Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone to the March 24th, 2026 Littleton Conservation Commission meeting and would like to go ahead and start this evening with the approval of minutes from March 3rd, 2026.
Um, commissioners, does anyone have any um amendments that they or suggestions they'd like to make for March 3rd, 2026? Any edits? Just >> had a couple of very minor ones. Um, under the Reed Roberts Scout Project
review, about a quarter of the way down, it says, "Mr. Roberts hopes to complete fundraising in April." It just has a little apostrophe after Roberts in this case. Um, jumping down to CPC applications update. It just says, u Mr.
Pearson informs the commission that the applications for terrestrial invasive control and aquatic invasive control, should it be invasives control? And then on the very back uh under public hearing 17 Worcester uh at the
very end it says an alternative system would um sorry an alternative system would um have larger vertical constraints that would require additional grading changing to parking. I just crossed that changes to parking.
>> Okay. >> And that's all I had. >> Okay. Great. Anyone else have any other um edits? Okay. If not, go ahead. >> Sorry. >> I'll move to approve the uh minutes as amended for March 3rd, 2026.
>> Great. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Andrew. >> Roll call vote. All right. Ed. >> Edi. >> Carl. I'm >> Kyle. >> Max. I >> Michael.
>> Michael Livingston. Chase >> Chase for a big I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seaw word I >> myself I it's unanimous >> okay fantastic okay let's jump down to administrative discussions does anyone have anything they would like to add to
um discussion items okay if not let's jump right in um first is the land use permit um request from Littleton volunteer core training at Prrowy Woods um Tim, do you want to fill us in on that? >> Yeah. So, Alex, >> you did receive the paperwork in your
packet. >> Yeah. So, Alex Mccertie was the one that submitted this and unfortunately he he can't make it tonight. Um, but he was hoping to um get approval without his attendance. Um, so, as you guys saw, it's it's for a uh a search and rescue
um uh training over at Browy. Um, and I don't know if you guys had any questions, any concerns. Hopefully I can maybe address some of the questions if you have them. I didn't get to speak with Alex for for too long about this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Tim, I was wondering if we
even have to issue a permit in this case because I know that um well, Beth Gula had mentioned to me a couple weeks ago that they had already given approval to LVC to to go out to party and do this since it's NE land. Do we have jurisdiction to issue a permit? >> So, and I actually looked into that,
Andrew, because that was my first reaction, too. And I actually directed um Alex to Beth because I wanted at least their approval. Um and then I had gone back and looked in our land use permits and we have issued land use permits at Prrowy before. So I thought
out of an abundance of caution, might as well. >> Gotcha. There's because we've done the orienteering ones there, right? And now you say I never even thought about that being enough property and when we have given these permits before, but we definitely have approved permits in proudy. But that that's a good point,
Andrew. They do have NEF approval. Yeah. >> Because I'm just thinking too like down the road that kind of be like us saying, you know, you can go and do this on conservation trust property. You know what I mean? >> Okay. With that said, does anybody else
have any other questions or comments? >> Okay. Tim, what would you like from us this evening? >> Might as well vote. Why not? Okay, with that said, would someone like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion that the commission
approved the land use permit for Prrowdy Woods for the Littleton Volunteer Corps training um on the dates uh requested. >> Second. >> All right, roll call vote. Carl, >> come over. Ed
>> Ed Bai >> Kyle >> Max >> Michael >> Michael Livingston I >> Chase >> Chase car >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> myself I it's unanimous >> okay great thank you u moving along
discussion enforcement order 359 King Street um I see that Dwight Long is here and Joe Cataldo as well um Tim you want to move them over >> Yep. I'm moving them over right now. >> Okay. Um in your packets, you did
receive some um revised plans for that. Um Tim, do you want to share screen? Or Dwight, would you like to share the screen? What would you like to do? >> We have Rean here as well. Um >> if if you want to share your screen, if
not, I can I can always do it. >> Either either one, whatever's easier for you. >> Fantastic. Just as a point of order, Dwight, you are muted, just so you know. You can go ahead and and and share your screen. >> Sure. Okay. >> There you go. >> Thank you, Sarah.
>> Yep. >> All right. Hold on. Let me get this full screen for you. >> And then Rean, can you just go ahead and introduce yourself to the commission as well? Thank you. >> I will absolutely. Let me just do this full screen first before I share my
screen. Um, okay. Give me one sec here. There we go. Okay. Give me one second.
Share screen. Give me just a sec. Doesn't want to. Working on a little screen right now. Here we go. Got it. Okay. Can everyone see this? Trying to make it
as big as possible. Yep. You can see it. >> You can. Okay. Great. Wonderful. All right. So, good evening everyone. My name is Rean Andreola. I am a registered landscape architect and senior project manager with Weston Samson here on behalf of the property owner um uh
Dwight Long. So, we're here to share a restoration planting plan that we've prepared. Um, I don't know. Do you want to just jump right in? I think what would be helpful, Rean, is to go um of where we were prior and then um
appreciate the time that you've worked with um myself and uh Lauren and Tim kind of going through some suggested edits. So, maybe just kind of do a quick recap of of where we were and where you are now. Sure. Um yeah, so about a month
ago we had prepared a restoration plan. Um as we know there was 43 trees within conservation jurisdiction that were removed. Um so we had prepared a plan that was a 1 and a half to one
replacement on the trees. Um and then I think we had a 4:1 on shrubs because the property owner was interested in adding an understory uh shrub layer to this. So, um, we had shared that with yourself, Sarah and Tim. Um, and we had talked about the fact that, you know, it
didn't feel like that ratio was necessarily high enough on the tree replacement. Um, as well as thinking, you know, it looked like some of the plants were a little bit um, more lined up along the kind of page south wetland line here, if you can see my um, my
cursor. So, we took another uh go at it and what we did was really enhanced the plan um to do a 3:1 ratio of the trees and then we scale back the shrubs. We still wanted to include some layer of shrubs in there just for you know some
added habitat value. Um and um but we wanted the the focus to be on the trees. So that's you know that was really the the change that was made. um as well as trying to kind of stagger the trees um more along the southern side
here. It's really the western side I suppose, but um page south. So they had been a little bit more lined up and we tried to kind of mix them up and group them and stagger them more. But we are trying to keep them um somewhat close to the edge of the existing tree line and wet line wetland line um in order to
keep some amount of open space in the middle for more of um you know this is an agricultural farm land um and future pasture for horses. So um that was part of the reasoning of clustering the trees a little bit closer to the edge, but we
did still stagger them. um and mix it up so it wasn't like a line or a hedge of you know a single species. Um I can kind of from there if you're okay with that I can go into dive into more of the details of the species and and what we're focusing on.
>> Commissioners, what would you like? >> That sounds great. >> Okay. Um, so obviously all that was removed there before was I believe they were all red maples um that were, you know, many of which were in poor health. Um, so as we were selecting new trees to
go out here, we've mixed um a whole bunch of species. That's obviously kind of preferred when you're doing a big mass planting plan. You don't want a single monoculture in case something wipes it out. Um, also red maples are toxic to horses. Um, so if there are horses in the near future grazing out
here, we wanted to make sure that we were um doing all species that would be um non-toxic to horses as well as native um and really kind of providing a variety um and more more biodiversity really to the uh property. So we have um
service berry, a clump service berry um that is a tree that can get, you know, 20 25 ft tall and wide. Um, so a little bit more mass that way versus um full height. River birch, flowering dogwood, um, eastern red cedar, tulip popppler,
um, tupelo, white pine, and American sycamore. So, a really diverse um mix of trees that are all native um and again non-toxic to animals, horses um and
would all be suitable for this this particular environment. Um we did add in like I said a few um uh evergreens in in addition to the deciduous, but that primarily the bulk of it is deciduous trees um similar to what had been there
before. But um with the red cedar and the white pine, we did add in a bit of evergreens too that were not previously there. Um and then for the shrub layer, we do have um red twig dogwood and high bush blueberry. So little bit of winter interest with the red twig dogwood. Um
as well as the high bush blueberry gives some food for uh wildlife out there. Um let me think what else am I missing? Um, I think that I mean that's the the bulk of it. I can zoom in if anyone wants to
look a little bit closer here. Um, >> let's go ahead. Um, commissioners, questions for Rean or for um, Mr. Long? >> No, Rean, Carl, I I think it's a good mix
that you came up with. It's uh good diversity and a lot a lot of those species we don't necessarily have in Littleton. So, it'd be uh >> I think it's I think it's good mix. >> I I do have one question, Rean, if you've specified this somewhere and I've
missed it, I apologize. Um what's the survivability threshold that you intend to meet here? In other words, I I'm assuming we're going to monitor this for a certain amount of time. How much survivability is acceptable? >> Um well that's typically in my
experience that's usually something that the commission would you know if we were going through a notice of intent that would be a condition. Um so I think that would be something you know ideally where you know we want them all to survive but we know that that's not always realistic. So I guess that would
be I'd defer to the commission on what you have typically found acceptable. um you know is it 90% and over you know how long would we be um monitoring you know typically you'd be want wanting to
monitor over the first few years to make sure that that's um there's everything is established um and surviving but I think that's really a conversation that we have with the commissioners >> recently I think Reagan what we've been
going is three years for monitoring >> and have you set a survivability rate that you're looking for? >> I think we assumed, and this might be old data, Carl, you might remember this a little bit more coming from the tree aspect, that I think we thought a 30% standard loss
>> annually. >> I think that sounds very fair. >> Yeah, that's right. That's right, Sarah. >> Okay, I'm okay with that. But I just want to make sure we've we've included it in the record what the performance criteria are. I'm actually a little less
worried about exactly what the numbers are. As long as we have a frankly a Carl and Sarah approved plan, then I'm good. >> Board members, if I might add in, um, we tried to take into consideration
a good a good blend of sizes. The smaller trees will help to adapt. And I have to say Dwight is uh very focused on getting this to do really well and and anxious to get it planted so that we could take advantage
of the uh spring >> growing season. But I'm I'm very confident we'll have a better than 80 to 90% survival rate with all of this >> plant material. Are you going to buy the plants local?
>> Yes. Uh Carl, they'll they'll they'll come from uh New England wetlands plants, f some from Fry Corner out of Connecticut. Um those those are the two uh there might be some those those are the two biggest sources. There might be
some coming from Kabikios out of Sudbury, but those are um >> Yeah, >> those would be some of the bigger >> Yeah. Yeah. The one the ones coming out of Kabikio would be kind of like the sycamores and the things like that. Is that That's correct. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Rean, for the commissioners, if you just want to talk about access for how the because there's limited access in terms of that cart road. So, we're assuming that a lot of this is going to be somewhat manual or uh obviously no big
track equipment for any of this. >> Right. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So, the um the existing crossing here um is what would be used to get in there. And I mean, Joe, jump in at any point if you want to talk about your means and methods, but um you know, obviously there's there's other equipment that
crossing can handle, you know, small trucks and, you know, smaller tractors of sorts, but um there wouldn't be any heavy heavy equipment to get the stuff. >> We'd be using a mini excavator. It's got rubber tracks on it and and also a u um
small track uh skid steer. not a skid steer, but a a bobcat on tracks as well, just to get the plant material out there and work on getting plant median out there as well. But but nothing no uh big
rubber tire machines out there at all. Commissioners, your thought on that with the equipment? >> No, it's the appropriate equipment, Sarah. >> Okay. Anyone else have any other questions? Tim, how would you like for us to
proceed with this? Uh I I think if you just want to do like an informal vote that you guys are are satisfied by this uh replanting plan and they can get going on it. >> Okay. Commissioners, anyone else have any questions?
>> Okay. If not, do we have a motion for this? >> I'll move that the Littleton Conservation Commission approve the replanting plan on the plan titled phase one restoration planting plan for the
property located at 359 King Street with the uh monitoring plan as discussed. >> Okay. Do we have a second? Second. >> Roll call vote. Uh Carl >> Kyle. >> Ed.
>> Edi. >> Kyle. >> I >> Chase. >> Chase Ker I. >> Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward. I >> myself. I It's unanimous. >> Okay. So, um Mr. long if you can just
keep in contact with the um conservation office when you mean to get going on all this. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'll definitely reach out to Tim. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much.
>> Let's go ahead. I'd like to finish up with the administrative discussions, the CPC application updates. Tim. >> Yeah, that was just a quick one just update you guys that uh at the uh the last CPC meeting last week. Um they
approved funding for the two remaining applications we had in front of them for the boardwalks at Webster and at Castle in the Trees. So, um all of our applications in the spring got approved. >> Okay, >> nice job. >> Excellent.
