Hello. >> Good evening. >> Matteo is can't couldn't make it tonight. So, I am the host. Sorry. All right, Michael's here. Mayor's here. Scott's
here. Wait a little bit longer for Bob. Well, we can open the meeting since we have a quorum. Bob will join us, I'm sure. Right. So, welcome everybody. Um,
this is the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Conservation Commission. I'm opening it. It's 7:02. Um, this meeting is being recorded. All right. First on our agenda is comments from the chair. All I have is
that I did see a request for a butter notification for a butter list from National Grid for the the large project that we've kind of been talking about a little bit. Um the big transmission line project. So they were just requesting
their abutters list. I know they had a couple questions on it. So, I don't know how soon the application will actually come, but um that'll be exciting, something to look forward to. Um
that's all I had. I have something under unanticipated business at the end that we can we can talk about, but besides that, nothing new for me. Um, so let's move on to uh review and vote on the minutes of May 28th. Does anybody have
any comments or changes on those? >> No. >> Okay. I'm looking for a motion then to approve the minutes of May 28th, 2026. >> So moved. >> Great. Second. >> Second.
>> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Um, McDuffy. Hi >> Fox. >> Hi Con. >> Hi >> and Wilson. Hi.
I still don't see Bob. Wait, let me see if he wants to come in. Forgot that I'm in charge of that. Hey Beth, can you hear me? Okay, >> I can. Hi, Bob. >> Oh, good. >> Um, so we started the meeting without
you. Sorry. But all we've done is vote on minutes. >> Okay. So, we're on item number three, which >> most exciting part, and I missed it. That's okay. I'll read the minutes later. >> Miss most exciting. Yeah, most exciting.
Um, number three on agenda is um site visit update. Mayor, do we have any updates? >> No, I'm sorry I wasn't able to get make the site visit today, but
>> Oh, that sorry. the both Scott and Bob were there so we were well represented and I know that um Matteo is not on this not on the call but he's still trying to set up that site visit near the elementary school which has been sort of
strange um because the we just haven't had good communication I think with the owners and then they expected us to be there and then we weren't there because nobody had really confirmed that we were supposed to be there um so we'll see where that goes. I don't I think again
Matteo reached out and um hasn't heard back. So >> um >> yeah, I don't know. >> But yeah, I do remember all that um as communication. >> Yeah. All right, moving on then. Uh four is
land management updates. Scott Yeah. Do I think you have another part of the agenda to talk about the the bid opening too and um and the rags. So I I don't
have anything beyond those two items. >> Okay. But you're prepared to talk about the bids, right? Because I haven't had a chance to look too much at all of that. >> Yeah. I don't know that we've um
I can certainly be prepared to do that. I I didn't know if um they have been I think Matteo opened both of them right today and that's what he had sent us. Right. >> Right. Um yeah, I think he in the text
there was sort of a text chain but I haven't had much of a chance to look but >> yeah I can talk about that. >> Great. Sounds good. All right. Well, we're a little early for our 7:15 item.
>> Can I question about that? Um, >> I am just going to jump over to not that specifically, but when um I'm trying I was trying to find it. Um, I know I found it before with the 36 South Laurel
Drive, but when I go under notices of intent, I um I see uh two, you know, all different years, right? Oh, I see it. Never mind. I never mind. I see it now. Okay. All set.
>> All set. Go ahead. >> All set. >> Um All right. Since it's only 7:08, why don't we jump to um number six, which is discuss and vote and ratify an emergency certification for some um hazard tree
hazard tree removal at 678 Crack Corner Road. Um and I can share that emergency really quickly with you guys so you can see it. I think I can do that. Nope.
Can you guys see the emergency start? >> I see email. >> Why does it do that? How's that? Yes. Okay. So, this is just a
um update or reissue of this emergency search. So, we issued this in November, I think, of last year and um and he wasn't able to get his tree company out there and then it snowed so
much that it was not a winter to get them out there. So he came and asked for sort of a reissue of the same emergency. It was to take down trees that were threatening their house. We did a site
visit back in October. Um and let's just see what this says. There were seven compromised trees taken down and chipped. No equipment is allowed that say allowed to enter the stream
area or the stream bank or the wetland area behind the house. All efforts be made to keep equipment on the driveway in the front and in the upland areas in the back. All debris must be removed from the site and seven native trees shall be planted within 8 ft of where
the removed trees were located. Um, so I think he's he's definitely started the work of taking down the trees and I told him that we would want to come and see the newly planted trees um when that's all done.
So I'll stop sharing that. Does anybody have any questions on that one? No. Okay. So, I'm looking for a vote to ratify that emergency start number two for 678 Cracker Road. >> So, moved.
>> I'll second. >> Great. Roll call. Um, gone. >> Hi, >> Douglas. >> Hi, >> McDuffy. >> Hi, >> Fox. >> Hi, and Wilson. Hi,
great. All right, still only 7:11, so possibly we can do number seven really quickly. Also, number seven is discuss and vote on an administrative approval request, otherwise known as a small project
permit for some deck work at 8 Lake Drive. And Bob and Scott and I did a little site visit there this afternoon. Um, and you guys were emailed the form. I suppose I can probably I can bring
that up again. I think I have that. See if I do this. I do this. Can you guys see that? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, this is our short little administrative approval small project
form. We got the applicant's name, where the project's going to be. Um, and what this is is there's already a deck, a raised deck, and he's going to enclose it. Um,
and then the only real work that's going to involve any ground disturbance is they're going to um replace the beams that support the deck. And they're going to use um those uh helico thrilling. I don't know what they're
called. Um >> to put the new >> What was that, Bob? >> They're called helical peers. >> That's it. Yes. Helical peers. Um they're going to put those in new. So that's the only disturbance. And the
beauty of those is that they don't um involve digging to put them in. they just kind of screw them in. Um, so that's the project. That's why they were able to do a small project application. There's really not a lot of disturbance and it's
over 50 feet from the lake, the bank of the lake. Um, so that's it. And the form is very simple. Just just all it is. Any questions on that one? >> All right. Looking for a motion to issue
a administrative approval request small project permit for 8 Lake Drive. >> I'll also move. >> All right. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Uh Fox
>> abstaining. I wasn't there. >> McDuffy. >> Hi. >> Con. Hi >> Douglas. >> Hi. >> And Wilson. I >> All right. >> Madame Chair, could I just do a quick
followup? >> Yep. >> I'd like to com commend the engineer and the applicant uh for this particular installation. The helical peers uh are good supports yet don't cause any uh uh
digging close to the lake. So anyway, I just wanted to go on the record with that. Great. Yeah, we support those. Those are that's a good invention. All right. It's close enough, I think, to 7:15.
