greetings all we have qus we're going to go ahead and open the Wilton conservation meeting for March 19th 2024 and it's 7:30 um let's go ahead so we'll start do we have anything that we'd like to add to administrative discussions before we go right into the minutes anybody have anything they want to add okay let's go ahead and look at our minutes from they are February 20th 2024 does anyone have any um comments omissions Corrections any of those good things if not may I have someone make a motion to approve S I move to approve the uh Littleton Conservation Commission minutes of February 20th 2024 as written have a second second awesome Andrew will you do us the favor of doing roll call of course thank you all right uh Chase trace gag I Kyle Kyle Max Michael Michael I Sarah s you word I myself I it's unanimous okay great let's jump right into administrative administrative discussions live signature vote for assistant conservation agent Amy can you help us with that you have that wording in throw up Tim I do give me one second so this would be so it's not just me who can provide the live signature for stuff that has to go down to the registry of deeds um Tim could do it also which is especially important when I'm like on vacation or something so Tim are you putting that up so that's going to be a mo okay yes so it's this this would be the motion right here can't see it or I can't see it I can see it okay so like like to officially put forth a motion for a certificate of vote move that the Littleton Conservation Commission authorize con conservation agent Amy green an assistant conservation agent to person to physically sign on behalf of the commission when so directed by vote of the commission documents issued by the commission under the wetlands protection act uh let's see chapter 131 section 40 or the Littleton Wetlands protection bylaw chapter 171 of the Littleton town of Littleton bylaws including but not limited to orders of conditions and certificate of compliance can we have a second a second that all those in favor roll call vote uh Chase Chase kig I Kyle ma Michael Michael livon I you take that down Tim and put up the other one gotta oh I'm sorry Sarah y Sarah SE I and myself I it's unanimous great Amy is that all you needed from us on that yep okay great um oakill cell tower stabiliz stabilization fund warrant article um Amy had sent this on to everyone we have article what we're calling tonight xx and then we have article ZZ um Amy do you any um discussion on this before we make a motion uh no I I for some reason I'm having a video problem but for some re uh it should be I think fairly straightforward article XX is to amend the old language for the yill stabilization fund um so it can be used for you know Main and then assuming that passes on the floor ZZ is to get $20,000 can the rest of you guys see this yep so I'm going to go ahead and um for this while we know that there's going to be two separate warrant articles I'd like to um make one motion but also note that this is not um word Smith in stone yet uh Council may have a small modification so I'm going to add that to the motion as well I would like to go and make a formal uh motion to accept the language that we're calling article XX for the amendment to the oakill stabilization fund to see if the town will vote to adopt a new stabilization fund pursu to General Law chapter 40 section 5B for the purposes of acquiring and maintaining conservation land or preserving water quality within the town to be called oakill stabilization fund or take any action related thet also in this motion is article what we're referring to as ZZ which is the Conservation Commission open space budget to see if the town will vote to expend from the oakill stabilization fund as established by article 17 of May 2nd 2022 town meeting and amended by article what we're referring to is XX above the amount of $20,000 to be used for projects under the direction in charge of the Conservation Commission I would like to have these adopted with the ability to Wordsmith minor modifications so related to Town Council do we have a second second that all right roll call vote uh Chase Chase KAG I Kyle Kyle Max I Michael Michael Livingston I Sarah s your word I and myself I it's unanimous okay thank you uh we're going to jump into the leash law discussion of recommendation recommending various leash law law compliance levels on conservation lands to select board part or all of Bumblebee Cloverdale Long Lake Park oakill or others revote needed Amy uh yeah there was a um open meeting law complaint about the last vote actually because the agenda was not specific enough about what the discussion was going to be on um which is which is why the agenda item is a little bit long um in the last one you basically had had the discussion about the leash law enforceability of it and at that time only move to recommend to um the select board that Cloverdale have um dogs be leashed at all times so I don't know if you want more discussion or um pass on it or open it up is U does anyone have anything that they would like to discuss in relations to this Le