>> That's great. >> Okay, thank you. It's um 7:49. Let's go ahead and start with our 745 continue discussion. This is enforcement order non-permitted dredging and this is eight blood road. You'll recognize that we have two separate hearings on this. Um
who's here to speak to a blood road? >> So I'm promoting over John right now and if you want Sarah I can kind of give you a uh um >> let's make sure John gets in. Okay. And John when you're here if you can
introduce yourself please. John Scott, eight blood road. Okay, >> thank you, Tim. Over to you. >> All right, so it's it's obviously been some time since we last talked about this, so I'll catch everybody up to speed. Um, we were waiting on the the snow to melt to do a a sitewalk and the
snow finally melted. Um, and uh, in the meantime, you guys had asked if I reach out to uh, D and ask them what they thought about this situation. Um, and so I spoke with them and they got back to me on on what their recommended guidance
is um, for both uh, this enforcement order and the enforcement order at 2 and six blood. Um and what they recommended is that um there be a third party peer review done to determine how much
material was taken out um during the excavation. Um they with with an emphasis on whether or not it surpassed the 99 cubic yard um limit that the
state has. um where if you go above that you need to get additional water quality certification from um D. um within that third party peer review. Um have there be recommendations on um
what should be done going forward to uh remediate or or restore. And basically the the commission um take that into consideration when when making their decision on what the remediation and restoration should be.
Um, on top of that, they suggested that the commission implement some sort of time period where the area shouldn't be disturbed to allow the area to renaturalize. >> And so me and Lauren, >> Jim, did they specify what that time
period was or are they relying on our judgment to determine that? >> No, they they didn't give a suggested time period. They they left that up to they suggested that the commission come up with that time period. Okay. >> Yep. So, so me and Lauren were able to get out um there yesterday and we met
with with John, Gail, and Irv. Um and I sent around a uh not so much a sitewalker report, but just photos that we took um of the site while we were out there. Um so, I don't know if all you guys got a chance to look at that. If not, I could I could pull up photos.
>> You pull the photos up briefly. >> Thanks. But that about sums it up. >> Um, commissioners questions. I'm hopeful that um we'll be able to schedule a time
that we can all go out um hopefully together and um to have John there as well. That would be great. Once we have the pictures up, Tim, if you just want to go through those and then um questions for commissioners.
Yep. So, so this is kind of standing uh in between I believe it's 8 and and six blood road looking towards six and two blood road. And so a lot of the area that was uh excavated um is and maybe all of it is
is underwater uh right now. And you really can't see at least we couldn't see when we were out there yesterday into the water to see like we couldn't make out where the areas were that were excavated. It's it's just difficult to um you can't see the base of the of the
lake. So, so is Tim is the material that was seeing on the slope was that the ex part of the excavated material >> you're talking about like this material right here?
>> Yeah. >> I don't I don't believe so. I I think the um the excavated material was I'm confused. Carl, are you asking if it was like deposited here or if this area was >> Yeah, deposited there. >> No. I don't know. To my my understanding
is that the material was um was trucked off and uh deposited on on the farm. Um >> John John, you're muted. Do you want to step in here and just kind of maybe walk through some of that as well?
>> All that existing sand was there already. Um none of that is disturbed by any means. >> Okay. Yeah, Tim, just go ahead and scroll through those so the commissioners and public can see those.
>> So, in regards to um John, some of these comments are have you been made aware some of this feedback yet um in terms of third party review? >> Yes, Tim, uh let me know that. Um not
fully sure what they'd be able to see. Um, I'd really love you guys to be come out and do a sitewalk to kind of see the area before issuing a third party review. Um, save everyone time and money. >> With enforcement orders, we try and have
as many commissioners come out. Um, but also understand that we do have a directive from D as well um, with the third party review. So, um, commissioners, questions for uh, Mr. Scott?
Yeah, sir. I did have one question. And actually, Tim, if you can stay right here. Um, Mr. Scott, was this the access point into the Was this the only access point into the water or there other access points uh to the water other than the one photographed here?
>> Uh, I'd say primarily right there was the access point, which is the boat launch. >> Okay. an old boat launch that is on um six two blood road I believe. >> Okay. >> And if the I believe he has a photo facing the other direction, you can see
it's a packed hill with no erosion. Uh not that. Yeah. So maybe we don't have a photo going up the hill, but as you can see there's no erosion anywhere >> going up the hill. Yeah. Yeah. So if you were to do a 180 from this photo, um there is no erosion. Like John said,
there's no erosion. um up the hill. >> Okay. Cuz I thought uh we had talked about putting erosion controls in place. >> If I remember right, it was upon the site inspection if if we
noticed that it was um not stable that I could ask John to um install them. >> Okay. But it's your opinion, Tim, that we don't need them based on the conditions that you saw. >> There was no ser like there was no
really erosion that I could tell out there. I mean, there's there's tire tracks. Um >> Mhm. >> but I mean there's there's no goalie um channeling and we just had a bunch of runoff. So it I feel like if if it was going to happen, we would have seen it
from all that snow runoff. But >> okay, >> we've had some rain here recently, too. >> True. Right. And we can take a look at again uh during the site visit. But it long story short, it does there's not some imminent risk here of
>> furthering the issues. Got it. >> Hey, John, just refresh me. Uh what was the goal of the of the dredging? >> So this photo here is a good example. as all the winds and blow all the chopped up weeds from all the boats every year
into our cove and they just grow. And the main thing was to get invasive weeds out of our cove so that the kids can swim in the future and not be swimming through weeds. I sent Tim a map of the friends of Forge Pond. Um
there's their their study of all the weeds in the lake and our cove is red in pretty much every invasive weed that the lake has to offer. So that was the main driving factor was to get all the invasive weeds out of there and hopefully have a swimmable,
usable beach in the future. >> Can you go back the uh typical water line now? The the spring, summer, fall water, >> the water will probably be up another foot and a half or more. Almost to the leaf line in the far end of this picture >> is probably where the water will come
to. And and how far out did you go to remove the weeds and and what have you? >> We we stayed on where the where the weeds and everything was pretty much dry and frozen. So we stayed in the dry frozen area. We never touched any water
or you know loose stuff or just we're digging out frozen mud, frozen weeds. >> How far from this water line would that have been? I know the draw down was good this year. >> It was a good draw down. It maybe 30 feet. I really can't I'm totally
guessing because it's hard to tell. When the water came up, it brought a lot of the mud back in with it. So, it's really hard. I can't I can't give you a definitive answer. >> So, Tim, can you go back to the picture with the ripple rimp?
So from here is this the extent of how much two was involved was the fact that the ramp was used for access seems most of the work was on the six 68
section primarily. Yes. >> Okay. So, >> well, it kind of blends between the property lines, but yes. >> Yeah. No, I get that. But the remediation work will focus on 68.
>> Well, to be clear, it'll focus on town own land, not six or eight. But >> yes, >> the the work was not on six or eight or any private property. All the work occurred on town controlled property.
>> Yes. What I'm trying to say is most of the work or all the work is going to not be done at this section here is what I'm trying to understand. But I I I hear you. I'm getting the terminology wrong as usual.
Okay. Thanks. >> Other commissioners have questions, comments? >> I I did have a comment. I wanted to sort of talk through what the peer review could look like if if the objective is
to understand or develop an estimate of how much sediment was removed. Um that strikes me as doable. Obviously, it won't be precise, but it will give us a
a reasonable understanding as long as the peer reviewer is using reasonable methods. So I think we'll want to work with the peer reviewer to understand their approach to that. I I would tell you here I I would expect like a a sonar based bathometric survey,
something that actually collects the surface uh elevation data should be able to tell us where the extent of work stopped and we can probably have them reconstruct a surface from there.
So, Chase, I I did get to uh speak with Green International um and they they didn't go into the details of of how they could do the survey, but they did say that they can do um a survey. >> Okay. I I guess the other thing that I would suggest that they do is um I mean,
it's fairly shallow out there, right, John? Right. It right now a couple feet. >> Water. It's probably over three feet now. >> Okay. Um, and as it keeps going up, it'll probably get to four to five feet deep right there. >> Okay. But not not super deep. I I would
expect Tim that they can also I would like them to put a push core or two in there because we'd like to understand how much detritis and how much new sediment has accumulated in there. And I think what we heard I think a couple weeks ago
is that it was taken down to essentially native gravel. Is that right, John? Or some gravel surface. as much as possible to protect keep rocks out of the field. >> Sure. So I I think we could probably use that to infer how much sedimentation has
occurred in that footprint and sort of add that back in. In other words, what I'm getting at is I think a combination of bethimemetry and a couple push cores could tell us a lot about how this the extent of the impacts here. >> This is going to be complete shot in the
dark, Mr. Scott, but is there any chance that the material you removed is just piled in the field or has it already been spread? >> I would assume it's already spread, but you'd have to ask uh Mr. Matson that one. >> Okay. Well, we we'll get to that. Um we
do have a hands up um uh with a question. So, I want to just to be clear, we're going to finish up with commissioners questions and then we'll get to attendees. >> Any other commissioner? Hey Sarah, is it is it possible when the
um when the third party goes out there peer review um could they look on either side of where this dredging was to see what the invasive structure looks like?
I I think what may be best is for so yes I would say we'll come up with a list but I also think as the commissioners go out onto the site we'll come up with a list to direct um Tim and and Lauren
going forward of of some of uh your wishes in that report. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any way we could have green go on the sitewalk with us? It seems like obviously we're going to go out there, but is it
are we missing a step by not having them on site and talking to us face to face while we're looking at what's going on and hearing their approach, seeing their approach? >> I don't know. >> Is it is Green going to be the reviewer? I guess I'm not I'm reach out to three
if we want and say, "Hey, there's a opportunity for a third party review. Are you interested?" And if there's two firms that would be interested and you know, kind of like a little pre-bid type meeting. >> Yeah. But it is the applicant's prerogative, I think, to put forth a name and then we would approve it.
Correct, >> Tim? >> I believe that's how we've done it in the past. Um, basically, >> but yes, Kyle, I I think it would be it would be great, but we can't take that liberty of of knowing who that um >> I think we typically
>> I think we typically inform the the property owner and the applicant um that we we see green a lot and um and most times they just run with green. >> Okay. >> I I would just like to make sure if uh
Mr. Scott is going to go with green to do this that they actually have the capability to do the underwater survey. What I don't want them to do is go out and simply drop a surveying pole from a boat and collect point surveys.
If we do that, what we're not going to do is catch the edge of essentially, right? We've sort of excavated a a small swimming pool. We're not going to catch the edge of that small swimming pool. We're not going to it because we need that to reconstruct the lines of where
it was previously. Sediment surfaces, particularly in areas like this, tend to be fairly contiguous. So, we just need the the the whole footprint, not not a point survey. >> So, one thing I would say is the mud in
during the summer is very very airy and it floats around. So, I feel like it'd be very hard to tell. I would would be shocked if the entire area we dug out is entirely filled with sediment again to
the exact same flush pretty level area. It flows like it's water. I walked in the m like as the ice was receding and the water was so low. I walked out past the area and it was just soup. It's just all just soup mud over there and weeds
and I find it very hard. There's not going to be a line of anything. >> Would there be a line of vegetation where you kind of stopped or >> uh that's that's the only thing I can I agree. I think it's going to be difficult to find especially if it is,
>> you know, it goes comes and goes, but if there's a line of vegetation, that's what I'm hoping there might be. >> And now if we brought greener out and they said this is just a waste of time and money, would you guys agree with that decision or would you make them do it anyways?
I mean, this is something the Mass D has indicated that we should go forward and do. I'm my inclination is we can take a guess as to whether or not it's going to be useful or not, but we're not going to know until we do it. And given that we've got mass D telling us that this is
a thing that they think should be done, I'm disincclined to do anything but fulfill it. of of course I'm just saying if they came forward and said we we're as a third party we don't believe that this is going to be useful information
for the conservation >> I'm open John I I will tell you I'm open to alternative approaches to try and estimate the volume if what I've put forward is not ideal but I do think we need to make a reasonable effort to
collect whatever data might be available to allow us to make these estimates as direct directed by mass D. >> All right. Um, one other question is who what what harm would any of this have possibly caused anybody?
Like why do we have to do this? >> John, that's uh that's a long answer to that and well outside of the scope of this meeting. Suffice to say, there's an extensive list of harms that are associated with dredging without
appropriate controls that could happen. And on top of that, it wasn't permitted, it wasn't approved, it wasn't on your property. So, I I think we should just leave it at that.
>> Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and now move on to um Nova facilitator if you could. You're now allowed to speak. If you would like to introduce yourself and if you have a question, please me. Okay.
>> Yes. Could you introduce yourself please? >> Yeah. I couldn't change my name when I logged in. This is Jillian Huffagel. Um I grew up at 57 Madawanaki Trail, which is directly across the lake from this property. I can tell you from living on this lake, uh, I'm now 44 years old.