So, let's go back to number five on the agenda, which is the continuence of the public hearing for the notice of intent for reconstruction of a single family home and septic system with associated site improvements, portions of which are
located within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 36 South Laurel Drive, parcels A41 and A50. Um, and I see Rob's here to talk to us. So, um, just to update everybody because
hopefully people looked in their email. This this is why it's better to get things sent to us further ahead because sometimes our crew, you know, may not check their emails right away. But we did get the revised site plan today about 2:30 or so in the afternoon. Um,
but I did respond to Nina just saying that that's really too close to meeting time for us to be able to close the hearing tonight. I think the commission needs time to look at the plan and then also we try to post that kind of stuff on the website so that the public can um
has a chance to look at the stuff before the meeting also but we would really like to go through it with you tonight. Um >> Sure. >> and then do a continuence. >> Yeah. So yeah. So I I think we can go through it. Um we have So for the record
first of all uh hi everybody. I'm Rob Lec from our LEC associates. uh you had um I think at the last public hearing I think Rebecca was was with us or with you. Um and obviously the Grios are here tonight. Hi guys. Um so they're they're
in the background over there. Um so I don't see that I have the ability to share. Is it possible to give that ability? >> I hope so. Yeah. Usually our land use clerk is here to do these things, but let's see. You are wrong.
All right, I think you should have the ability now. >> All right, let me see here. So, I'm not sure exactly what you're seeing.
Hopefully this uh this bar is not in your way. Um I don't know where it what just went, but hopefully Are you guys seeing the plan? >> We see the plan. Maybe not the whole plan, but we've got the house pretty centered on what we're looking at. >> Yeah, I'm zoomed in a little. I can zoom out if you'd like. There's a way to do
that. Let me go. So, this is the overall and then I can zoom in as we go, I guess. So, uh, again, um, so we had, um, had the public hearing. There was questions raised related to, uh, I think a number of
items. Um, I believe we've addressed all of those. Specifically, uh, we're showing again that the proposed home, the deck. Um, there is a retaining wall that you you see here. Um, there is also
the septic system. Uh just for clarity, the septic system has already been reviewed and approved by the board of health. Uh there was also I believe a question at least I think we saw it via email related to the zoning board of appeals. Uh there is no specific uh
filing required based on the review of the building department uh related to this the ZBA just because um we're meeting all the setback requirements. So I think that was one of the questions that needed clarity. So that said, um the septic system as you can see is in
the front uh of the house. Uh there was some concern about the slope and I think uh you know traversing over that septic system. So we've added batuminous pavement um to at least the limit of the property line. Uh I think as kind of
discussed in previous meetings um I'm sorry we have dogs barking off in the distance. If you can hear that, I really apologize. Um so um in addition there was uh questions related to kind of how the storm water was going to be handled. Um the nice thing about these retaining
walls that we're proposing or this retaining wall is that there is um drainage uh that we incorporate behind the walls. Typically there would be um a perforated pipe that would kind of collect any sort of drainage. One for to protect the wall from any sort of
drainage issues. Uh, but two, it acts as kind of an a um a French drain, so to speak, that would pick up any uh flow or groundwater flow off of the um off of the hill. And then um that would run to
we have a couple um connection points for the roof leaders that we would then pick up. So, it's a little bit hard to see. So, I will zoom in and see if I can Let me go to uh see what that looks like. If you give me
I was just trying I don't know if you guys can hear the dogs in the background. Can you? >> No, no, I can't hear. >> Oh, it's driving me crazy. Sorry. Um, so, okay. So, I'll just uh see if I can So, I'll just kind of highlight it here.
So, there there would be a um a French drain essentially behind the wall here. Perforated pipe that then runs around the corner. There's a little junction yard drain that picks up the roof leaders here and then here. And then that would re that would route be routed
around the uh septic tank here out and with daylight in the front of the of the yard. We've added a little grain I'm sorry rain garden little depression with some plantings uh around it. Um those and then there's another rain garden over here to kind of just handle water
coming off of the site and make sure that it doesn't cause any issues. Um, as you're aware, under the wetlands protection act, uh, there's no, you know, the stormwater standards don't necessarily apply to single family homes, but we do understand the comments and questions from the commission and wanted to at least address those, um,
you know, and, uh, with the rain gardens as suggested. Um, that said, the, um, my understanding is there was a question related to the trees to be removed. So again, the limit of work is the silt fence line here kind of going around.
Um, it transitions from a limit of work along the the high side, which you know, obviously silk fence doesn't really make sense on the high side, but we would certainly identify a limit of work, which then transitions to a limit of work/silt fence um to prevent any migration of materials uh into any
sensitive resource areas or their buffer zones. Um so in the process of um dealing with uh with that um we did count the the trees on site. I believe there was a site visit conducted and Cole Modesto from our office attended
the site visit and quantified the trees and some of the species and we have prepared and on this plan I'll zoom out again. we've prepared a uh one to one replacement
um of those trees. Uh so within the limit of work, we're showing um trees and shr and or shrubs to be located within the site to essentially reveate around the proposed work. Obviously, you know, in the areas that we can provide
them. Obviously don't want them over the septic system. can't go over the driveway or the house or the decks, but anywhere where we felt that we could appropriately site them, we certainly did. So, um there is a a detail of that uh the species that are proposed. Um and
there's, I believe, a table, if I can find it here. So up on the upper left side of the plan we have sugar maple hemlock uh uh beauty berry um Virginia sweet spire and redoer
dogwood and as well as ink berry. So we have some shrubs and some trees. Um and again those have been cited in what we believe is logical location. Certainly um you know during you know on-site activities those could certainly be if
uh the commission wanted a condition where they were to kind of review the final location, final resting place so to speak of those plants certainly would be open to a condition such as that. Um, so, um, so I'll stop there for a minute
and see if there's any questions through the chair and I can certainly um, you know, address any other items that you think I might have missed. >> Um, thank you for um, you know, adding a whole lot of stuff that we've been we've asked for. I think at the site visits and at our last meeting, we talked a lot
about storm water and I think you guys have have really addressed it very well. Um, I'm just kind of looking again in addition to getting the plan a little late. We got these comments from a member of the public a little bit late and I'm trying to just go through those
to see if there's anything. Um, they they he they do bring up again the potential of moving the septic further away from the wetland, but I based on where the well is, I think is the reason that you it it is where it is, right? There's no >> Yeah. So under the under the title five
regulations um the the term is maximum feasible compliance. Uh and there are some there is some relief in variances that can be granted and did were granted um for you know a septic such as this where there was a previous structure. Um
so yeah so there's really um as you can imagine on a site like this limited locations and al also uh just constructibility and feasibility as well. So um we have logically located that and again the board of health um seemed to agree with the approach as
they you know had approved the plan. >> Okay. Um >> yeah I don't I don't really have a lot of my concerns have been addressed which is great. I for me I think um the only thing is that we need to continue to
allow everybody to really um let the new plan sink in and then to let the public have a chance to also look at it. But I'm looking to see if other commissioners have questions. I've got a lot going on here on my screen. Bob, you have your hand up.