I would um I would just advocate for my previous position of including all of these I know you guys it was a split vote last time um I would just advocate for um recommending these specific areas for having dogs on leash I know the enforceability is questionable but I think having at least something in place on paper and signage is a deterrent in itself and I uh I I think I'd be in favor of uh including these well consistent everywhere right um so let's remember so this is an this is a new motion so the other one um has challeng so this is your time that such Andrew or Michael if you'd like to make a new motion um it can be heard I I do want to I mean if we're going to rehash these arguments I want to make it really clear that um support Cloverdale because that's where we're looking for an ADA compliance trail and I think doing everything to make everyone possible feel comfortable there makes some sense to me even though we have some excuse me enforceability challenges there um I I don't think it makes sense to to to implement a leash law anywhere other than that and that's that's for a couple reasons one is pure enforceability like it I I I I frankly think we undermine our credibility by implementing regulations that we have zero intention of enforcing it would be nice if we did but we we truly cannot enforce these so these are these are regulations on paper that we have no means of implementing and I think that undermind us as a board to do things like that um on top of that there are places where people can hike off leash if they want to or I'm sorry where people can hike with where dogs are expected to be on leash if they want to and I I just don't see the the need to make these changes when frankly they're targeting a couple of people who refuse to follow the existing regulations and would in no scenario follow new regulations because we write them while simultaneously burdening everyone else who wants to be able to use these lands the way that they always have to go out there with their dog and let them run on the leash or off leash so I I think it's it's both bad policy and I think it's bad practice to implement a leash La bumblebee Long Lake Park and oakill anyone else have anything they'd like to say so the floor is open to any motion um let me try this maybe we'll we'll take them the way we did last time um real quick Chase before we do a motion is there do we have concern that there's public input on this or like what was the only reasoning that we're redoing this is because it wasn't on the agenda I'm just a little nervous that we go through this again two weeks it it was on oh you muted yourself um it was on the agenda but the agenda item wasn't descriptive enough that people reading it would understand what the the vote was was going to be encompassing um but I don't see any hand raised fair enough how about it Chase um then I'll move for I'll move that the Littleton Conservation Commission recommend implementation of a leash at all time restrictions at the Cloverdale Conservation Area you I have a second second okay all right roll call votes uh Chase Chase g i Kyle mat I Michael Michael Livingston I Sarah Sarah SE word I and myself I it's unanimous okay thank you um and then Sarah then I in the interest of separating these then I'll I'll put the other three together if that sounds okay to you sure um I I'll move that the Littleton Conservation Commission recommend to the select board implementation of uh leash at all time regulation at bumblebee Park Long Lake Park and oakill conservation areas and can I say the oakill conservation area was just the Sanderson property the Sanderson area portion of the O conservation property second okay all right roll call vote uh Chase Chase kig nay Kyle Kyle Maxfield nay Michael Michael Livingston nay Sarah sah Steward nay and myself I'm gonna vote yay so that was one two three four yay and one nay okay thank you um okay next four n and one yay oh sorry whoops yeah I flipped that Yeah scratch that that was try I mean what so that was four n and one yay okay let's carry on six Cottage Way update uh that was something I forgot to um double check today but basically it is it is moving along um I forget all the details right now but Town Council just wanted to double check that uh the commission wanted to continue to um piggyback might not be the right word on what the property owner's lawyer is doing in defending the order conditions I assume yes but I want to make sure nobody wanted to get involved at this point years later anybody have any questions my only comment there would be it I'm comfortable with it as long as frankly as long as Town Council feels like it's being appropriately defended um they do they just wanted to you know give you the option yep which you always have right okay good all right that closes the administrative discussions there was no other additions we have a minute before well Sarah since we have a minute can I thought of this one as you're going through is have you or Amy or Tim been giving any sort of update uh for getting the street what on King Street the water treatment plant or the