I've lived on this lake since I was 12. That shoreline has not changed. And what John has said about the area that those kids are swimming in being like soup is 100% true. What I'm most concerned about right now is I own property at 41R Beaverbrook Road on the westward side of
the lake, right where Beaverbrook comes into the lake and pushes all of the water through. I would love to impress upon the committee right now that as an owner on the lake and I'm a neighbor of Michael's just a couple doors down from him. The
invasive weeds are so bad that every single owner, not just John, is dealing with this same thing. So my biggest concern is if I go out and I rake my weeds, am I going to now get in trouble? If I go out and I try and pull those
invasive weeds out myself, is the committee going to be coming after me and any of my other neighbors who are trying to respond to the fact that these invasive weeds have basically changed the ecological system of this lake over the past 20 years and it's getting worse
and worse and worse. That area that John described in red is growing significantly. When I attend the fringe of friends of Forge Pond meeting every year, those areas are getting more significant. And so what I would really love to see this committee do is not
just address this nonpermitted dredging, but I would love this committee to address what is the future health and safety of this lake. This is an important lake for both Westford and Littleton community members as well as other people who enjoy this lake that
are not just from Westford and Littleton. This is part of one of the largest watersheds in Massachusetts. These invasive species are significantly debilitating the health of our water. And so, while I know that you need to follow the processes and the steps that
are appropriate to ensure that John and his neighbors have those investigations, I would love to see a little bit more energy towards not waiting until August to approve that we can use a weed rake to rake up our weeds. Last year, it was
approved so late that by then all of the weeds were wet and sppy and we couldn't actually hydro rake the weeds. So, I would love more proactive approaches to how we're managing the ecosystem of the lake and protecting all of the species, not just going after people who are
trying to clean up their weeds. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, anyone like to address? >> When you have a lake that's got committees on two different towns working together is a challenge for
sure. I think we all agree that ideally it would be great to have some joint group of the two committees that could help manage this. Um I don't think that's in place today and I'm not aware that
anyone is trying to do that at the moment. So, Ed, we are um we're actually going to be looking to enter an intermunicipal agreement with Westford um to conduct the herbicides to to treat the invasive plants. Um I'm not sure
when that's going to occur. My understanding is that it could take um some months, but we are we are looking into that and uh hoping to to enter into that with Westford because my understanding is they already have been doing herbicides over there. Um and so
we're going to we're going to join in on that and just split the costs that we were um or the funds that we were approved by CPC are going to go towards that. >> Cool. >> Okay, great. We're going to keep things moving along. I think what we'd like to do is to schedule a site um visit for a
blood road commissioners. Want to throw out some uh date and times? I don't know if we can all get out there at the same time, but um I can go almost any day next week or uh this coming weekend.
>> Same for me. you think it's appropriate to um add in uh Irv and Gail right now to to try to coordinate with them as well? I >> I think because they're two separate hearings, we have to choose a date for one and then if that works, that's great. If not, we create them um
separately. >> Okay. >> Um commissioners want to throw out some dates >> or times. >> I'd rather do it on the weekend, Sarah. Um Okay. Okay. >> And if you're available this weekend, the >> Yeah, >> morning would be ideal for me.
>> Okay. Commissioners, anyone around this weekend? >> Yeah, actually. Yeah. So, morning would work. >> Which day would work um better for you all? >> No preference. >> And Saturday or Sunday?
>> 6 to one, half dozen the other. >> Okay. Other other commissioners available this weekend? like you're talking in the morning, Saturday, but um whatever. Just not the middle of the day. Let's not chop up a whole day for
>> Okay. So, are we leaning towards Saturday morning? Is that what I'm hearing? >> Sounds like it. >> Okay. Let's throw out a time. >> 9:00 work. Too early, too late. >> Okay. John, will you be able to be there
on Saturday at 9ine or uh grant us access? >> Yes, I'll be there at 9 or or whatever works. >> Okay. Um let's go ahead and set that for 9 this coming Saturday.
And where would we like to meet? >> You can park in my driveway. Eight blood road. Okay. Okay. Great. Let's go ahead and move on with that. Thank you for joining us, John. Um, sorry, one one last thing though before we move on. I'm sorry. Um,
the other thing that Mass D specified here is to not disturb the area. And I think we should memorialize that our expectation until told otherwise is that we're not running motorboats over it. We're not
putting docks in that weren't in. we're we're not disturbing that area. Um and once we have the surveying done, we can figure out where what that means going forward. But but for right now, no actions. >> Yeah, thank you. They were very clear on that. Okay. Um so I think um the thought
process is we will meet this weekend um and then go ahead and put this forward on the next uh agenda meeting which is April 7th. Um, so this would continue over to April 7th for the discussion.
Um, and then at that point we can go through um what we would like to see in the third party review. Is that correct, commissioners? Is that what our time frame stands for? >> I think that makes the most sense. Yeah. I don't want to commit to any sort of third party thing. So we can
>> see the date. >> Okay, great. Um, thank you, John. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I know we're running behind schedule. Um, it's 8:17. Let's go ahead and open our 8:00 continue discussion. Enforcement order non-permitted dredging
2 and six Blood Road. Okay. So, Tim, are you going to move them over? >> Yep. They're moving over right now. >> Okay, great. All right. So, just so you know, you are muted.
>> Okay. Can you hear me? >> Yep. Okay. >> Perfect. >> Um, so I'm assuming you were privy to the the first conversation. Um, >> yes, we were. And then Tim, if you want to go back to the photos. Um, let's go ahead and see if the commissioners have
questions. So, um, these questions are pertaining to two and six Blood Road. Um, I think that there were some questions in regards to some of the, um, material that was moved, where it was
moved to, and if it still exists or if it's got spread. Um question for the mats. >> Okay. So that question is for us. Um it's it's >> we've already spread it. >> Okay. >> It went right out onto the field.
>> With cowor and it's you know it's under the power line and on the hay field too. >> Yeah. >> Which is for >> cow consumption. It's cow corn and hay. You know what I mean? It's not like vegetable land. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, commissioners, questions for the maths pertaining to two and six
blood road. Was it the Sarah? Was it the same type of dredging that we just discussed? >> Well, I can answer that. Yes. Um, we had our truck. This is our the picture
you're looking at right now. That is our boat landing and our truck was parked there and then John came over with the loader and just filled the truck and then we drove up to the farm to dump it. But it's the whole
pro. It's the same thing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't have any new questions, Sarah. Unless >> uh unless the Mats think something needs to be corrected. I I think I I get
it. >> No, there's nothing that needs to be corrected. I guess my only comment on the third party is when was the last time there was any kind of um site mapping in the lake? because you're saying that you can tell what we took
out or what was taken out, but what's the standard? >> That's my question. I mean, what's the standard? You have to have a baseline if you're going to say, well, you took this out, but you would have had to have a standard. So, when was the last time that this end of the lake was mapped
that they could compare? Because again, we also have where the water comes in from streams. So the material, as John said, is always moving. So I'm not sure that I think that they can give an accurate
account of how much material left. And another thing that you should know is that this whole property, the whole farm right down here to our house in two and six is nothing but gravel. Believe me, when I first moved in here,
I tried to plant something. I couldn't even dig with a shovel. So, that's another consideration that there is nothing but gravel. >> Commissioners, >> that's accurate. >> Any would like to comment on on her question in terms of measuring or
standard of standard of scale? Yeah, I I would say Gil what we're what we're looking for to the extent that we do a survey is to identify if we can see the depression in which the depression that was excavated.
>> So in that >> and can I just say this >> I'm talking >> sorry Jason >> you asked a question would you like me to answer it or should we just go forward with the peer review? No, just answer your answer.
>> And so what we are looking for is is there a depression where material was removed and to the extent that we can identify the depression, we can
reconstruct the likely historic surface there by looking at areas outside of where that depression occurred. essentially connecting the dots from areas that were not disturbed. To the extent that it is already filled back in, that would be a challenge. If we had a pre construction survey, that's
actually exactly the kind of thing that is typically required in projects like this. But as we know there none of that occurred. So you're right, we don't have a baseline, but there is a reasonable chance that we can reconstruct a reasonable estimate of what was removed.
Is it guaranteed? Of course not. But um but what we would be looking for is the depression and the edges where there wasn't excavation. And from those two things, we should be able to identify an estimate of volume.
>> Again, you know, just coming from a long background in quality and manufacturing, if you don't have a baseline, it's really hard to judge. And I'm just going to say this, >> Gil, if we're going to compare qualls, I have 20 years of sediment remediation experience.
>> Excellent. >> I don't think we're making any progress here of comparing one person to the other. It's understandable that the emotions are starting to get high and and Gail, I think we all understand where you're coming from and please understand that all we're here to do is
to try and in the in the most reasonable way possible uh remediate what what occurred. We're not trying to necessarily punish anyone. We're not trying to cause anyone to have to do something uh excessive. We're just
trying to find the best solution here to um to remediate. That's all. >> And and I do appreciate that, Ed. Thank you. I mean, I guess I'm you know, we obviously are very concerned about the cost of this. I'm you know, John has a
young family. You know, we're farming, so you know, we are very concerned about the cost of what this will >> Yeah. And taxes are doing first, right? >> Yeah. Taxes are due. I mean, are we
talking about 5,000, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000 for this study >> or or 500? Like, we need to know this because obviously, >> you know, this is a a big impact for
both families. >> I I don't think that anyone's going to know anything until after the sitewalk. It's already been stated that we're going to do the sitewalk and then from that we can decide on on the third party peer review and what have you. >> Yeah. No, that that's fair. And at that
point it's up to you to find >> you all to come out and see. >> Yeah. Definitely want you. >> Yes. >> And if we say if a third party peerreview is needed, then it's it's incumbent upon you to find someone and it's not unreasonable to say, well, you
know, this person is equally qualified but at a lower price. So that's not something we get involved. >> Okay, perfect. >> And so the question is we um we want to work around your schedule as well. So we
will be out there Saturday at 9 if that works for you. >> Oh, of course. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, we want you we want all of you to come and see. You know what I mean? It's >> okay. So, just with that um being said
that we'll start at 8 Blood Road and then we'll um welcome the the opportunity to kind of walk your your shoreland as well. >> Yeah, you can walk actually right around. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. And so, as we had mentioned
earlier, um what we would then do is carry this over to the April 7th. Um, nothing's going to get finalized tonight, probably not at the 7th. So, we're just trying to give you guidance while we're trying to take in guidance
as well. Um, from the commissioners, also from D. Are there any questions I can answer or the commission can answer for you now at this minute? >> No. >> Sarah, you do have one more public comment for Miss Hoffman. >> Okay.
Okay. if you would like to go ahead and reintroduce yourself that would be great. >> Hi Jillian Huffagel 41R Beaverbrook Road. Um one of the things that's important to understand about this particular lake is that the flow rate of the water that moves through this this
lake is one of the fastest in this watershed. And so the you know the analogy of using the swimming pool and being able to outline the swimming pool is not realistic in this lake. So what I would love to hear from the commission
is what do you all think is reasonable for an amount of money that these residents would pay for a private study at which point you would then anchor on that and say that is untenable. >> I think I already said we don't
know what is going to be needed. So because of that, we don't know what the cost will be and and the cost is actually going to be up to what the uh petitioners do to address what the commission is asking.
So I I personally have never been through so I can't even begin to guess what the cost would be. And and I'll add one more element to that, which is that um in enforcement order issues, costs can
be a problem, but a big reason that they're a problem is that we're in an enforcement order scenario anyway, right? Like we none of us here likes the idea of issuing an enforcement order, but we've we've had to have people remove structures that they've built,
redo landscaping that in impacts resource areas that none of us take it lightly, but the the costs that are incurred are inflated significantly because of the enforcement order issue because this was done without authorization, without controls, and
without permission. And so I I deeply appreciate the costs incurred, but I don't think that we're looking at this the right way if we're only looking at it through a cost lens and permitting after the fact. >> Okay, commissioners, any other questions
that we have? Okay, so we will look forward to seeing you um on Saturday approximately nine o'clock in the morning. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, it is now um
8:30. We're going to go ahead and open our 8:15 continued public hearing discussion of current and future land use of townowned parcel U12-14-0. I'll turn this over to um Chase and all
yours. >> So, let's get thick. Sarah, let's see. Um I'm gonna before I get into this, let's see. Could we promote Karen Morrison, please? And Jenny. Okay,
we've got Jenny Merrell. Um, so I wanted to promote into as a panelist Jenny Merrill from town council's office who's been helping us with this and um Karen Morrison, the chair of the select board. So, um, here's where we're at. We've
discussed this a few times. Um, we've looked at some alternatives. Where I would like to get to tonight is ultimately we take a straw pull on different alternatives for three different issues associated with this Long Lake parcel.