>> Yes, thank you. Um I just wanted to kind of give a report from observations that I had um on today's plan and um the site visit. Uh I was happy with the uh location of the sedimentation control. It was right at the top of the slope. So
I I do think the um uh the wetland will be protected from um uh possible construction uh movements etc. Thought that was good. Uh, I'm seeing the, uh, plant species that you detailed tonight, and I think those are all excellent.
Those, those should take off very well in those conditions. I do have a question about, um, the lots. Uh, Rob, if you wouldn't mind, can you show me the the lot that the uh that's owned by the the applicant with maybe with an arrow?
>> Uh, yes, sir. Absolutely. So, the the um street line of the lot is right here. And it continue it jogs back. Um and then it continues this way and then
right here across the back and then back to the street line. >> Excellent. Thank you. And these were at one time two lots. Is that is that right? >> Uh yes. Held in common ownership. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Parcel parcels. Yes. Absolutely.
>> Yep. Two parcels. Now, um, uh, you called it the street line. The, uh, area to the the left, um, as we're currently looking at it, I guess it's probably to the the west. Um, now that is, uh, who
is the owner of that, uh, that parcel? >> So, that's the South Laurel Drive uh, right ofway. Um, so with a private way, um, and and, uh, I haven't done a title report myself on
this, but typically with a with a private way, uh, that the owners on either side of the property typically own to the center line based on the derelict fee statute. Um so arguably to the center line of that right of way
normally under the derelict fee statute um the owners or and under under the um you know unless expressly stated otherwise typically the owners would own to the center line even on a normal uh right of way.
So, um the uh the commission is issuing a permit uh for the the work to be done on on the the co-join lots you discussed, but there certainly is uh work within the um 100 foot that's
taking place in that um in that uh area that's marked Laurel Drive. So, I guess um uh and um we I don't think we can issue an order for that because it was not it's not part of the application. Um
if it's owned by somebody other than the proponent, um uh we would need their signature on it. So, if you could before our next meeting look into the the ownership and the feasibility of uh of doing that work. Is there an easement that allows uh this type of construction
on that? Uh um can you get a signature from the owner or or whatever? Because I I I we we cannot give or I don't believe we can give a u an order of conditions for a piece of property that's not part
of the application. That's actually a great um very uh p it's nice to get some accurate procedural questions. I so I I I tend to agree that we want to ensure that we're
le you know if the if and when the commission uh decides to issue an order that it's procedurally correct. So >> I think I think Linda has a response to that because we we talked at the site visit about it and um the GRIC codes looked into it, right?
Yes, we did. Um there's an 8 foot approximately 8 foot um zone across where our property ends and the uh the actual traveled right of way for South Laurel Drive begins. South two
things. South Laurel Drive has shifted over time. It's um it's gravel obviously. Part of it right now on the west side is actually over our property on 35 South Laurel Drive, but that's neither here nor there. I reached out to
Priscilla Hagerty. She is the owner of the Laurel Drives. And she responded back um I can read you what she said. She said um regarding the concom I agree to any changes, modifications and tree
removal regarding the 8-foot strip Priscilla Ames Humphrey Hagerty. So we have her permission via email to do whatever we need to do. I made it clear to her that we are only clearing and and
uh replanting as needed to get the driveway in there um and to do any construction work that we you know is needed. So there's no problem with that 8ft strip. She also owns the road itself
and we do have a deed right ofway across that 8-ft strip to and across the road. It's in our It's written in our deed that we can cross and recross and and whatever on that. So, I have both the
deed and her um email to say it's okay to do what we what we need to do. I sent it to Matteo. I don't know if you got it, Beth. >> Yeah, I saw it. I don't know if the rest of the commission actually saw that. It was usually it's an email to the whole
commission, but I will I'll check and see. Okay. >> So, can I just ask Linda um on that same note, was Priscilla um informed of this work and presented with any of this
information as an abuer? >> Um or the road owner. >> She was she was on the abuter's list. Yep. >> Okay. That's she's uh they're being she's being taxed for for the Laurel drives.
So they have her address. >> Yeah. Um Scott, you have your hand up. >> Yeah. Thank you. I had just a quick question about the I think it's about
drainage coming from I understand the roof drainage um lot drainage being directed to the rain garden. And I was wondering what where it went from there. I missed that part and then I had a
question about the leeching field, but maybe we'll just stop at the rain garden and get an answer from Rob. >> Uh, so we have pretty permeable material out there. Uh, during our test pits, we were, you know, it's pretty good soil. So um we would anticipate that not only
sheet flow off uh uh pvious surfaces outside the batuminous would obviously you know infiltrate into the ground and then the rain gardens themselves will be you know kind of plunge pools um for you know for
the the infiltration of rainwater. beyond that um you know in in kind of larger events um they would like it would continue to sheet flow uh towards Laurel Drive as as it did did previous. So essentially pre-development
conditions essentially uh direct water in the same general um manner and then eventually you know towards the wetlands depending on exactly where your water droplets are dropping. But generally speaking, um you know, it would be sheet
flow to the um to the west and then west southwest depending on where it's landing. But >> part of if I understood that correctly because I think you know prior
to the the drain on the the east side the French drain that's going in that water would have she flowed down right to the south to the to the wetland to to or at least that's how it looked when I
was there like the land flow kind of pitched that way. It's uh so the water would flow sorry to interrupt but the water would flow generally uh perpendicular to the contours. So if you kind of you know the contours running this way these are these uh d light dashed lines are the
existing contours. Um, so if we're kind of running a water droplet, um, we're we're heading generally, I don't want to say due west, but west southwest, um, kind of generally, >> which is, you know, the the proposed
contours generally mimic that. >> Gotcha. So the the water from the rain garden, you expect it would infiltrate the same direction. Part of it going west, maybe ground into the lake, maybe
part of it going south into the wetland. >> I think that's an accurate statement. Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. And well that relates then to my next question which is the leeching field um which isn't that far away but half of it's contained in within the
50ft buffer. >> Yes. Do you anticipate the leeching field? You know, I'm thinking about um you know, nitrogen and phosphorus coming from the leeching field and going
into the wetland using and I was going to ask about the permeability of the soils and if we expected it would go there, but it sounds like what you just said about the rain garden, you would expect that it would go there. um down to the wetland. The leeching field may
may leech into the the the wetland to the to the south. Um, so what what I was saying about the rain gardens is that um once they you know if
they were to fill up so you get a micro burst or a large storm eventually the you know the the rain gardens would fill up in sheet flow typerally to the west. Um but you can see the contours kind of bend here. So depending on where your,
you know, where your water droplets are or if they come off the slope, they could go towards the wetland. As far as the leech field, um, you know, the leech fields are designed and, um, to, you know, to be obviously we need permeable material under title 5. They allow
anywhere from 2 minutes to 60 minutes per inch. I do have the septic plan. I could see what the what the perk rate was. Um but generally speaking um you know if there is a uh nitrogen sensitiv sensitivity issue that gets raised um in
the board of health review. So I don't believe that was an issue that was raised. There was no sort of variances or additional areas needed. A lot of times they'll have you do an aggregation plan if you're in a nitrogen sensitive area or if they're anticipating anything
u being affected by um the effluent from the septic. So, um, while you guys are looking at this and asking other questions, I'll try to see if I can get that perk rate for you. >> Yeah, I think you know the and I understand it, you know, and of course
you understand this too. The board of health is probably looking at it differently. They're looking at uh the impacts in human health and on for the title five rags. Um this is being constructed in the buffer zone um in a
you know in a protected wetland um you know and so that's I'm I'm most interested in does the leeching feel is there potential for that to impact the protected wetland given its
close proximity you know to the protected wetland. >> Understood. Um there is an impervious barrier included I've noticed in the septic system design um that um would
prevent migration horizontal migration of effluent um at least you know the surficially um let me just see if I can find the rate for you as well. I'll just um
let me see if I can share my stop sharing and then I'll start again. Let's try this. It'll look much the same, but this I believe will be the septic plan. Here we go. Bear with me. Sorry.