the active construction zone after all the rain that we've had over the past couple weeks um both green as well as uh not CDM are submitting the weekly reports on time um uh Fridays for the uh the owners rep and then I think Monday or Tuesday for green and uh it's it's been behaving itself with the rain um I asked Cory and you can double check with him um he thinks they might be done with a do ordering the end of this month um at which point I said once the water stops running we need to go out there and see what kind of remediation might be needed that good Kyle yep thank you okay great all right 7:45 let's go ahead and open a public meeting request for determination of applicability 19 Woodland Drive uh removal of a hazard tree I believe the honor is here yep Stephen you can unmute yourself and speak to this and then Stephen if you could just introduce yourself to and where you reside that would be great all right sorry sorry about that hey can you hear me yes yeah go ahead Stephen all right um what would you uh what would you like me to do sorry I was trying to figure that out so if you want to introduce yourself with your name where you reside and what you're looking to do to just kind of let the commission know why why you're here tonight all right yeah Stephen Nukem um 19 Woodland Drive and we got a tree in the backyard that uh is real close to the house looming over the uh roof of my house and it's really close to the uh the leech field for my septic system and there's a little stream that runs next to my property in between my neighbor's house and mine that the uh runs into the retaining pond down by Long Lake and if this tree continues to grow it could go into my leech field and back the system up which wouldn't be good for anybody and I would like to take the tree down I have a company in mind and um in replacement of the tree that I take down I to keep the Bank of the little stream from eroding I have some PL some bushes native bushes from the area too I'll get something like that and yeah that's about it I don't know St sorry you have any photos that you can share with us uh yeah I sent I sent some over to Tim I can pull them up awesome thank you thanks Jim no wor is so Stephen when Tim has them up if you could just act um Orient well I guess we don't need orientation we can see the tree okay yeah and then you see to the right there like six feet away from the bottom of the tree that's the stream and it's usually I mean supposedly it dries up in the summer but since we moved in a couple years ago it's been wet the whole time so but uh that tree right there is the one obviously that I'm trying to take out and it's it's pretty close to the house as you can see but the septic system you can see the vent right there that's the leech field that whole raised area how old is the system um I think it's 2012 I think they got it redone okay there was like a big renovation on the house or in 2012 from what I understand and you purchased the property sounds like couple years yeah 22 okay so a pass Title Five at that time yeah um Mr can you talk through the the approach to removing the tree I read in the application using a crane to take it out I wanted to know if you could uh expand on that a little bit for me yeah so he was going to uh like directly behind where this picture is taken actually the the street runs perpendicular to where you're looking and uh they were going to have to yeah that's from my bathroom but there he's yeah there you go the streets right there and he was gonna use a crane in the road to take the tree out piece by piece because it's too close to the stream you know if you tried to drop it or anything it would mess up that and it's also a dangerous tree to climb there's a bunch of dead limbs in looking like rotted spots like up higher this is what the uh the guy who's going to cut it down said anyway he feels safer about it using the crane said it would probably take like three four hours to do the whole thing they're just going to chop it up and Chip it so you'd have to I'd have to have a detail on the street which I'd pay for does does that includ or did he consider in that clearance around the electrical lines that appear to run right there yeah there is electrical RS right there he did he he came out looked at the site walked the whole property with me and said that it was it was uh totally feasible so okay so this is a based on an Insight on-site observation not just yeah yeah I had him come over to the house it's a axe brothers from Acton Massachusetts they're pretty big they have they do a bunch of technical tree workor such as this uh can you talk to me about what the plan is for the stump I was just going to leave it there I don't really know how to get rid of it besides grinding it which would be a big mess because it's kind of Muddy right there you know with the with the uh that's a good answer that that was the answer I was hoping for all right yeah Stephen that was a really good answer that wasn't a trick question so kind of leave the stumps there because it helps stabilize that that bank that you have there yeah yep so yeah he