The docks issues, the sort of upland landscaping issues, and the kayaking canoe storage issues. And all three of those originate from the uh wetlands protection acts let's say violations that we had identified earlier. The goal
here is not for us to select exactly what we're going to do for each of those three components of this parcel, but rather to identify which which alternatives people are generally supportive of and which they're not.
because my sense is we've been kind of all over the place in terms of what let's say what might be acceptable to everyone. Um and on top of that um the last time we discussed this we were going back and forth on some of the
legal issues and so Jenny has been kind enough to help us think about some of those issues. So what I I would like to do is just talk you through this is I sent this all around to you earlier and if it's not yet on the public repository
it will be and I I'll actually share my screen this time instead of almost sharing it. Um so the public can see what we're looking at. What I'd like you to do what I'd like to do with everyone is I'd like to talk through the alternatives. Um I I'll kick it over to
Jenny a couple times to sort of fill things in a little bit. And then we can talk about each of the both the upland the uh canoes and kayaks and the dock alternatives that we have. And while we're doing this, I would like you to
think about which ones of these could I live with? Which ones of these are my preferred options? So Jason, if I may, before we go any further. >> Yep. Why did we add in storage of kayaks and
and boats when that wasn't the what that wasn't the originator of of the issue. It it was brought to us by park and wreck asking for the use of one of our parcels to do this. But that doesn't mean that
this should have been part of this whole discussion. So I'm I'm confused what brought that in. Well, what brought that in, Ed, is the Hang on one second. I'll find it for you. That this has nothing to do with
the parcel of land that uh conservation commission controls that is on the other side side of Lake Shore Drive. The reason kayaking and canoe storage came into this is because a number of the violations, wetland
protection act violations that we have and frankly just issues that we have are haphazard storage of canoes and kayaks on the parcels that we're talking about. Essentially, they're just sort of distributed all over the place and that's why this came in. This doesn't really have anything to do with that
square piece of land on the other side of the road. Does that answer your question then? Um, sure. Okay. Thanks. >> Um, so coming back to this, so is as far as
the upland alternatives in here, I I think historically I'd called it the like uh landscaping alternatives, we really have three options, right? Um, we can, and we've talked about this, allow the the parcel to simply reveate, grow
back in. Um, there would probably need to be some invasive species management if we do that. Um, I think there's always going to be some invasive species management. Um, but in general, what's going on right now are that certain
portions of this parcel are being mowed by members of the public, typically the abutters that live across the street. What we would be saying here is if we allow the parcel to just reveate, we're telling people we don't want you to do that anymore. Just let it grow back in. Um,
that one's pretty straightforward. Alternative two here is the town assumes the responsibility for maintenance of this parcel. That is, you know, the mowing that is already occurring. Uh, the town would take that over. That's obviously not a triviality in terms of
costs and that's one of the reasons why this probably needs to be discussed in concert with the select board. Um but essentially in that scenario, the town would um be responsible for mowing, they'd be responsible for tree trimming,
vista pruning, the whole bit. Um and then alternative three, and this is where I'm going to lean on Jenny a little bit to explain how it would have to come together, is the town essentially partners with the Butters and allows the Abutters to maintain the
those parcels. So someone lives across the street, they've been historically mowing. That is part of the community's viewshed, not just their viewshed. And so in that scenario, we are allowing people to we're partnering with people
to allow them to continue to mow or otherwise maintain that land. Now, doing so would still require an order of conditions that essentially says what activities are allowed to occur on this property. It is our property, our order
of conditions. But this is where I'm going to lean on Jenny. Jenny, my understanding is in this scenario, um, we would enter into essentially a license with folks and we would need like a waiver of responsibility or a waiver of liability from them. Is that generally right? Yeah, I would recommend
in that case um you know a license with you know clear terms on what they can and can't do tying it to any permit that you have issued you know authorizing the work. Um and you know we can
get into you know you can add all sorts of protections to a license but some of them are probably not financially feasible for you know a butters. Um but certainly um releases of liability indemnification for any work that they've done, things
like that is what I would recommend in that case. >> And this would essentially memorialize the status quo right now. Now I I want to note for alternatives for any of these alternatives, we're we're not necessarily locked into the status quo.
That is, you know, this is the town's property. the town can change how we're utilizing those pieces of property, but um it really comes down to whether or not we want to reveate it or not. And if we don't, do we want the town to assume
responsibility or are we willing to partner with a Butters to maintain this property. So, um I think I'll pause there and see what comments or questions folks have. I think we should go through all the different alternatives before we come back and essentially take the straw
poll. But with Jenny here to answer legal issues, we should take advantage of her. Chase, I was thinking that the uh possibilities for this section kind of
would follow from how many docks and and other, you know, what what is going to be approved, you know, just from what's left in the water now or, you know, how is that going to be managed uh before we could address these?
>> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, Michael. um whether it's the town or a butters maintaining pieces uh of this parcel there's there's access issues right if we're going to have docks or we're going to store kayaks >> um or we're even we also have to think
about I think in the context of doing this if we don't create opportunities for people to get to the water we we've seen that they will create their own opportunities to get to the water so part of that sort of fits into this too even if we did did reveitate this we may
still want to think about, you know, certain limited stone walkways or something for people to get to the water. I started with the easy one. Any other thoughts on this one or sort of clarifying questions?
What do you do if someone doesn't follow the whatever it is we tell them they could do? >> Follow the license. >> Yeah. So, our issues there would be twofold. Um, if they actually get fully like
outside of the license and impact the resource area, we could pursue an enforcement order, right? Like, uh, say they cut down a bunch of vegetation along the bank that they're not supposed to. That that wouldn't be okay then, it's not okay now. Um, and so I think
the way that we would try and control that is being very specific about the boundaries of that. But there is a risk of if we work with a butters to do this that it's it's not done let's say
consistently right one extra mower pass per you know per couple weeks and all of a sudden the footprint gets bigger. Um the advantage of working with a butters to the extent that they want to is resource right so is essentially we're already in this
right now and so we would need to define the footprints and the boundaries probably through an order of conditions um but I think it's it's probably doable but that is a challenge >> and I think you can also start off on a
just an annual basis um until you build up the the trust and kind of learn the dos and don'ts as well. >> And maybe this is important, Jenny, when we were talking about this um you you used a very particular turn of
phrase, but licenses that the town has to be able to cancel a license anytime for any reason. >> Yeah, they're terminable at will. >> There you go. >> Yeah. And I would say, you know, you would want a contract around this issue in the license, you know, um because you
guys would be, you know, the the party responsible under the order of conditions, right? So, if you think of it as um you know, hiring a contractor to do work that you've been permitted to do, you would hold that contractor responsible for any violations
um of that order. And so um you know you'd probably want to draft some language around that which you know is creat unique policy cons considerations for you guys to think about. You know
>> I think we should also recognize that um that is what's happening now right people are taking on that liability just without the framework around it. So >> Chase, if I can interject as um just as a point of reference for those people
that are joining us as attendees so that we understand and for the commissioners to understand the structure of this hearing right now. Um public comment, do you want to take it at the beginning? >> Oh yeah, thank you sir. >> Because I I I want to also be conscious
of everyone's time where we do have a lot to discuss. Um, I would prefer to have kind of like if anyone has any comments um to do them ahead of time, but so in the essence of kind of getting into um
more of a groove here is you've got a lot and then you would like to have straw holes from all of us. Um I don't want to get into a debate later on of of what our kind of like tentative thoughts are. So, can you just kind of talk about
the structure of this meeting? >> Yeah, sorry, I should have started at the beginning. It's usually a good place to start. Um, the plan that I had for this is um we'll go through I want to lay out all the alternatives to Michael's point. Some of them sort of fit together. Um,
then I think engage with a discussion with the conservation commission about where we think the pros and cons are. Then I would like to set aside um no more than 15 minutes for public comment. We're going to keep commenters to three minutes a piece. Um but I would ask
commenters to we have lots of written comment. We have lots of comment that we've received in the past to the extent that there are new things by all means but let's try not to rehash what we did. Then after that 15minute public comment period I would like to then engage with
the commission again. any follow-up questions or thoughts? And then what I would like to do is go through a straw poll. So Ed, I'm going to ask you here, for example, um would you be okay with which ones of these would you be okay with? Which ones of these would you be
opposed to? And which one would you prefer? And essentially, we'll do that for uplands, for uh kayaks and canoes, and for docks for each person. And I recognize that that's kind of cumbersome. But what's really
important here is I don't know what the consensus is. We've been all over the map. So I think spending five or 10 minutes to just just put tick marks. And Ed, I'm going to pick on you. Let's say you like one and two but not three. That's fine. We're going to put a tick mark in one and in two because I think
that'll help us figure out where there's agreement and where there's disagreement. >> And then once we do that, I think then we're done. and then we can take it to a discussion with the select board at a different meeting.
>> The one thing I would like to ask is that we not relitigate this. We've already gone through a lot of the discussions and what have you and I know you addressed that somewhat in your in your your statement here, but um I'm not interested in, you know, hearing the same thing over again. We could be here all night.
>> Yeah, indeed. Um okay. are any other initial thoughts on these alternatives? Just understanding what they are. >> So, Chase, I'm thinking we're going to be hashing through each of these points.
The goal of tonight is essentially to get the board's input in addition to the public comment that we've received and will receive tonight. Are we planning to come up with an overarching land management policy for the three different criteria for this parcel as an
end product using the comments? >> Yeah, I think the ultimate goal would be to create a cohesive approach to municipal properties along the lake shore and and I choose my words very carefully there. Um it's not
just this parcel because the select board also has care custody and control of a piece of par of land sort of uh on the other side of the beach. And so I think thinking about those collectively separate from let's say the large tracks
of conservation land, right? We're not talking about Long Lake Park. We're talking about the parcels that abut residential areas directly abut residential areas. But yeah, Andrew, the the end goal would be a cohesive policy where all of these come together and we can implement it
townwide. >> Gotcha. So essentially, we're not this isn't like the dead end just for those watching um the hearing or this actually it is a hearing, sorry. Um the hearing right now, this isn't a dead stop. It's essentially more factf finding and then
we'll work through with the select board to come up with a policy. >> Correct. And part of the factf finding here that's different than what we've done before is we've got Jenny's expertise to weigh in on some of the liability and and risk and sort of legal issues that we have identified in the
past. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Sorry you guys are um I should have clarified all that before we started. Um okay, let's talk about the alternatives for canoe and kayak. Um, so right now to Ed's point, why are we
bringing this up? It's because we've had a de facto just sort of distributed kayaks kind of all over the shore um historically. And so that begs the question, what is our policy? What do we want to do? And frankly, one of the
alternatives could be it's it's not here could be don't change anything. Let people put kayaks and canoes wherever they want. What I did hear from the commission is that's not really on the table. So our three alternatives are smaller than that. The first alternative
is is very simple. We don't want kayaking canoe storage done. It it does raise an enforcement question, but let's assume for now that that enforcement is relatively minor, right? In the sense that you know someone is trespassing on conservation land with materials, we we
may have to confiscate that or something, right? But it in alternative or we just say no canoe and kayak storage. Um alternative two is the more interesting one I think. Um
two and three. So what we're doing in both two and three is designating select areas for canoe and kayak storage. The only difference between two and three is whether or not we essentially have racks that people can store canoes or kayaks
on or we just say here's an area we put up a sign hey you can leave your kayak here over the summer but come September 30th you got to pick it up you know so we essentially have racks or we have um just put it on the ground and leave it. The reason those are different is sort
of the licensing approach. And Jenny wanted to know if you could sort of talk through how other communities have handled licensing things like canoe and kayak racks. >> Sure. Um so if you guys wanted to, you know, own some canoe and kayak racks, whether they're, you know, donated or
you um acquire you acquire them some other way, um we'd recommend licensing them via a lottery system. Um, you can't you shouldn't be giving favorable treatment just because somebody happens
to live near um the pond the pond. Um, >> but Jenny, that license or that that lottery can be confined to town residents, right? >> Yep. Yep. You could confine it to town residents. Um, sort of like an annual lottery. Um,
I'd imagine they would probably chain their kayak to or canoe to their their spot. Um, I'd recommend charging, you know, you charge a fee for that probably. Um, and there's different ways of, you know, you could do a new lottery
every year. You could, um, have somebody, you know, be able to maintain their license. Um, you know, get first first dibs on the license the following years if you want to sometimes do that. Uh, the license will be terminable at will, but you can, you know, you can put in a time frame in there that says, you
know, you have it for this season. Um, however, you know, unless the town terminates it in their own discretion. Um, yeah. >> And then Jenny, in terms of liability that the town is taking on in that case,
we essentially, um, we ask the LE in that case to wave liability. Do we have any major risks there? >> I don't see any real major risks. we would write the the license to um make sure that they wave all you know risk that we're not liable for damage or
theft. Um you know they're leaving their equipment there at their own risk. They're paddling at their own risk. Um yeah, there's >> okay >> there is different ways to mitigate risk in all
of these activities that we're talking about here. Um so if you were to allow people to do anything for free on on open space or recreation land, you will um allow yourself to to be protected by something
called the recreational use statute. That's one thing. Um, you know, there are good policy reasons not to to do that, you know, to require some sort of fee for licensing, you know, their boat storage. Um, you would also always be
protected by the Mass Claims Act, which constrains liability to $100,000. You also have insurance. You also can put up signs and contract away the liability. So, there's many ways to protect you guys from liability. And I think this
one is pretty um harmless. >> Yeah, this is sort of a preamble to the docs discussion. >> Yeah, I mean this is true of all activity, >> right? But on you know in the scale of of risky behaviors I think um having offering boat storage is pretty low.