So this is an impervious barrier um that around the leech field itself. It certainly could be extended. Uh there's no provisions for it. You know, no issues with extending it. So we could always extend that. Um I guess that
would be to the south uh to f to further protect the resource area to make sure that there's you know it it's kind of not necessarily prohibiting but certainly inhibiting migration of material to the south. Um, let me see if I can find that uh perk rate for you too.
>> While you're looking Oh, Rob, um, that's okay on the on the perk rate, but I'm wondering on the the purpose of that barrier that you just showed, can you articulate why that wasn't put into the plans here? >> Sure. Uh so generally speaking under
title 5 um not only is the leech field required to have what they call a breakout distance. So it's kind of a distance horizontally from the field so that you don't have any sort of effluent breakout into or daylighting. Um sometimes if you have like a 3:1 slope
on the side, they want to make sure you have a breakout distance first so that effluent doesn't migrate, you know, a little bit away from the system and then you seep seep out of the system so to speak, so to speak. Uh so they have you incorporate um an impervious barrier. We
sometimes we do a belts and suspenders approach where we'll do that regardless just because we want to make sure that doesn't happen. Um, so the downhill side of the system generally being towards South Laurel Drive, we included that this darker line here is that impervious
barrier which certainly could be extended uh certainly as a condition and we can in revised plans we could extend that kind of around the corner and that would just ensure that that breakout uh prevention is provided u towards the resource area. So, good comment, first
of all, and second of all, I think there is a pretty good way to address it to just kind of a again belts and suspenders, but uh wouldn't wouldn't hurt anything to put it in, I guess. >> Yeah. Great. Thank you. Those are all the questions I had. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Rob, for showing the septic plan. >> Sure. >> Um, Linda's got her hand up. Yes, Linda. Just one more comment and and if Rob wants to show that plane again. Uh we've been there for 33 years and we have had
some pretty good um micro bursts. uh one that washed out uh North Laurel Drive didn't wash out South Laurel Drive, but I will agree with Rob that when the water comes down South Laurel Drive, it
actually migrates toward our driveway at 35 toward the lake and Rich Reel's driveway next door um toward his driveway. it it doesn't go uphill toward
the uh the septic system. It's actually washed out um some in front of um the parcel that's owned by Seaffort, that little 40x 60 um parcel that's indented into ours. And we have in the past
brought gravel and filled that in. So it it um never gets as far as the the runoff from the road never gets as far as um the wetland down below. It it turns before it gets to there. I can't
say that the same will happen with the the uh driveway with a paved driveway and Rob has addressed that. >> Yeah. Let me ask you just for clarification because I think you you're trying to clarify my question. Um mine
wasn't so much about the flow coming out of the road. it was uh flow coming from where that new drain would be installed and moving down that way cuz it did when I was standing there it did of course
you were standing there looking at at the proposed house and the wetland off to the right was quite a bit lower than where we were standing. So it it seemed that some of the water may coming off that hill may wrap around that way. That was really the question I was asking
about. >> Yeah. And it is a good question and I do believe uh Commissioner Kahan if I'm I'm sorry Kahan if I'm saying your name correctly. Sorry. >> Sorry. Um sorry. Um is you know I was interpreting your your uh comment and
question I think accurately in explaining the the driveway flow. Uh also there is you see these curves to the contours. So that will kind of capture the water and direct it towards the rain garden. um preventing it from
kind of there's I don't want to say it's a little little bit of a mound here, but it it's it's kind of a uh a slight high point that will uh we kind of have a gutter. It's not a gutter, so to speak, but it's a little grass swail or or or
subtle subtle change in grade here that will direct everything towards this rain garden and then it will be in south, you know, anything overflows south Laurel Drive and then would continue as it does now. So, it shouldn't introduce any real direct flow into the wetland to the
south. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. >> All right, Michael, you have your hand up. >> Yeah. Uh, apologies if I missed it, but um, in one of the other diagrams you had, it looks like the road surface was like I'm guessing little stones or um,
and I was just wondering, we had talked about having half paved, half stone, and I I just can't remember where we landed on that. Yeah, thank you. Um, and you are accurate. Uh, it's a little hard to see. I apologize on the on the Zoom. Um, so this is this is to represent a a
gravel drive. Um my understanding was the request was to have gravel to the property line and then uh have a pumminous pavings or asphalt um you know over the septic system and in the area where the the uh you know the the kind
of the travel path so that no material migrates or no ruts are happening and kind of stabilizes that area and again stabilizes the area over the septic so that doesn't get disturbed as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. And the the septic system, just so everybody knows, will uh have uh pipes
that, you know, are uh robust enough, the H20 loading, so you can drive vehicles over them that won't be crushed. We won't have to worry about that. So, that's all in the design as well. All right. I see no other comments from the commission. Are there any questions or
comments from the public? Um, Alexandria, you have your hand up. >> Yes. Hello, everybody. Uh, I I have a few questions. Uh, one about this general project. Uh, and I I did hear that the zoning board was um, uh, okayed
with this. Is this being proposed as a rebuild, a reconstruction, or a new house? I understand that the existing building is non-compliant, but does that then mean that are you
approaching this or proposing this at the building uh zoning and whatnot as a actually it's a new house because it's a new footprint. It's uh I don't know what's the original size of the house, but it looks like it's about three times
the size of the existing home. Yeah. Uh I can answer that through the chair. Uh if that's okay. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. >> Um so generally speaking, there's three buckets really we're dealing with here. We have the conservation bucket. We have what I would call a zoning bucket and we
have the the uh board of health title 5 bucket. So we we're tonight we're dealing with the conservation related to disturbance on the lot. So, if the chair would like to entertain, you know, my response on the ZBA,
um, it's what essentially what it is is it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure. It's a pre-existing non-conforming lots or I'm sorry, lot. Um, so there are provisions in the zoning that allow for uh redevelopment
uh of this nature and they're very specific to the zoning. And if there are specific questions um we we met with early on and have communicated at length um with the building officials um and the zoning enforcement officer who
determines um the nature of what needs to be filed. So certainly would be happy to address that you know um and clarify that. But certainly uh if you do have further questions um they are very helpful um and and certainly can kind of shed some light on uh the zoning related
aspects of what we're submitting. >> I'm just wondering if the um the conservation commission has been uh is aware of that whether this is a rebuild a reconstruction or it's what is actually proposed is a a brand new
house. So, it will be a new home. So, just to clarify, it will be a new home um within the property under the under the allowances provided for pre-existing non-conforming lots. Uh I think and I don't want to speak for the commission,
but certainly um the commission is looking at activities within their jurisdiction uh and looking closely at the performance standards that they have set in place under the wetlands protection act and under the local bylaw. So, those that's really what the
commission is charged with. Um and uh you know they look at activities I guess is the easiest way to say it. >> Yeah. We don't um necessarily look at whether it's reconstruction or new construction unless we are looking at at storm water which only applies to non
single family houses. Um that's the only time that that sort of a determination comes into an application. But because this is a single family house, it doesn't need to meet the Massachusetts storm water standards and therefore need
to really be defined as new construction or a reconstruction. Um, so as Rob said, we just look at work that's in either a wetland or or in the buffer zone and we deal with the impacts. >> Okay. And my my second um just query
here is regarding that um uh the ownership of that other parcel. Uh my understanding that the deed is to a trust and not to an individual.
