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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
>> 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?
>> 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
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
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.
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
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.
>> 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
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
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?
>> 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
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
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,
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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?
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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.
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?
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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?
>> 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
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
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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,
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
>> 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
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,
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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
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
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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.
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
>> Kyle >> Mfield >> Edi and myself I it's unanimous and we are adjourned.