>> Okay. >> And people are already taking the risk now >> by leaving their canoes along the side. And >> it's almost like we coordinated this Michael. That's what I was trying to show here. We have um these are all the locations where we had boat storage. It
there are 34 boats that were stored, you know, just sort of stashed along the lake. >> So So Chase, you had you you had identified canoes and kayaks, but and then you talk about boats. There are there are other there's other um marine
vehicles other than boats and kayaks that were along this. So, um, should you just limit it to boat and kayak instead of just saying I mean canoes and kayaks instead of just saying boats? >> Well, that's probably that that's that's
fair. What I meant to indicate here is essentially non-motorized boats. Um, the fact of the matter is I think we have canoes and kayaks predominantly, but you're right. Maybe that's paddle boards, maybe that's other things. So maybe it it let's take it in the spirit
of I meant this to be broadly inclusive of non-motorized things that you might store >> along the lake shore. >> Weren't they weren't weren't they motorized also along some of these docks? >> Yeah. >> Well, let's separate that if from the docks
discussion. What I'm talking about right now are the canoes and kayaks that that were stored in the upland or just sort of pulled into the upland. >> Oh, the up. Okay. Okay. I'm I'm with you there. Okay. >> Sorry, I wasn't very clear on that either, I guess, >> cuz I could easily see someone with an
electric motor, a a robo with an electric motor, stuff like that to go out fishing or whatever, and you know, that's a motorized vehicle. >> And Jenny, to the extent that we didn't, let's say, want that, could we confine the licenses to types of boats or types
of equipment? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> And Chase, does this address other um private personal property that maybe aren't canoes, kayaks on the strip of land as well? Would we want to lump that into the same category? Private personal property.
>> Uh give me an example. You mean like chairs and things? >> Yeah, >> I I guess I would put that um I I mostly meant that in the context of upland alternatives. You'll see here in the context of upland alternatives, there is a some discussion of like what what do
we do with like there's a one portion of the property that has a retaining wall on it. Um, but I think we we certainly could license certain uses there. I'm not sure we would want things like um maybe we do, but uh things that could be
picked up and taken away like uh aderond chairs, but yeah, I I would think we could find a place for those in whatever policy we design. The the big issue here is really do we want to allow those sort of temporary
uses or do we not? And if we do, do we want to provide the infrastructure for it or do we just want to say here's an area? Because alternative three is just you can store this stuff here, whatever it is, go for it. We're not going to encumber ourselves with this whole messy
license process. Leave the boat in this area or this area at your own risk. And even that is an improvement over this, right? Cuz right now we've got, I don't know, a dozen different locations where things are stashed. We might say we want one area here, one area here, and one
area over here. Something like that. >> How do we reconcile with the fact that we told the park and wreck that they could not put racks and stuff up to make money for park and wreck on the conservation parcel, but now we're doing
or considering doing the exact same thing? >> I'm not sure we we need to. I mean, I think to the extent that if we decide to do that, the what we're saying is we didn't think that was the right piece of property for it. And I think there are
probably a lot of reasons for why that might be the case. But let's just take something simple. Ed, you're talking about this parcel right here. If you can see my cursor, there's there's obviously not a big interest in leaving canoes and kayaks over there, right? It's access to
the beach. It's close by. We're talking about racks >> here or here or here. So, I I don't know if I if I have to apologize to Parks and Wreck for saying no to their thing and yes to ours, then I'll say it. I apologize.
>> Just putting it on the table. >> Yep. >> Any other thoughts on this one before we get to the really messy one? Okay. Okay. This is this is the messy one. Um, but it it's actually not as
complicated as it looks. So, one of the pieces of feedback that we got from the community was an interest in essentially comments that say we think six docs is the appropriate number of docs. And I don't know whether or not we
agree with that, but I felt like we at least deserved we owed the public having that discussion. So what you're going to see here is there's alternative 1, 2, 3, and four. But alternatives 2, three, and four differ only in two docs versus six
docks. And I think we should understand if anyone is willing to approve a doc um how many we're talking about. And there's nothing magical about two and six. It could be three and seven. It could be one and five. But essentially
imagine these as a small number and a larger number of docks. Um so taking you through the options here. Option one again very easy option. No new permits for docks on this parcel. And the reason I say no new permits is
because don't forget that parks and wreck is installing a dock uh roughly right here. Um, and so when I say no new permits, I I deliberately exclude the parks and wreck dock. Um, that will go
in actually off of this parcel. Um, that this does beg the question, what do we do with the existing structures? We would have to figure that out. I think that's a very solvable problem. Um, alternative
two is, you know, we have all these docs that have existed historically. Um, and alternative two says, you know what? We're not going to do these here. Let's see. There are currently nine docks that have
been identified. Eight along this parcel, but of those eight, two of them are in particularly bad shape. I would argue three of them are in bad shape. But, um, essentially what we would be saying here is we don't want any private
participation in our dock process. This is resource intensive but this alternative is the town acquires new docs and the town is responsible for installing and removing those docks. Right? We choose the locations, we
choose the docks, we choose um the timing, we choose the number. Um part of the constraint here and I'll I'll kick it to Karen probably in a moment is resource constraints issues. And I I
don't think this is probably something that even if we wanted to do it is something that we could do right away. Karen, do you do you have a minute to weigh in on that and how probably buying half a dozen docks is not immediately in the budget?
>> Sure. So, um I can't speak for my colleagues, but just in terms of the general financial outlook and what how difficult it was to get this year's budget balance. Um we do not
expect any windfalls um unless things might somewhere that we don't know about. Um so it's we're we're much more in a
maintenance service mode um than we are services mode. >> And so what that doesn't take off the table is maybe CPC funds. But I I think CPC has been very good to us, but we would really strain credibility to uh go
in with a request for six stocks if if that was the number that people wanted. >> I think that could be a viable um project though certainly for the community if we did go in that direction. Um but yeah, we could certainly talk that through, you know, if that's something that the the
commission's interested in. And and Andrew, am I right to think that if if this was a direction that we wanted to go, whether it's one or two or six, that we would be able to make an argument probably for a conservation and
a recreational sort of application. >> So in this instance, it would be a recreational uh category project sponsored by us. So in my opinion, it'd be an eligible project and we have precedent uh you know from the
recreation department applying for funds under the same category to uh get funding for docks. So we know that that that's already an option that we could explore for docks if we wanted to go down that route. But yeah, it really just depends on what the commission has an appetite for and I'm happy to assist
with filing any projects. So the other issue in every one of these subsequent docs is licensing. So one of the things that I'm going to ask you all with respect to uh each of these dock alternatives is your appetite for
licensing a portion of the dock for a private boat. So, in this scenario, there's actually we could just put docks in that are town controlled and no one's allowed to tie up there for any unreasonable amount of time. And we can figure out what that is in a policy
context. The other alternative is that although it's a public resource, we could grant licenses to allow people to keep a boat there. And Jenny, licenses here, can you walk us through the process? So it would essentially
still be a um like a a lottery system. >> Yeah, I would recommend you still use a lottery system. Um and the licenses would be terminable at will and we would um put in the license as many protections as we can you know think of
and get agreement for um you know to to fully protect the town. you know, the there's um you various risks associated with allowing them to dock at um the dock. The dock would be the town's property,
you know, so that includes damaging the dock itself, you know, and needing to help pay for the um for the repairs. Um but yeah, we would we'd have to work out on on a framework of a different type of
license, but it would again waiver risk, waiver of you know, liability indemnification provisions probably. >> So a little bit of a bigger lift than the kayaks, but probably simpler than
the next one we're going to talk about where we're actually receiving docks from people, right? These are okay. Um, the next alternative essentially says we as a town, we don't
like the idea of having we we don't like the risk profile. We don't like having essentially private docks on public land. So, in this scenario, if people wanted to donate docks to us, right, this is sort of the bridging the funding
gap kind of issue. Like maybe the long-term plan is fully public docs, but let's say in the interim there are a couple of folks who want to donate docks to the town and then the town receives
that donation and is responsible for owning those docks after the donation. So we get over the initial hurdle of purchasing the dock, which could be a funding challenge. And you know, I don't mean here by putting
this out there to suggest that anyone has even said that this is on the table. Um, but I think we should discuss whether or not we would even be willing to accept donations of docs if we were to put them in. And so in this scenario, we would
accept the donation of the dock. We would decide where it goes in um and the town would be responsible for putting it in. But in this scenario, I imagine we would probably be looking for public help to put it in. Ideally, the
person who donated it, helped the town insert the dock. Um, in this scenario though, um, after that dock is donated, from a who owns it perspective, the dock is the towns. And so what this resolves
is what you'll see in the next issue is if if a private property owns property, excuse me, if a private property owner owns the dock and we simply give them a license to put the dock in place, um the insurance requirements and their
liability changes dramatically as well. So in this scenario, they give us the dock, we would still need to figure out how do we evaluate the suitability of that doc? Is it safe? Is it appropriate? you know, all of that stuff. But let's assume that we could get over those hurdles.
Jenny, any other thoughts on this one that I didn't cover? >> Um, just to be aware that, you know, if you're using public uh resources, you know, volunteer help to install the dock.
uh the town is still, you know, to on the hook for, you know, any mistakes there that lead, you know, that could cause harm or damage to somebody, which, you know, we we can protect against. We've got insurance and again, you you know, using the dock, especially if
you're using the dock for free, would be protected by the recreational use statute. But it's just something to consider um that it's not you don't have quite as many protections as you do if you've hired someone to put in the dock and and they owe you a duty of care, you
know, that you could then turn to them and say, you know, help pay for this, you know, this harm caused to this human who, you know, stuck their hand in a rusty nail or something. So in this scenario, Jenny, it the risk profile might be different, but the or
the the specific risk might be different, but the risk profile is very similar to um working with someone to construct a boardwalk at a conservation property, right? They're a volunteer. They're working with us to build a boardwalk. >> Right. Right. And especially, you know,
if if they're in charge of the means and methods, right? Um you it's one thing you know I wouldn't I don't know what you guys do h how you guys do a boardwalk like do you have um some an engineer or somebody design it
or is it just sort of as you go um lay down lay down wood and nails and and hope it's secure. >> It's somewhere in between those two. We're certainly not engineering them,
but uh we're we're not just uh >> we're not just shooting in the dark either. >> But again, in those instances, I imagine that that those areas are open to the public for free, which is, you know, a huge >> uh protection for you guys. And in this
case, these docks would be open to the public for free as well, with the exception of whether or not we decided to license a the ability to keep a boat on that, >> in which case we would contract around that that risk. >> Okay.
And then the the fourth option is where we um there is no donation of the dock. In this case, the distinction between three and four is in three, someone is donating the dock to us and if we're licensing anything, we're licensing
access to the dock via a mo with a motorboat. In four, what we're actually doing is licensing um a private property owner's location to install a dock. And in this context, my understanding and my read from
everybody is we didn't like the idea of fully private docks. I mean, that's the whole reason we're here. So in theory, I suppose we could license it and say you're the only one that that's allowed to use it. My sense from the commission is that that's a non-starter. So a component of this license would be that
they have to allow access to the public to this dock. Now, by virtue of that license, I'm assuming that we would also be licensing a place for them to keep their boat on it. I suppose we could exclude that via a license, but it
doesn't strike me as practical that we would actually go that direction where we say, "Sure, you can put in a dock, but you can't keep a boat there." That that would I think be the core motivation of of folks to do that. So in this scenario um we probably have bigger
issues in terms of verifying the the safety of the infrastructure but on top of that the lency now is really sort of getting in bed with us in terms of providing a service to the public. And so now there are certificates of
insurance, there are liability waiverss as well as the much more mundane things like complying with orders of conditions and and so on that would need to be done. In this scenario though, I think Jenny hit on it. Um we the conservation commission in all of these scenarios we
are um filing the notice of intent or the RDA. We are obtaining the order of conditions. we are passing the requirement to comply with those on to the whoever we're partnering with whether that's mowing or
docs. We would also have to sort out how chapter 91 licensing works here but suffice to say if this is a pathway that people want to go down it's viable. So, I've talked for a while and I'm really sorry for that. But that I promise that is the end of the talking
parts and now perhaps we can understand what folks are thinking in terms of what makes sense for the public. everybody all at once. >> Well, thank you for doing all of this, Chase, and putting this together. Um, so
is the plan to run through these individually once more and to kind of get individual input? >> I Yeah, I think we can do that, right? I mean, I don't think we need to be confined to Michael's original point. I I don't think they're all completely
independent issues. So, I don't want to say, "Oh, we're only going to talk about the Upland." But, yeah, let's let's get input from uh members of the commission first. >> Do you want Chase? Do you want someone to tally or
>> Well, I guess what I envisioned is if there are discussions that that we need to have >> or questions, I think once we get to the point of tallying, I'll just go through and ask people and we'll we'll tally them. Okay, thank you. >> But essentially, does somebody want to make an argument for why we should do
one thing versus the other? I >> think I've made it pretty clear we shouldn't be in the boat storage business. >> I kind of agree that it's it's it I like
to keep it simple. Personally, it's um having a bunch of licenses and different docs. It's just I think we're we're making a situation that we could have very simple very complex.