And so I'm not sure if the person that gave authorization to work on that property is the person who actually has the authorization to do that. Yeah. Um, Linda, do you know is it is the South Laurel Drive under a trust? Do
you happen to know? >> Um, I don't know. I do know that the owners of South Laurel Drive have tried diligently to um sell it or give it to either me or the um uh lake association
or the town. There were four um sisters I believe who were involved but Patricia is the spokesman. Um, Priscilla is the spokesman for the group and um,
I have they did quite an extensive title search on the roads before they decided that it was too complicated and they could not actually uh, give a title to a deed. So, they couldn't transfer
it. So, I I can't answer that question. I I know that she is the one who gets the tax bills. So, she's the spokesman for the group, >> right? Yeah. I mean, she also tried to give it to me, too. So, that's why I
know this a little bit. Um, and so the deed is actually a trust. And so, this is a bit of the quagmire. So, you know, because a person uh pays taxes on something does not necessarily mean that they actually own the property
and can be authorized to approve that. >> Yeah. So, it sounds like before the next meeting, maybe Rob and Linda, you can look into a bit more about that and find out who, you know, for every trust there's someone who is the signatory for
a trust. Um, and if you could find that out and then actually get if we could get the uh page of the notice of intent application, there's a section there for where owners sign. And if we could get her signature added to
as an owner at some of the property where the work is happening, um, then that gives us the right to then issue a permit. >> Understood. Yeah, absolutely. Um um I I'm trying to decipher the abutters
list and it's hard to tell what would be a trust or not. Maybe the trustee would would be listed. I don't know if you can see my screen. >> Mhm. >> So there's >> Yeah, we can see it. >> Yeah, there's some names. But yeah, so we can certainly investigate that. um
probably not to dig deeper than we need to but I certainly would want to make sure that we were procedurally correct um to the other gentleman's point as well. Um, so if there is in fact um another signature and we are submitting
I and this is not an expense that I would want my client to have to go through, but just from a procedural standpoint, it might be prudent to um renotify prior to the next hearing. Um only because if there is a an applicant
uh not an applicant, but yeah, technically I guess it would be an applicant, right? an applicant and or owner signature. I would want to just make sure that the form three that gets submitted uh is corresponds with the the proper signatures and uh any abutter
notification. For example, if we are now including another parcel that's a party to the application, then probably procedurally correct would be to um renotify. So, we could we could send out a butters list and and it's going to be
redundant for most people, but um it might be procedurally correct that way. I hate to say that. >> Um I I'm pretty sure the ownership line has nothing to do with the actual applicant, but we can look at that. Um, I guess the only thing that I think
you're trying to say is that if we are, if you hadn't already added that parcel that's actually the road as one of the parcels that the work is being on when you were getting your butters list, then maybe there were some of Butters that that didn't get notified because that is
really a parcel also where the work is happening. >> It looks like it's included, but I need to do a little more digging. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, let's talk more about that. We can talk offline about that like what was really needed for that signature and everything and >> Okay, >> that sounds good.