like I said the uh Jake the guy who's going to do it you know he seemed pretty confident that it wouldn't be a big deal or anything like that so hopefully we can quick and painless right I think I would be concerned with this tree because it's got It's got a fork in it too um so I I agree that it's a hazard and it's you know it's feet its feet its roots are very very wet which makes it unstable yeah if you scre one one of those Forks is over my neighbor's house and then the other one's over mine but if you scroll over to the one that I took a picture out of my bathroom Skylight you can see a couple dead branches on that that's what I looming over the the bathroom every day a reminder of it you know Commissioners any any any questions for stepen or thoughts on this I'm comfortable with a negative determination here with one thing and it it might seem like a small thing but given the surface water body there I want to make sure that cranes have enormous hydraulic reservoirs I want to make sure that the crane operator and the the vendor that's brought in is prepared with enough material in the event that there's a substantial hydraulic Le it it's one thing for it to leak on soil it's a different thing for it to leak right there and be able to get into the surface water body so that's you know they they should have those things anyway but I I would want to make sure that they have those before they start okay okay Amy what would you like from us uh you just need if it sounds like we are going to vote for a determination of applicability with probably that one condition about the spill anyone want to make a motion well chase you almost did I I almost did but I'm always hesitant here because I never know which number to use Andrew however I'm sure knows the right number it's gonna be a negative3 on this one yeah and a waiver was also included in this and you'll need that yep okay someone want to make a full motion with sure I move for the Litton Conservation Commission to issue a negative3 determination and a waiver under the wetlands protection bylaw for the removal of a tree at 19 Woodland Drive with the condition that the operator be prepared with a spill kit for the CR second second right roll call vote uh let's see here Kyle Max Michael Michael living say I chase chase g i Sarah s word I Ed Ed F State and myself I so I've got one two three four five eyes and one um abstaining member I was like how do I word that all right thank you Stephen good luck all right thank you very much have a good night thank you okay so it's 7:53 our next um public hearing is not till 8 um Amy are there anything at at the end of our agenda that are discussion items that we could move up uh since they aren't meetings you could pull up either the Lakeshore compliance or the tree protection policy okay all is there appetite for that or do we want to get an update from Ed on how his meeting was going what would the commission like Ed how was your meeting uh my meeting was very heavily populated there were over 70 people there um and I know that because they made 70 copies and ran out so it was um she did a fine job but it was all you will do this it's just a question of what and then so there were still the the some parties that did what they usually do and tried to dictate but uh the lady gave in the presentation she seemed very knowledgeable very open to hearing things but it was all math there wasn't any consideration for uh conservation uh or traffic or you Wetlands or any of that kind of stuff and when the question came up uh she basically said well that's up to the town to you know all she can really do is give numbers and then the town has to decide where and how and what they want to do so it was I'm surprised how many people were there actually and was it televised as well were other people able to join in on Zoom good uh they couldn't join in on Zoom but it it is being televised and uh there is a survey going to be going out as well uh on online so people can make their uh opinions known there also so what was it uh what was the subject the MBTA um requirement or the state requirement to have uh 150 housing units around the train station okay so well actually the requirement is is much more than that uh but the because of King Street um we're down to a minimum 10 acres a minimum five units per acre and a minimum 150 units that that's what she said so and um whatever they end up you know what whatever the Builder ends up building obviously is going to have conservation issues because each of the parcels was you know over on Foster Street they've got various water and other issues so but it was well presented and it will be on uh the available I assume through the website through the you know town website so thank you and thank you for going well it's something that's very near and dear to to me so even it's it's actually around the corner from my house um you know where I'm on new town you go down to hadan tickle left under Foster and you're there Andrew can I ask you a question that um is a CPC question can you tell us how much money is in their kind of Coffer for CPC roughly I