>> I I think I look at um equal access and so I don't like the idea of ground storage. I think that would be a free-for-all. Um I have seen licenses with lotteryies work well more oceanbased but um and that would be for
me comfort level would have to be on an annual basis. Um so I I would lean more of a combination of that. This all started because somebody wanted to put a dock and was told no and said, "Yeah, but what about these people?" And
I think you identified, if I remember correctly, six stocks that essentially were acceptable condition and three that were not. >> That's what I've been told. I'm certainly not someone who >> Sure. No, I get it. where where I was
going with it is so if we made those six docks grandfathered the person that or anyone that comes along and says well I'd like to have one no you can't but oh by the way these six already exist you know it just going
along with Kyle's comment about keep it simple you know we start to get into all this licensing and now we have to enforce the license and we have to have to, you know, do the all, you know, Tim doesn't have enough to do. I guess he,
you know, he would have to do all the stuff that goes along with it and and, uh, you know, so forth. Um, as to the observation of, well, people have been leaving their kayaks on the shore side. Well, we stopped letting
them do that, you know, and and it's not our place to provide people an easy way to put their kayak or canoe or whatever. And there's already a boat ramp. That's about as easy as you're going to get, you know?
So, I don't know. Just feel like we made a big project out of something that might have been maybe not as big. And that's not an insult to you, Chase, because you put a huge amount of effort into this. So, >> go ahead, Carl.
>> No, no, no. All the effort that Chase has done is like crazy beneficial. Um, and something that we had to go through even to get to this point. Um,
that's that's I'm going to say it right now. Let me lay out my argument for why I think we should be a little more open-minded about access from start at the the sort of
landscaping and vista pruning issues. I setting aside let's say the the sort of privatization of little nooks of this property. I'm not opposed to sort of the open vistas that we have. I think if we want to make conservation voters, the
the number one thing we can do is stand them on Lakeshore Drive and look across the lake at Long Lake Park and go that that's why you're a conservation voter, right? And if that's all vegetated in, people have a hard time seeing that.
They have a hard time taking in what's there. So I I think we need to maintain some process by which we provide vegetation management and control there. I'm comfortable with either the town doing it or a butters doing it. I don't
think that's a big deal, but I think we should be careful about thinking about that. From a canoe and kayak standpoint, um I really come at it sort of like Sarah from an equity standpoint. I want people to be able to access the lake. And I I appreciate that the boat ramp is
over there, but the the majority of people who live by the lake live on the other side of the beach. They live closer to this parcel. And I I I just don't see a big
impediment to having a few racks there that allow people to access the lake. Again, my primary motivation is how do you make more conservation voters? You you put them in kayaks, right? Um and let them paddle around the lake. So
there I think the nominal cost of racks, the slight pain in the ass of uh a licensing system, eh, it's put a tag on it and move on. So that one I'm okay with. Um, in terms of docks, my ideal
outcome would be fully town controlled docks. I would be comfortable with some of those being a license to keep a motorboat there, but I'd rather keep it small rather than large. And one of the things there that I think will frustrate
the public is that license is fully a lottery, right? There's no there's there's no process by which you get sort of two entries into the lottery cuz you live close. So I think that would be a
frustration, but I don't think it is unreasonable to make it possible for a few motorboats to be there. What I don't want is expanding beyond that. Um and so to that end, as long as these other
alternatives for docks are essentially looking towards the future where we get to the place where we are fully just town owned docks and whether it's 3A or 4A is sort of an interim measure, I'm okay with that. I think we
can buy and put in a few docks over time. But I do think having docks here is important. Not just from a boating perspective. I mean, purely selfishly, my son loves to fish. If he had four docks to fish off of, he would be four
times happier, right? And again, like, you know, birding, fishing, getting in with kayaks and canoes, I think that's all better and more accessible with some docks. So, I I' I'd be willing to find a way to deal with it even if the liability scheme isn't ideal in the short term.
I I kind of go along with that, Chase. And and I think one of the qualifications for approving some of our things is that it's in the public's good to be able to have access. You know, it gives everybody the opportunity to enjoy
the spaces. Um, so you know, my only hesitation is that it just doesn't turn into a free-for-all or an ever expanding footprint. And uh I'm not really sure
how to how to do that, but um I think taking taking it all away isn't the right choice either. >> So I I would I would be against uh motorboats
completely. I don't think that that should be allowed. Um I think the town should on all the docks and if we want to install some kayak racks along that green space.
I think we should install some kayak racks. I agree, Chase. More access to give the public the better and the easier the access the better. Um, but I do think it all needs to be town owned and town managed. >> Yeah, I agree with that too, Carla. And
it's not about ease for me. It's it's more about controlled, right? Where we're saying these are the spots and we have we have control over the maintenance and quantity volume um instead of just having a free-for-all on the entire footprint of the lake or the shoreline of the lake. Whether it's
racks or not, I guess I don't really have a preference. If racks would make it a smaller footprint or allow more folks to keep their their equipment there, then that's fine. Um, >> I think Kyle, the big advantage to Rex is a place to lock it up more than anything.
>> Okay, that's fine. Sure. If you're willing to if you want to leave your doc, that's comes down to just a cost on us then or cost on the town, right? Um, as far as the docs, yeah, I Yeah, I appreciate everything that you've done. Just like everybody just said, um,
I'm finding it difficult to pick one or two of these that I think is the the right way to go. I do think that it should be a town regulated owned um thing process, but I >> I mean the challenge for you then Kyle
is whether or not you would be comfortable with it's town controlled because it was donated to the town, right? Like that >> that gets it almost and we've talked about ease a lot, right? But what why is there a way to not
you know re reconstruct the wheel here and use the six docks that are existing and maybe supplement with two the new new docks of the town purchases or is that completely off the table? like I I don't see a >> I mean the way to do that sure we could
we could essentially hybridize you know alternatives three and four with two but in in that case >> so that's this is where I was struggling right I like those three combined >> okay fair enough I I I would almost
I would almost take all the docks out put new docks in that the town wants we know that good docks standard docks. It's going to cost will be a cost, but I at least you know you've got a
standard dock that's going in these locations. >> Weise otherwise have a mismatch. >> Sorry. >> Otherwise, you got a mismash of docks. And to me, you know, we're going to
manage it. Let's manage it correctly. >> Right. I I agree with Carl. I think as um our council mentioned, you know, duty of care, all well, I think most of us have put docs in and out. I know I do it seasonally. It's a tremendous amount of
work. It can be very risky as well. Um I was encouraged by Andrew and his comment with CPC and potential funding. I would certainly go the route of asking for donations. Um, I would like to be consistent with with the docks and have
town ownership. >> And I would I would also um echo that sentiment as well. Um, I agree um with Carl's uh perspective that um I'm I'm more definitely more of a 2A or 2B, probably more of like the 2B or
somewhere in between uh route where we have, you know, docs we know are structurally sound. uh accessible and uh are going to provide that access because at the end of the day, I think what we all want is public access to this area
of the lake. Um and if we can facilitate that, I think we're in good shape. Um and we're providing equitable access for all of the residents. Um you know, anybody that can either walk there, wheel their kayak. One thing for me that
I'm not really comfortable with is the storage of uh private property on the land. Um that I'm I'm kind of shying away from. I don't really want to do boat racks on um this particular strip of land for the same reason that we
didn't over on um the field property uh off of the other side of Lake Shore. Um, and then when it comes to um actually letting um private abutters mow, I'm I'm
less inclined to do that. I'm more of a town managing it responsibly in terms of invasives and maybe seasonal mowing while also maybe incorporating some uh paths for people to access just so we're not having, you know, people uh stepping
on growth. So, I guess my approach would be more of um letting the the land kind of reclaim naturally while being responsibly managed for invasives and access town
owned docks and uh no private property. That's where I kind of stand right now after kind of hashing this around a little bit. Like Carl said before, I just think the licensing gets so complicated. Um,
and enforcement is another story. So I it's just kind of down a rabbit hole. Um, but that's my perspective. >> So Andrew, it to put not too fine a point on it then. So here in terms of the upland, your preference would be the
town assumes responsibility for the maintenance. And what you're saying there is you would let sort of meadows develop rather than just mow it to green grass, but you would mow it a few times a year to keep it down, keep the vistas, keep the viewshed.
>> Exactly. >> Do I understand that right? >> Perfect. Yeah. And at the same time maybe having some kind of um you know rock pathway um a couple of those as much access as possible at the same time maintaining the viewshed and that
natural um natural uh system along the the water's edge. I >> I do think that's an important point that's sort of embedded in these. I've always assumed that whatever kayak and canoe access or dock access we have will have to come with some disturbance down
to the the shore if we're willing to to deal with that. And if we're not willing to deal with that, we'll probably have different issues. But um but yeah, there embedded in this is always a little bit of that creating minor access if nothing
else. Hey, I do think if if I can just interject with with Andrew is that we've had really good success with land stewards. Um it may be nice to try and at least be open-minded to a collaboration of shore stewards. So if there are people that are, you know, willing to help with some of that
vegetation management as well in addition to the town oversuing that, I would be I'd be keen to develop lake um stewards. >> Yeah. And you'll see here there's a bunch of times where I say like invasive species management is still going to be needed regardless of whether or not we
partner with someone to mow the parcel across from there. And that that's probably done best in conjunction with Long Lake Neighborhood Association or LCTV, LCTV, LCT or um I mean Judy, you can help too if you want with LCTV. Um
Oh, Amber, not Judy. Sorry, Amber. Um or some other, you know, local community group. >> One thing that hasn't been discussed. Okay, great. Everybody's all for us controlling everything. But you do
recall our budget was very significantly crimped. We were given more to do with no money. We managed thankfully to get the money donated, but you know what you're talking about. Even if the docks
are donated, you're still talking about the cost of mowing, the cost of putting the docks in and out every year, six or nine or however many it is that ends up being. the the cost of you know there there are costs here ongoing costs
ongoing work ongo ongoing everything that you know I just I don't know I just feel like we don't have enough money we won't get more money the town has no money in fact
they're taking more of our money from us this this is you know I'm seeing dollar signs here dollar signs and Tim Mark. >> No, understood, Ed. And I think one of that's a big reason why Karen is here
and I think a big reason why we shouldn't formally vote tonight, but we do need to sort of hone in on the things that we are supportive of because let's say we are all I'm going to put words in your mouth here. Let's say we are all supportive of, you know, a couple
publicly resourced docs. Then we go to the select board and say, is this what we want? because it doesn't come for free. And is this the prioritization that you wanna you want to use? >> So, >> and is this where we want to put our priorities?
>> Well, and that that I think is another challenging question. >> Mhm. >> Um I I think to the extent that members of the public have comments, if you want to raise your hands, I think we can probably transition to that phase of this discussion. And then what we're
going to do is come back and discuss sort of the scoring that we have after we hear public comment. Uh a reminder, I am going to keep people to three minutes. I hate doing that. I'm sorry when I cut you off. It pains me to do it. So with >> So we're going to go ahead and start
with Sarah. And Sarah, you can go ahead and talk. We do ask that anyone that does raise their hand um if you can identify yourself as your your full name and your address that would be great. Go ahead Sarah. >> Hi everybody.
>> Oh sorry. >> Um my name is Sarah Corey. I live at 35 Lakeshore Drive. Um I just wanted to thank the commission um for your somewhat softer approach to this topic. Obviously, we're all very very passionate about um what we abut to and
we take pride in all of the land stewardship stewardship um that we've maintained since we've all been here. Um Ed, I do appreciate the suggestion of possibly grandfathering in the docks. Um ours is one of the ones that's considered to be in better condition. Um
and I know Chase, your son's invited over if he wants to come. I mean, we have a great fishing spot. Those little guys are always catching the best fish right off of our dock. Um, one thing that I will bring up, um, in the past month or so on the Littleton Mom's
group, which is always happening, um, somebody did mention the desire for a boat rack or two around the lake. Um, they mentioned, they actually took a picture, I don't remember if it was Hudson or Carlile, um, but they were like, "Wouldn't this be so cool at Long Lake?" And so I did invite them to kind
of be aware of this conversation that's been ongoing. Um, and so just so you guys know, that is a discussion among the moms at least, but I'm sure anybody. Um, and I think that although we do have a boat ramp, you know, there's not a ton
of parking over there. I guess that also brings up the the slight lack of parking around the lake in general, but you know, you can't just pull into the parking lot. Little the parks and wreck monetizes it in the peak um months. So, you know, you we want pe people to use
the water, but then they can't park or they have to pay or they get ticketed if they don't. So, yeah. Um, and again, we would love to keep things kind of status quo. This feels a little bit reactive, you know, as we've all done the same thing for decades now. So, we'd love to kind of
ease into whatever we're going to do. Um, we don't want this to be a a limited access for the public in the next coming months. You know, it's finally getting warmer. We really would appreciate consideration to kind of like ease in um let the town continue to enjoy what we
have. You know, it's fine to give us some guidelines, but we haven't had them all these years. So, um just know that we do care about the land and our lake and our property and our neighbors. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks, Sarah. Um one thing, Sarah, I just want to comment on um to Sarah
Corey's comment. Here's probably what Sarah was referring to. we got a a public comment on this and and here it is. So that's number one. Um second Sarah is um Jenny maybe you can weigh in. My understanding is to the
extent that we allowed docs to go in that would have to go in via a licensing system and that licensing system we couldn't preferentially weight it towards people who are grandfathered. Is is that do I understand that right? >> That's right.