>> Thank you. >> Um, sure. Um, Jennifer, you have your hand up. >> Oh, I think you're muted. >> I am. >> Yep, here I am. >> Hi. Um I have a question about these uh rain gardens and you had mentioned that
they will kind of function as a retention pool and >> um yeah it it's more of a plunge pool. >> Okay. >> I can explain them a little more. Um >> yeah no I understand what plunge pool and you mentioned that if if and when they fill up the water ridge sheet onto
the road or or to the wetland. >> Yes. >> Did I get that right? Okay. So, I'm not really sure and I'm not sure it's relevant necessarily the dimension and the depth of these pools or plunge pools, but I live on such a road that
has retention pools uh gravel road and they um routinely fill up with debris and don't function the way that they were intended to function. And also that often happens seasonally
when when um there are not many neighbors around to help to maintain them. In fact, I think when the project was approved by the Concom at the time, they had an order of conditions that required uh like annual maintenance of
these pools. So, I just don't know anything about the way that these plunge pools would be constructed, but if it follows form, they're going to fill up, especially on a slope like that. So, I don't know if you have thoughts about that
uh through the chair if that's okay. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um yeah, so I I think your your your statement is accurate uh and fair. Um, typically, and we could certainly include this uh in our response, uh, typically we put together, we call it an
on andm plan, operation and maintenance plan for these uh types of uh, BMPs, we call them, best management practices for storm water. Um, so yeah, we could certainly incorporate that. Um, obviously you need somebody to adhere to
that operation and maintenance plan like you said. So obviously um you know someone looking at it seasonally you know uh beginning of the year and the end of the year but yeah we would certainly be happy to include an operation and maintenance plan and
typically um there's an affidavit uh this is this is a little bit of a hybrid because this is a single family home so there's certain things that aren't required uh a lot of things that actually aren't required but I think uh we could certainly have the applicant um
maybe sign something that says that they acknowledge that this maintenance needs to be done. I don't think that would be a problem and um certainly they would know the duration uh and they could even list the responsible party and then uh should the property transfer there could
be provisions for just carrying on that um on&m in perpetuity. >> Yeah, that you know I'm just I'm I'm observing that that the plan asks these plunge pools to do an awful lot of work on a slope like that. So having some
kind of um you know regular cleanout of the sediment that's going to collect there seems like like a good idea. So thank you. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I think you know the Congom under our conditions we can what Rob was
talking about in terms of having an affidavit even having a requirement that the home homeowner provide um some sort of a completion little checklist to the concom um once a
year that they've cleaned out their um rain gardens and and their whole storm water system is something we can think about doing. Um Frank, >> thank you Madam Chair. Um Mr. Lec, I noticed that on your proposal you have
all the rainwater from the French drain and the gutters going to the street level, but one on the north goes directly be next to my property and you're you'll be flooding my property with extra e extra water. Is
there a reason for that? Can we >> uh That's a good question. So that >> Can you do the same thing to the other that you did on the south side to the north side so it doesn't burden my property with excess water >> because you're
>> Sorry. Um >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I didn't want to cut you off. Sorry. Go ahead. >> No, that's fine. You're funneling water into my property basically. >> Gotcha. Yeah. You know, I understand the perception of that and it's not necessarily incorrect. Um, I think the
subtlety is the wall itself, the the the perforated pipe behind the wall is is gathering any sort of uh uh we'll call it groundwater flow down to what we'll call the the footing of the wall. So,
it's a ve I would expect if any a very slow trickle of water um out of the slope. I guess in a major major event because of the permeability of material you could have that. So I don't think it's an unreasonable ask to for us to uh
reroute that. Um essentially jogging that I guess I'm going to call it south if you follow those little arrows actually if you can see my arrow. So from from the outlet uh there's no reason we couldn't uh extend that and direct it. Um so that and then the slope
is kind of going this way. It would it would certainly keep it away from this parcel here, sir. So, yeah, that's not an unreasonable ask. It's a pretty easy change. Um, but yeah, the reason why we just daylighted it is this is a very
subtle um perforated pipe that's picking up actually um most of the water would be picked up and this because of the nature of how the um um the the water flows, this will intercept most of it. But but I think belts and suspenders, we
could certainly adjust that for you. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> I had a question too about um will this project in any way change the contour of the road or can we put a condition in to ensure that the contour of the road
doesn't change? >> Good question. So we have no um we have no grading on the roadway surface at all. um the gravel roadway will be tying in. That's kind of our controlling grade and then we come into the property from
there. So yes, uh so um certainly um we're not planning on changing South Laurel Drive. Should they, you know, decide to regrade it or maintain it, obviously um they would incorporate whatever they do with, you know, the surrounding driveways, but we are tying
into the roadway as as it exists with no changes to the roadway. And since you are here, um, is there, uh, one of the last meeting, one of the conditions that I would like to see is that that, you know, there be
documentation of what the road looks like currently and to ensure that it doesn't change, not just in front of this house, but the entire length of of the road all the way up to um the dirt part of Wendell. because if you're
bringing trucks in, it changes the contour of the road and um or vehicles are being brought in to to build this house. Um you know, it it happens regularly and there's um I just want to
make sure that we protect against that. Um >> yeah, so and I want to be respectful as I answer that. So try to uh try to answer that correctly. So the scope of the notice of intent certainly includes the area with the activities we're proposing. So any sort of work that
we're proposing um certainly would be part of the order um the outlying areas of South Oral Drive while it's certainly um something that I would hope the GRIC codes would communicate with the owners the trustees of the road um and
certainly is a good um idea and I think just being good neighbors is always a good idea. Um that said, I don't know that it's necessarily within the scope of the current notice of intent as filed. Um so I don't know how that would
be conditioned. Um certainly I would hope that um and maybe the Grios could speak to that probably more appropriately. I'm I'm I'm assuming they want to be good neighbors and make sure that any any sort of subtle damages to the road would be addressed. U Linda, do
you want to speak to that? >> Sure. uh that road has been regraded again and again and again. Um part of the reason the the uh upper part of the road is regraded is because the water flows down into a house that's right at the bottom.
>> I'm sorry >> I said exactly. Yes. >> Yeah. And and I mean we have no intention of changing the grade of the road if if the trucks that bring uh the materials down. Well, two things. First
of all, the trash trucks come up and down the road all, you know, every week. And um I don't know how many wheels the trash trucks have or how much uh weight they'll carry, but I'm sure they carry a fair amount. >> They're big.
>> Yeah, as as Mike says, they're big. Um, but if there's any obvious change to the road that is attributable to our construction, obviously we would correct it. We're
we all try to keep the road in good condition. And it deteriorates over time because it's it's gravel. Um, we've brought in we've brought in um more gravel to fill the ditches um especially in front of our next door neighbor where
the water seems to pull um not in front of our house but in front of theirs. And um we brought in a whole load last year to fill in that ditch. Um wasn't it wasn't in front of our property but it was still a ditch. So, as a good
neighbor, we fill it in and we will continue to maintain the road as long as we're there to the best of our ability. The the maintenance of the roads around the lake are really the um
the the they're really maintained by the abutters and um we're one of the abutters and there are several more. So, we all work at it to keep it in good condition, and if we in some way change the conditions, we'll we'll correct
them. All right. Um, I don't see any more questions, so we're hands up at this point. Um, Rob, do you want to stop sharing? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Just so I can see everybody's faces. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Um Okay. So, I think at this point, um is the applicant in agreement to continue the public hearing until our next meeting, which is June 25th? >> Yes, please. >> All right. So, um and does 7:15 work
again for you guys? >> It it would for me. I think it works for the Grip Coast as well. >> Let me just check. June 25th. Sure. Okay, great. >> Great. All right. So then I'm looking for a motion from the commission to
continue this public hearing until June 25th at 7:15. >> Could I just Sorry to interrupt. Could I just ask I just want to recap? I just want to make sure I'm getting you guys everything. So just real quick. >> Yeah. Yeah. I was going to recap after we take >> Oh, perfect. Okay. And I'll I'll I'll be
quiet. Sorry. Okay. >> Looking for that motion. So moved. >> All right. Second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Roll call. Fox. >> Hi. >> McDuffy. >> Hi.
