathaniel, and forgive me, I I had looked at the buoyancy calcs, which was one of the things I was looking for. Did we have uh a waiver for this for work 251 01:10:26.159 --> 01:10:41.280 within the 50? I thought we had talked about it a couple weeks ago. >> Uh, yes, we did. Um, there was a waiver and at the last meeting, um, there was a certain uh, basically wording thing that was requested to be changed to note that replacing septic system is in the 252 01:10:41.280 --> 01:10:55.840 benefit of public health. I did that. I think the day after the meeting, I sent it back to Tim. >> Okay. So, we have that revised waiver that that justifies this in the context of being in the public interest. >> Yep. Yeah. Basically, that exact phrasing I worked into the revised 253 01:10:55.840 --> 01:11:21.040 waiver and I I sent it to Tim. Yep. >> Anyone have any remaining comments or questions on this? I'm getting now. >> Okay. Well, then maybe we need a motion. 254 01:11:21.040 --> 01:11:39.679 Do we have a D file number? >> I'll make a motion that the commission close the public hearing for 17 Worcester A. Mass DP file number 204-1032 and issue an order of conditions and associated waiver in the public health 255 01:11:39.679 --> 01:11:56.480 uh category. >> Second. >> All right, it's been moved and second. We'll do a roll call vote. Ed >> Ed, >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Kyle >> Maxfield I >> Chase >> Chase Carb. 256 01:11:56.480 --> 01:12:11.920 >> And myself I it's unanimous. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Have a great night. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. I think we're almost done here, folks. We got uh Tim, back to you. I think just Tree City USA. 257 01:12:11.920 --> 01:12:27.840 >> Yeah. Um and this was real quick. This was just to update update you guys that um our Tree City USA application for 2025 did get approved. Um so that's the third year in a row we're going to get recognition uh for that. >> Well done. >> Perfect. 258 01:12:27.840 --> 01:12:42.480 >> Excellent. And then at the risk of extending this too long, one just real quick administrative note. I spoke with um uh Karen Morrison on the select board. They're going to discuss their thoughts 259 01:12:42.480 --> 01:12:58.719 with respect to docks on Lakeshore Drive uh at an upcoming meeting. They're getting ready for town meeting, so it'll probably be a few weeks. Um, but they were appreciative of us identifying things that might need to be done 260 01:12:58.719 --> 01:13:16.239 without, let's say, committing the town to spending money on resources that we don't necessarily have. So, um, we'll we'll meet with them in a few weeks. I don't think it's been agenda yet, but I'll let you know when it when it is. >> Sounds good. 261 01:13:16.239 --> 01:13:34.719 I think that's it. Unless anybody has anything else. I move that we close the meeting. >> I'll second that. >> I'll second. >> All right. Final roll call of the night. Chase >> Chase Car. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I 262 01:13:34.719 --> 01:13:44.440 >> Kyle >> Mfield >> Edi and myself I it's unanimous and we are adjourned.