>> Okay. So Sarah, Corey, we we're going to struggle to sort of reflect that grandfathering in a a formal way. Now, if we did docs and there are only four docs and there are only four, you know, applicants, great. But
>> okay, Dustin, go ahead. >> Thank you. Dustin Neil, 17 Lakes Shore Drive. I just want to um first off, thanks to Chase for putting everything together. Um, also to Miss Merrill for mentioning the recreational use statutes. That's something that I
asserted would apply and I'm glad to hear that confirmed because I think it's the first time we've heard that confirmed since early in these discussions. So, thank you for that. Then on to the sort of like keep it simple observation. I want to just remind everybody this was this has been
in place like this for like 20 to 50 years and has had little or no town management. this works very simply as is. I understand why we can't keep it as is, but connecting that idea also to Chase's comment earlier about getting
uh political will lined up with conservation, that's really important. And I know that this group is planning to go to CPC for boardwalk funding for enhanced accessibility in several places around town while at the same time
trying to air quotes keep it simple by removing docs and accessibility here. Those things don't really add up that well. So I think there's an important consideration for that. Um next is that I I like the idea of racks. I've been saying that for years. Um, but racks
without docks sort of invites more foot trampling and stuff like that. But absolutely the location of docks is way way way better than trapesing all the way over to the beach because for someone to get a canoe to the beach, they probably have to put it in their car, stuff like that. The idea is to
have either racks or accessible places along the lake where folks up the hill and throughout the Long Lake neighborhood can easily get to access points near their homes because that's what limits the parking and the other um uh intrusive things um that are out
there. So, I I think racks without docks or well-defined spaces um aren't the best idea. Um that's all. Thank you. Okay, Chase. >> Sarah, >> this is Jim Garity. I'd like to make a
comment. Um, I've unmuted myself if that's all right. And of course, I'm going to make a comment since I am in a butter here, not as a member of the commission, but as a uh as a member of the town. Is that all right? >> Yeah, go ahead, Jim. >> Thank you. I first of all I would echo the comments from Sarah and Dustin and
others of the appreciating the very thoughtful all the time that's been put in by Chase and everyone and the thoughtful discussion about the many different considerations here. I just thought I would comment on two points that I thought for maybe a little further uh reflection. The first is that uh before the
commission thinks about making a final decision here. It seems to me that there is some additional information that could and should be gathered. There have been many comments made about different costs and those costs are estimable and the cost of taking some of these steps I think should be assessed and because of
course it would be town taxpayer money we should understand what the cost of those various measures were would be and secondly we should understand what the licensing fees would be and really think about you know what licensing fees might be available and how might they compare to cost under some of the different scenarios Chase has laid out and and and
bring that to bear on making a final decision. The second point I wanted to make was simply that uh should there be a licensing component. I just want to make a comment that the discussion kind of suggested that a lottery was the only method that
was discussed for assigning uh places whether it's docks or slips or whatever. And I I would just suggest that a lottery is not the only method of assigning those. And lotteryies of course have some significant disadvantages. They could end up with random winners. people who just decide to put their name in, who have no real
interest, no responsible interest, and end up with a slip that they don't care for and actually are not good caretakers. This the comment was made that we couldn't preferentially weigh grandfathering. I and I accept that. But I do think there could be a process and again council could weigh in on this
maybe not not now but afterwards on a process that would not be a lottery but would be a process whereby people would apply for these rights to a dock or a slip and provide a kind of a rationale as to how they would propose to care for it and care for it in the best interest of the lake and that those rights could
be assigned based on the commission's review of those applications rather than a lottery that that might end in a better allocation should we take the licensing right. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Do you want me to speak to that at all?
>> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind to, Jenny, I think to the extent that you have an answer and can clarify that that'd be great. >> Sure. Yeah. I mean, that's actually an interesting point. And um and I should say, you know, there's there aren't procurement concerns with a license. Um
so, when I'm talking about, you know, doing a lottery or something like that, it's not to comply with procurement laws because a license is not subject to procurement laws. Having said that, you don't um you could always follow a procurement process just because you know just because you don't
have to. So it doesn't actually have to be a lottery. You could do like a request for proposals as well or an invitation for bids or something you know similar to how the town procures services or disposes of you know um interest in real property.
You could go the extra mile and do that. So you could come up with something like that. I don't know that you could do it strictly like applying for a job or apply, you know, but um as long as it's open and transparent and fair, I would say that that's fine,
>> right? Would still close the door on grandfathering, but might broaden our ability to to think about how it would be utilized, right? If someone is going to keep uh use it once over the summer versus use it all year, those sorts of
factors could be weighed, >> right? If you wanted to if you wanted to put in other considerations into how how you would divvy it out like you said >> somebody who wants to use it all summer long. Somebody who want you know somebody who wants to put in a dock and make it completely available to the
public and not use it at all. You know something like that right? Those could be more highly advantageous to the town. Um >> but at the end of the day it's still a license. All we're doing is parsing the way in which we decide to grant the license. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Great. We're going to go ahead and go to Sebastian Klein. Um, as outlined before, we're asking everyone to speak once so that we can stay within our time aotments of three minutes. Sebastian, go ahead. >> Yes. Thank you, Sarah. Sebastian Klein to Dogwood Road. I'd like to join in and
thank the commission for this open dialogue. In the spirit of keeping things s things things simple, which I'm definitely in favor of, especially given how this all started, I just want to add a thought to Ed's concern about budget. And then Sarah, I love your thought
around stewardship. You know, there are neighbors who have put in the work and the care and the financial means to maintain access, their own access to the lake. Um, and that's certainly value that you guys should consider as well.
Um, we would love to get some more guidance and help support. I'd be the first one to volunteer if somebody was to provide guidelines. uh even if you own you end up controlling and overseeing and owning the docks. Um I think there's multiple neighbors who
would love to chip in help to mow help to maintain the docks, help to carry the docks in and out to reduce the financial burden on you and on the town. Um and all we would need is just collaboration and guidance to keep it very similar to how it's been running just with your
participation and your involvement and your ownership in it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Chase, back to you. >> So, um, what I'd like to do, folks, is I'm going to share my screen again and
th this is going to be a little cumbersome and I apologize. Um, but I remember to hit share again. There you go. Can you guys see that? Um, what I'd like to do is I'm gonna pick on one of you. We're going to sort of run down the
options and just as we go down these, tell me what you would support, what you would oppose, or what you maybe don't have an opinion on. And I'm going to start to tally those up. There's one sheet for um docs. You'll note with the docs,
would you support it with licenses or without licenses. So maybe you're okay with docs, but you you don't want a license for for someone to keep a boat there. Um, so that's the only distinction. Then for kayaks, uh, it it's simply support or oppose or no
opinion. And for, um, upland management, it's simply support or oppose or no opinion. I want to make it really clear for the public record, none of this is binding. This is purely a straw poll. We're trying to understand which way the wind blows.
Everyone is 100% free to completely change their mind when we get to the point of a final vote if for no other reason than a lot of the details aren't fully fleshed out. So before I do that, are there any other thoughts or comments that folks have? If not, I'm just going
to jump in and start to call on people. >> And and Chase, um just to be fair, if someone doesn't have at this moment want to make a comment, they certainly have that opportunity as well. >> Absolutely. and and right and and that's true of both the commissioners of course
and um members of the public. We are still taking public comment. The next step here will be to to take this in front of the select. So um there's a there's no shortage of process.
Uh let's see who's first on my list. Ed, you want to kick us off here >> and we'll just sort of run down Upland management first. >> Sure. And I'm more inclined toward number one myself.
>> Okay. Would you support two if it was put forward or do you oppose that? >> Um I'm I'm against two primarily because of the added cost. >> Okay. >> So oppose that? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
And three, if we if we had to do something and the abutters were going to do the maintenance, then I guess if we if it wasn't one, I guess three. >> Okay. But your preferred here would be one. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, kayak and boat storage. >> I think I made a pretty clear number one. >> Fair enough. who I'm a man who likes his process if nothing else.
>> Uh, no, that's okay. >> And then, um, a little more trouble here. I'm I'm more inclined towards staying with what's already there and nothing. No, you know, don't don't go buying docks. Don't go putting costs. Don't don't put processes in place that
we're going to have to enforce, so on and so forth. I don't really have that as an option. >> Well, it's sort of no new permits for docks on this parcel, right? Like we >> Or are you talking about utilizing existing docks? >> I'm talking about keeping the six we
have, >> right? >> That's kind of where I was going. Right. That's That wasn't one of the options I thought we discussed. >> I'm going to tell you that that that and Jenny, correct me if I'm wrong. just letting maintaining the status quo is probably not something town council
would recommend. Am I right in that? The status quo being private parties control it. They go put it in. There's no sort of formalized structure to it. >> Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that. >> We can't formalize that. We can't make those licensed, I guess, is what I
>> Well, I'll call it a license and you're licensing the six docs that are already there. Well, then if what you're saying there is sort of maintain the status quo with licenses, that's alternative four, right? The person the the private party controls the dock. The private party is
responsible for putting it in. We still need a license to memorialize it. >> Sure. Um Okay, then we're talking 4B. >> Okay. Does that mean you'd also be okay with 4 A or it's all or nothing to you? >> Um I'm not quite sure. 4 A is a smaller
number of docs than six. >> Oh. Uh, no, no. I'm, if I'm going to go this way, then I'm basically saying, you know, 4B, keep it keep what it is now. Okay. You want to put the license in place? Fine. But >> Sure. >> Otherwise, you know, we're not we're not punishing anyone. We're not excessively
helping anyone, and we're minimizing the cost to us. >> Okay. Does that mean >> So, to clarify, are we min minimizing cost to 4B or who's procuring docs there? >> Nobody. Nobody. >> These are the docs that people already own and can. >> Okay. So, that's the docks that are
there and we put a license on them >> or they can buy a new dock. I don't I don't know. >> It's up to them. >> We would still be putting in a notice of intent and having to get chapter 91 licenses for the stocks on behalf of the private owners.
>> Yep. But I think that's going to be true in a lot of cases. There's going to be a notice of intent or an RDA here in any case. Mhm. >> So Ed, do I correctly understand then that you're not comfortable with taking the donation and the town controlling it? >> Correct.
>> Okay. And overall, is your preference no docs or is your preference um status quo? >> Status quo. >> Okay. Would you be okay with no docs if we
just said none at all? If we said none at all, uh, sure. I I if Yeah. Okay. If we don't if we don't say keep the ones we have now with a license, then I'd rather there be nothing. I don't want us buying docs, maintaining docs, and all
that goes with that. >> Okay. Very good. Okay, Kyle, you're up. >> Sure. Um, I I think I I oppose one. Okay. Um
um four I support two and I could support three if that's the way we decided to go. >> My preference >> two please. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Kayaks.
>> Um I oppose one and that I I could support two or three. >> I would support two or three. Um, I prefer three personally. >> Okay. And docks and boats.
>> Uh, so I would support what do I have here? 2B and 4B, I guess, after you kind of clarified some things there. >> Okay. So 2B is we have six docs and they're
fully fully public and oh I I should go up here in terms of supporting 4B. Does that mean with or without licenses for the docs? Like are you okay with boats on the >> Yeah, I believe with licenses would be
my >> Okay. Support with licenses. So you would oppose 2A? Okay. >> Yeah, I would oppose 2A and 4A. Like I said, like Ed said, if we're doing this, we might as well make it accessible as much as we can. >> Okay.
>> Um, and then yeah, I don't see the benefit in receiving donations. So, yeah, I'd be opposed against three. Yeah. >> Okay. And your preference overall? >> I Yeah, 4B would be my preference. >> Okay.
Thanks all for being patient here. Uh, Carl, you're up. Uh, okay. >> So, meditation first. >> Yeah, I'd be I'd oppose that. >> Okay. >> Um,
two would be my preference. And if we did management, but the butters controlled it, are you okay with that or you oppose that? >> I don't oppose that. Okay. Okay. Kayaks and non-motorized boats
stored in the upland. >> Um, without just stored without having any type of kayak racks, I would I would I would do number two. Town acquired installs racks select locations
>> and that's your preference? >> Yes. Okay. Uh what about one and three? One is no storage at all. >> Uh no, I would I think we need some kind of storage. So I would say uh
>> so you would oppose that. It's a little negative, but >> yeah, I would I would oppose that. And um and three, uh I would oppose any type of ground storage. Okay. Without racks. Yep.