>> Douglas. >> Hi. >> Conhan. >> Hi. >> And Wilson. I um yeah, I kind of wanted to recap what what we're our responsibilities are and what what you guys um should work on before the next meeting. I think for us,
we're going to um post the new plan on the website so the public has a chance to look at it. Um we're all going to have more of a chance to look at that and the comments that we received from um a member of the public. And yeah, I think that's really it for our tasks. Um
for you, it it seems that you're going to research into the the road the trust. um find out who the signator is for that trust and then and then get I think you and I I think you and I should talk offline about what should actually be signed that is sort of you know the way
to proceed with that. >> Um what else were you going to do before the next >> I believe we're going to reroute the uh the perforated pipe from the wall away from Mr. McGinty, I'm sorry, McIn's property. Um, so that it daylights in a
more effective location. Uh, I believe we were going to include an on andm plan for the um, uh, the the uh, rain gardens that would also include some sort of affidavit of service about, you know,
making sure that we're uh, the grip codes are going to plan on maintaining that. >> I think that might be it. And I want to make sure I get that plan to you. I apologize ahead ahead of time or la or for last time. Um yeah, we'll make sure we get that planned to you right away so
that that can be because what what might make the most sense is to post the updated plan with those minor revisions and probably the on andm we can try to get those to you right away >> and that way you're going to be posting and we'll make extra work for you. >> Perfect. That sounds great. Awesome.
>> All right. Can I just ask a question of Rob? Um >> yeah, here >> I just looked up on the the uh uh town GIS and Priscilla Hagerty is listed as um the owner of A150 which is the the
Laurel drives the road. I would be happy to send you Rob the information from the attorneys who did the title. They did an a very extensive title search. Um the trust that I think um Ria is referring
to is one that they couldn't find. Um it's something that has disappeared in um the sequence of ownerships and that was one of the reasons why they felt that they couldn't um
they couldn't really transfer the property legally um and ensure that that the title would hold. So, but anyway, I can put you in in touch with them and you can uh >> figure out from them whether or not you need to send a new abutters list
>> because Hagerty, I believe, was on the abutters list. >> Okay, that's great. And I can we can coordinate with the town as as suggested. That'd be great. >> Okay, Bob, you have your hand up. >> Yeah, thanks. Uh and thank you for your
attention to this, Rob. Um my my fear is that if um if this commission does issue an order of conditions for this this piece of land between the the applicant's property and the roadway um it hasn't gone through the the proper
channels of uh um being advertised a butters notification um uh and um you know the the law states for you know for a determination of applicability you can do work on somebody else's land or you
can do do that application on somebody else's land without their permission. But um with a notice, you need to have this the signature of of the actual property owner. So, >> you're reading my mind. You nailed it. I totally understand where you're coming
from and appreciate the uh you know, the thought process. So, yes, I want I want I want to be procedurally correct. I wouldn't want to have a procedural defect after a lot of hard work. >> Absolutely. I appreciate it. And nobody likes an appeal and I I I worry that um
without that we would be subjecting the both the applicant and ourselves to an appeal. So thank you. Thank you for for listening. >> Absolutely. Thank you, sir. >> All right. So, we'll be in touch and uh >> and also we'll see you at our next
meeting on June 25th. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. >> Thank you. >> And answering all our questions. >> Yep. No problem. Have a good night folks. Bye. >> You too. All right. We are on number eight.
Number eight is opening of bids for Southbrook Lake Wyola Conservation Area Trail Repair Project. Scott. >> Yeah. So, um, just to recap where we've been, um, I think many of you are aware,
we had a bid that we had been working our way through before that had some irregularities and problems with the bid process and we had to rebid the project. Um, that was done. We received two bids.
Matteo opened those here uh today and um the first bid was from San Dino for 66,356. Uh the second bid was from Terramore uh 62,330.
So those are the two bids. Both are under um the project budget that we had um there the grant. And so, um, we'll we'll start making our way through the two
bids that we had, but um, we did get two bids and they they look to be good and complete. So, that's all that I have. I don't know if folks have any questions or Beth if you had anything to add.
>> Um, just questions. Um, so the next step is calling some references, right? and sort of checking into both of them. >> Correct. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Taking a look at the bid more thoroughly. I don't think we're able
um we saw the first few pages, but we need to to dig into the full package and make sure they're complete. >> And that is that you and Matteo are going to take care of them. >> I think so. Unless anyone else is interested. >> I think I think with only two you think
you guys got it. I think that's good. Um, all right. And then then there's the whole contracting and and then eventually we can do a site visit with what whoever it is out there. So, what's what's your expectation for
timing? >> Um, boy, I would I would love to get going on this relatively quickly. We did have um some milestones in here to get the site design I think um
uh here later on. I don't want to speak to the date because I I'm not sure right off the top of my head what that was. But um we have that kind of as the first part and then we can begin with any of the wetland permitting that the concom
needs to do and then uh move our way through it. that we still had um shooting for completing the project here this year which is good. >> Great. That's great. Even with our big delay and hopefully
get it done. Great. That's awesome. It's exciting. >> Um all right. So then we can move on to number nine because that's got also discussion of draft regulations for conservation commission uh conservation
land and we went through them last week and um people had comments and things. So this week, Scott, we're going to talk a little more about them before they go to the town attorney.
>> Yeah, I think that would be um a good next step. So maybe >> did you want to share? >> Share. Yeah. >> Okay. You should be able to share. All right. Um so we
talked about uh these are the draft rags. uh we had visited last time um and so I'm going to go through this pretty quickly and and just focus on the areas where commissioners had suggested
changes but uh we do in the beginning we talk about our authorities we talk about the purpose um we talk about uh this is kind of broken up into permitted uses and and uh uses that are prohibited under permitted
uses We talked about um uh different types of recreation that would be allowed, water-based activities, traditional uses, trail uses. We had a conversation on snowmobiles
um and recognized that um some of the conservation units under our um oversight to allow snowmobiles, they have the restrictions that allow them already. um Southbrook with the unit we were just talking about and those trails
would be a good example of that. So we we said that this would give us an opportunity to designate uh those trails where that would be allowed. Um land management and special uses. Um we
talked about prohibited uses. Uh here is one where we had some suggested changes and I it was suggested that under resource damage we add in some of the historical archaeological and cultural
resources that are protected with applicable state laws and regulations may not be disturbed or moved or damaged without proper authorization. So that's the uh the change to the original based on some of the comments that folks had
last time we talked. So maybe I'll stop there and see if that can't remember that might have been was that you Bob I can't remember who had raised that but if that addresses the the concern or the comment >> there is I don't think so
>> I yeah I can't remember who brought it up but I I think what you wrote make is perfect. Looks good. >> I agree. It looks good. >> Okay, great. Um, we think we got rid of this incompatible
recreation based on the conversation that we had. I think that was a good deletion. Uh, under fires and camping, I think this one uh was you, Bob. It just added in this sentence, you know, camping. This is under prohibited uses.
So camping except as authorized by a special permit issued by the conservation commission recognizing that there might be uh particular things like a a scouting troop or something that wanted to to camp there and would want to entertain it. So I made that edit.