You guys are making this clear as mud for me here. Okay, Carl, let's see what you got for uh docks and boats. >> Um I would have the town acquire the new
docks. That' be 2 A. I would support I wouldn't support any donations at all. So any of the donations. >> Okay. So, >> I'd be opposed to >> So, let's start at the top. Uh, would
you be okay if we said no new permits for new docks? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you be okay then if we said town control docks? Sounded like that was a yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. With or without licenses, would you be okay with us giving licenses for
boats to sort of be stored there? Um, I'd be against licenses. >> Okay. Whoops. Sorry. Yep. >> Okay. And then you don't like anything
associated with the town, >> right? No donations. Yes. Okay. And your preference here overall for docs, like if if you had to pick one, which
which would you ideally have? >> Uh for docs, I the um I'd do it 2A would be >> two docks. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, no, wait a sec. Let me think about
that one for a minute. Um, Tommy request donations to dogs donations acquires new dogs. I think are we our only options two or six docs or >> take two or six to being a small number or a larger number?
>> Okay, I do the small smaller number 2 a. Okay, Michael, you're up. Shoot. Did we lose Michael? Nope. We got Michael. >> He's muted. >> Well, Michael's talking on mute again. >> There you go. >> All right. Um, so I would oppose number
one and I would support either two or three. >> Okay. >> Uh, my preference would be number two. >> Thank you. Okay. Kayaks. >> All right. Kayaks. Let's see. Um I would
oppose number one and I would support um uh two or three and my preference would be number two. and boats and docks. >> Boats and docks. All right, let's see.
Um, yeah, I would support U number one. Uh, same as Ed and Carl. Yeah. Um, I'll oppose the ones that are two and support the ones that are six. >> Okay.
>> Uh, with licenses. Oh my goodness. Right. >> Uh, yeah. So far, >> I'm glad it's you and not me. >> I am just grateful that you guys are being patient with me and walking me through what you'd like and your overall preference. Michael,
>> I would be the last one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh let's see. Andrew SMCO, you're up. >> All right, I'm up. So, I would be uh a proponent of two with that kind of
hybrid approach of letting areas uh renaturalize, but to manage them for invasives and from time to time uh mow them. Um, I foresee maybe highway departments, uh, you know, coming by just like they do at Bumblebee Park, um,
off of Harwood Avenue and other areas. Um, just doing that seasonally. Uh, let's see. >> So, you you'd be opposed to just reve essentially rewing it. You you want it to be maintained even if maybe in a
slightly wilder state. >> Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I wouldn't want it just growing up into a mess. No. Absolutely. >> And allowing a Butters to do the maintenance. >> I would oppose that. I would keep that in the town's hands. Um and at the same
time, you know, have volunteers come forward to help maintain as well to supplement, you know, town staff. I don't see it as being a big burden uh maintenance- wise for the town staff, just seasonal. And then um the preliminary uh path construction as
well. >> Okay. Kayaks. >> Let's see. So I would support no storage of kayaks and canoes or any uh private property.
>> Okay. And does that mean that you would oppose options two and three here? I wouldn't want to see a wreck on the conservation line if there was somewhere else. I just don't know practically how that would work if if there was some
other parcel. But the problem is if we put it too far away, it becomes impractical. Like why do it at that point? I I'll tell you with this parcel in particular, it's either on the conservation land or it it it doesn't exist or it's on private property, I
suppose, but no one has stepped forward to volunteer their private property for it. >> And I mean, the status quo right now for anyone that doesn't currently have a boat on the property is you have to bring the boat to the shore. You have to wheel it down, lock it down, or put it in your car. Um, so essentially I want
to create access and keep the status quo for um storage for for the masses essentially. >> Okay. So you don't want racks then on conservation land. So this would be opposed to to >> Yeah. I I really don't want us to get
into the licensing and storage business. I I just think it's going to create too much of a burden for Tim and Lauren. I mean, we talk about staff hours and I mean, we're pretty and over our heads right now with permitting and land management as it is. Uh, >> so didn't we tell you we're going to run
it through the town clerk? >> Oh my god, my mouth. >> And believe me, I know licensing firsthand and it's no easy task. So, I just I I just don't want the conservation department to get into the
fold of having to license and and enforcements and other things. who's going to patrol these areas to ensure that people aren't storing things where they're not supposed to be or mooring boats where they're not supposed to be. Uh I I mean that's that's a huge uh that
alone that area of licensing would be a huge um time drain. >> That's going to have to happen regardless of the options, isn't it? >> Unless the option is nothing. Yeah. >> But then there's some headache here. >> Yeah, exactly. You got to make sure people aren't just leaving their canoes
on the shoreline anyway, >> which they are, by the way. >> They are. No, absolutely. I I think it would be a simpler enforcement in this case, though, because I mean, somebody wouldn't have to pick through and say, "Okay, this boat's got a tag on it. This one doesn't." Um or, you know, this um
this private property does and this doesn't. So, it's a little more direct and easier to enforce in that instance. >> Okay. And then in terms of docks and boats, um would you support no new
permits for docks? Like just no docks go in. Is that support or oppose? >> I I would support that. I just think it gets very messy because ultimately choosing who gets to install a new dock versus who doesn't just don't see an
equitable way to do that. I want access for everybody equally. >> Okay. Um, so then that brings us to if the town controlled the docks, would you be comfortable putting in docks? >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yes. I
>> I would support um the town purchasing docks just so we know that there's a standard dock out there that has the same accessibility, safety, um it's uniform throughout. We know that they're getting put in properly. Um, ultimately
access is the goal and I think that's the safest and most responsible way to do it. Um, and I I understand there are costs incurred. Um, but we wouldn't be removing them that frequently throughout the year. Uh, we're in the the town removes docks and brings them in now, so
we're in the practice. I mean, that's the park and recck side of things, but um, ultimately, yeah, I I would be a very big proponent of town docks. And would you be comfortable with any number or just sort of the half dozen that are already there? Essentially two or six.
Are you supportive of both or just one small or large? >> In looking at the parcel, I think strategically three makes the most sense in my mind. One in the center and one on each side. Um, and I I really think that would create so many access points for
the public to be able to, you know, walk a canoe down. uh drive one down, drop it off. Essentially, what they have to do right now if they wanted to launch from one of these docks that's, you know, existing. Um, but in this instance, they're launching from a dock that we
know is safe, installed properly, and meets our standards. >> Sure. And so, last last question here, just as I sort of hone in on this, would you be okay with issuing licenses for people to keep their boats there? It sounded like you didn't like licenses
and I just want to make sure when you say I'm good with public docks, you mean public docs for access, not public docks for keeping a boat there over the summer. >> Exactly. Yeah. So, so I I wouldn't be a proponent of that just from the enforcement standpoint and the who do
you license versus who do you don't because ultimately if we have a swell of people that want licenses to more motorboats on these docks, how do we pick and choose who does and doesn't? And so we we wind up with that same uh equitability uh problem where if
somebody's living on let's say Spectacle Pond Road, what if they want to moore a boat at Long Lake? You know, we're only probably going to be able to do two or three boats per dock. So we're not solving any issues in terms of access for the boats in this instance. It may
help a handful of people, but it's not going to help uh the town equally. >> Okay. Um, and then last couple questions. So, you don't want anything to do with non-town docs. So, donated docks are a no-go for you. And licensed
docs, licensing a spot for a private doc is a no-go for you. Do I understand that right? >> That would be a nogo. >> Anything with a license is not >> ideal. That wouldn't be ideal for me. If somebody wanted to donate a brand new
amazing dock that met our standards, I'm all for it. >> Sure. >> But um yeah, I I >> let's assume it's a used dock. >> Exactly. I I think we should have a high bar for you know what we're having the public step on and I get that you know liability can be mitigated through
different uh you know practices but ultimately we don't want things to happen and we want uh you know to have control of the situation. >> Okay. I think we got it. So, your overall preference is a small number of town controlled docks that don't have
permanent licenses for boats. >> Yes. Yep. >> Cool. Awesome. >> Thank you. >> Sarah, you're up. >> So, to make it easy, I concur with Andrew on the last one. >> So, I love the idea of three docs. I
think two is not enough. Six might be too many. I also love the idea of like a uh more of a master plan. How many do we do the first year and then the next year? Um, I would be concerned with having boats on these docks. Um, you
know, we get these huge rainfalls, boats get swamped, no one's there to kind of drain them out. It limits the access for people to get onto the water from the docks as well. So, um, and I no for licenses. Uh, jumping back up to the top
in regards to vegetation, I do not want to see it go wild. Uh, my preference is for kind of like town, um, but also a hybrid, as I talked about, having kind of like shoreland stewards. So, I'm not opposed to either two or three, but my
preference is is really kind of have the town monitor that. >> Okay. In regards to canoe, um I'm concerned for boats being just abandoned. I would I prefer um probably that lottery method
where annually on a small scale. Um and I do agree that you know there's not a lot of land. So, I would like to start off um on a small scale with, you know, potentially six boats and then kind of work your way up from there if it's if
it's feasible. I do not want ground storage. I think, as I mentioned earlier, I think that would be a hot mess. >> Okay. So, you're supportive in general of racks. Would you be supportive of doing nothing? Like, would we just say no boat storage or would you
>> I I' I'd support doing nothing as well. Okay. And what's your preference? Sounded like your preference here was some racks. >> My preference is some racks. Yep. Just to help bring more more access in. >> Well, what this is illuminating for me is that it makes perfect sense that I
couldn't figure out where we were cuz we're kind of all over the place. But I I do see some patterns coming out. For the sake of transparency, let me just populate this. Uh I'm opposed to just blindly reveating things. I am good with either reveation approach. um all else
being equal and if resources were infinite, I would prefer that the town do it. I don't think that's ultimately where we'll land. But um in terms of um in terms of boat storage, oh whoops,
Sarah, I think >> you have that right, Chase. >> Do I have that right? Okay. Um >> okay. Um, I I I wouldn't support something that said no storage. I I really do think we need it. So, in that sense, I'd be good with either kind of
storage, but I would much prefer racks. I think they look cleaner. I think they they just work better. And even if it creates a a little bit of an administrative headache, I think boats especially are easy enough. Um,
I I mean I I guess I I I think we should allow some doc stuff. So I I probably wouldn't support a motion for no new permits at all. Um >> Chase, that's where I go to. You don't have me listed for that. >> Oh, sorry, but that's where I would be.
>> If that's the only mistake I made here, we'll be fortunate. Um, I I I would be supportive with licenses of, you know, town control docs. I think the ideal outcome is town controlled. Um, I
probably fall in the ideal of a few, probably not a large number, but I I'd support both. Um, I I don't I don't think it's a good idea. So, I would probably support requesting
donations. Um, we're either we're either all in or we're all out. And then here, I would certainly support I think a smaller number. It does create equity concerns. We're going to make somebody mad, but I think we're going to make
people mad anyway. And I would support the last one, you know, sort of six stocks where we we essentially put ourselves on a path to private uh making them fully public, but this is our stop gap. So I think I think I covered it
all. Um I think we can be done with this for a little bit. I am um deeply appreciative of everyone being patient here. >> I think I have everything I need. Sarah. Um, what I will do for the sake of the minutes is memorialize this and we can
dump it in the minutes in a few weeks. >> Okay. So, with that said, um, I would entertain a motion to close this public hearing. Um, and then with the thought is
would you like to then go forth to create some policy and ask for two or three commissioners to help with that language or what would you like to do? >> I be I'm okay closing the public hearing. I mean, I think we've gotten
all the public input that we're going to get here. I would not be comfortable saying we're going to go put a policy together because I think a lot of these run through select boards input. If they say, "Hey, I I appreciate that you want these things that cost money, but you're never going to get it." Then,
>> okay, >> we we need that. So, >> I I'd be supportive of closing the public hearing. That doesn't mean though for members of the public that we won't continue to take written comments. >> Correct. >> Commissioners, how do you feel about that?
>> Yeah, I agree. >> Sounds agree. >> Yeah. >> Good. If that's the case, um, do we have someone that would like to entertain that motion, please? >> I move that we close the public hearing for future land use of town own parcel
U12-14-0. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> All right. Roll call vote. Uh, Michael >> Michael Livingston. I >> Carl >> Carl Melberg. >> Chase
>> Chase. Ed. >> Yeah. >> Folks I >> Sarah >> Sarah Seaw word I >> Kyle >> Kyle Maxfield I >> myself I it's unanimous. >> Okay Chase you have done the yman's work with
that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Chase. >> Sorry it took five times longer than it needed to but >> no all good. I think that was great great dialogue and certainly thanks to all the the public that have been really diligent to kind of follow us through this this journey. Um there's been a lot
lot of comments and hopefully we can work something out uh together that works out well for everyone. Um with that said, that completes this uh agenda and meeting for this evening. It is now 101.
If I may have a motion to adjourn this meeting. >> Oh god. So moved. >> Okay. With that, may I have a second? >> Second. All right, >> last roll call vote of the night. Michael
>> Michael I >> Chase >> Chase. Carl >> Carl I >> Ed >> Ed foli >> Sarah >> Sarah Seawward I >> Kyle >> oh Max >> myself I it's unanimous and we are
adjourned