>> Great. >> Um this one we I changed it uh to broadnet. We had um I think I was focused on town beach because that has been the the area where
there have been concerns raised but I broadened it just to talk about abandonment and storage of personal property recognizing this is for all of our lands. So it reads now placement storage or abandonment of personal property including boats and or
watercraft or conservation alliance or the town beach without authorization from the Shbury conservation commission. Um so this again is under prohibited activities. So I don't know if this I I think was a
good suggestion to broaden it. Um, I mean, >> town beach be like described as to what the location is. >> Uh, do you have a suggestion?
>> I don't know where the town be is. That's why I'm asking. >> Oh, that's like Elliot Park, you know, where the >> Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Uh, I didn't know that that was Okay. Okay. I didn't know that was considered. Okay, that's fine.
>> Yeah. Is that >> is that what's called uh like Lake Wyola conservation land? We've got Southbrook conservation land and then I think that piece is called Lake Wyola, right? >> So, I would refer to it that way because Elliot Park isn't really our our thing.
I would say Town Beach um >> on or in Yeah. in Lake Wyola conservation area >> on on land. uh uh at Randall Road. I think that would make it clearer. Um >> yeah, I think most people should like we
should we should have a map that shows all of our conservation areas. >> I didn't know that it's called Town Beach. Okay. >> I think you have a W in your conservation convation.
observation there. Okay, good. >> Anything else on this one? >> I think it's good. >> Um, and then I added in I think this was a suggestion uh to add in access is
permitted only from dawn to dusk. So, we had that. I think that was the only those are the only changes that we had a whole bunch of stuff on dogs. Um, basically I think we're allowing them provide they're
under control of the owners and that the owners are picking up after their dogs and the dogs aren't um harassing visitors or wildlife. Um,
I think that was it. And so, unless there are any other items here to talk about, I think the next step would be to put this in front of uh, town council and the police chief, just since they would be the ones enforcing it and or
reviewing it for legal sufficiency, we can get their comments >> back and then um, then we should be in a good place. uh after those are incorporated to uh talk about having a a public meeting here and finalized space.
I would think I think that sounds like a great plan. Um sounds like the right way to approach it. Looking good. Thank you for putting those together, Scott. >> You bet.
>> They're great. Um, all right. >> Do you want um how do you want to proceed with that, Madam Chair? Do you want to transmit you want me to send you this cleaned up copy and then you
transmit it to Donna and to the chief or do you how would you like to or do you want me to send it to them or what what is best? You can I'm fine with you sending them CCing me and and Matteo. You could you could also send it to
Matteo and have him >> Yeah. You know, >> there's continuity in the email traffic on it. So, >> yeah, that's kind of his role. >> Yeah, perfect. >> Perfect.
>> Since he's not here tonight, you know, we'll just start laying all all the work on him. Um, okay. That is it. Oh, unanticipated business. Sorry. Number 10, unanticipated business. Um,
I have not before getting an email from um Brennan, who is the um admin for the select board. Before getting this email, I had not heard of this new committee. There's a new committee, the Lake Wyola Advisory Committee, which I'm not quite
sure what it is. If anybody has any more info, let me know. Um or feel feel free to raise your hand. I believe it's a new committee and it's going to have a representative from the conservation commission. I think there's a representative from the select board, possibly from like zoning and then
residents, some residents. Um so it's yet another committee having to do with Lake Wyola. Anyway, I got an email that we need to nominate someone. Um, so I'm wondering if there's anyone who is interested to be the liaison to the Lake
Wyola advisory committee. I don't know much about like how often it meets or anything like that because I don't even think they've figured that out yet. >> Yeah, Beth, the LWAC, the LWAC, is that is that the one you're speaking of?
I believe this is a new version of ELWAC and just this is also something I heard from a resident, not from anybody in an official position that is some new version of that where there's going to be residents from around the lake who will be on the committee but they're
trying to make it a little more of a official town committee. So they're going to include members from these other town committees. Um, >> does it have anything to do with the the roads and the ro the reports from the roads or
>> that's a completely different committee. Yeah, that that committee which Bob is our liaison to. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. >> Right. That's um what what's the title of that committee, Bob? >> It's not the erosion task force anymore,
>> right? >> I think it's called SMIC or something like that. Yeah. Storm water management something. Yeah. >> Right. Yeah. >> So that's a different >> right. But um there there wasn't there is and was and has been for quite some
time an LWAC or ELWAC and um >> Exactly. >> Uh I I have been on that as well representing the the commission um uh for a while now. Um and that committee has been around for I don't know at least 10 years I think. Um
>> yeah. So, um, >> so you're on that committee right now? >> Yeah, I'm on that committee right now. So, if there is a new one with the exact same name, with the almost the exact same charge, I I I would raise my hand and say that I would be happy to be on
it. >> I think it is the same. I think they're adding because so that committee that exists now um does that have like a representative from the select board and a representative from the planning board or ZBA on it?
>> Yeah, you know I I stalker was I believe always present selectman stalker was always present on it. um Walter Tibbitz um and others. And you know what I think I think probably if I can kind of fill in my thoughts why
it may be changing is that was an ad hoc committee that was put together you know a decade or more ago and I think what they're trying to do is make it a permanent committee and that may be why it's coming coming across our desk again. >> Yeah, it is. I I think I think you're
right. Um because I you know this kind of a formal email is something that I've always gotten for the erosion task force course or the storm water group. Um but I had never gotten one a formal email like this for ELWAC. So um I think
you're right. I think they're just making it an official town committee of some sort. Um so anyway, if you're already on it then I'm going to put your name down. In fact, there's, you know, in fact, >> I need to look at the email. There's a form even, which I don't know if you
filled that out before, but there's a form that you would fill out and send back to um Brennan about being on the committee. So, why don't I forward you that email, Bob, um and we'll go from there.
>> Okay. And and I I don't want to be selfish. If there's anybody else who wants to give up their Sunday their Saturday mornings and take take it, uh please please let me know. >> I don't see any hands. >> Yeah. >> So, I think we do need to kind of uh do
a vote. So, um I'm looking for a motion to um approve Bob as our liaison to the Lake Wyola Advisory Committee. >> So moved. All right. Second. >> Seconded.
>> Great. Um, all right. Uh, Con. >> Hi, >> Fox. >> I, >> McDuffy, >> hi. >> And Douglas, I guess you vote for yourself. >> I think I'll do a great job. I'll pick I'll say I.
>> And Wilson. Hi. All right. Great. I'll forward that email to you and uh we can see where that goes. Um, okay. That is it for this evening. Thank you for coming to our lovely meeting.
Um, if nobody has anything else, I'd be looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Okay. Second. >> Great. Khan, >> I >> Fox, >> I >> Douglas,
>> hi. >> McDuffy. >> Hi. >> And Wilson. All right. So, we'll see you all definitely in two weeks at the meeting if not before with some site visits or something that come up. But have a great evenings. Stay cool.
Good night. >> Good night.