want to say there's 400 and change but I I'm not 100% on that okay thank you we've been yeah no problem is that $400,000 or $400 $400 would be troubling um 400,000 okay I'm not used to the big numbers so sorry Andrew is that just the conservation bucket yeah that's just the conservation and we have been asking for a formal list of all the um the various accounts up-to-date numbers um and we should have that for tomorrow night's meeting of the uh CPC and once I get that solid number I'll get back to you guys with uh that actual figure but I I seem to recall it was somewhere around like 450 do you have a sense of what the um what the UN restrict I don't think they're called unrestricted but unrestricted funds are the the undesignated um undes I don't off hand um let me see if I can pull up the latest list are there projects that they are hoping to Target or is it just trying to keep the money in case I think there's always some that are being targeted but we're just curious where we are with that okay all right so let's go ahead we've got less than a minute to go let's go ahead and open the 8:00 public hearing notice of intent 95 Taylor Street um there's not to my knowledge D number yet construction of a storm water outfall in the 100 foot buffer for Associated three lot subdivision is anyone here to speak to that yes I am here Paul K from stamps G McNary okay great thank you Paul go ahead okay um Mark gager who's the applicant was on the call I don't know he dropped off but um he might jump in at some point here um but uh yeah so this project in 95 Taylor Street is for a uh three lot a proposed three lot subdivision we are going before the planning board in a few weeks on April uh 4th is our first public hearing with the planning board uh I would like to share my screen so we can look at this together give me a moment here uh So the plan I've brought up here is actually the anrad plan so you might remember this property from um the second part of last year uh we filed an anrad so uh this is the subject parcel uh 95 Taylor Street does have a house located close to Street and uh there's about 9 Acres behind it and that's including um a portions of the property that are uh occupied by Wetland and Beaver Brook which is to the rear of the property uh so the Wetland does project 100 foot buffer zone onto the site Beaver Brook does project 200 foot Riverfront area onto the site I'm going to zoom in a little bit here so maybe I can kind of show you where uh that those buffers are so this dark line the edge of the Wetland the uh edge of the mean anual high water line of Beaver Brook is right here and it sort of jumps up it's not far off the edge of the Wetland around most of the property uh so 100 foot buffer zone is sort of where I'm trying to trace my cursor here and a 200 foot Riverfront area uh is over here so I want to draw your attention to uh how the mean anual High water line over in this area is um much further away from the edge of the Wetland you can see how this 200 foot Riverfront area sort of uh dies in the Wetland over here uh the reason I'm starting with this plan and pointing that out is because the subdivision plan that we submitted as part of this application is uh pretty focused um on the proposed area of development uh we are not proposing any work within the 200t river front area so as such this is our existing conditions plan you can't even see the edge of the stream on it um so uh this is the 200t riverfront area line uh as I stated you can see it ends at the Wetland here doesn't really end but for practical purposes um we're already in Wetland so we're not going in there uh so I'm going to move to the site development sheet to actually show you uh what we are proposing this is the proposed three lot subdivision you can see three conceptual dwelling Lots we do have a roadway off of Taylor Street um we have uh requested some waivers from the pling board for reduce pavement width um among other things in order to reduce uh impervious surface um built as part of this project uh we will see how that goes with planning board uh but the work within the buffer zone is limited to just this corner over here so uh it's hard hard to see at the scale I was just said so I'm going to zoom in this dotted line is the 100 foot buffer zone so work associated with the development of this lot we are proposing to keep that side of it this is conceptual things could change um down the line but we would file a separate notice of intent for that if we needed to work we are proposing as part as the this application is limited to this strain outfall over here uh we do have infiltration Basin proposed as part of this project uh we need to drain them um for for an overflow they are designed to infiltrate the 100-year storm uh but it's still good design to provide that outfall so we have this Basin overflowing to a soil here and then we proposed the head wall with a Culver pipe out to a level spreader over here this area where we're proposing the tree clearing is about 20 by 50 you can see the 50ft buffer here uh so we are staying greater than uh 50 ft away from the edge of the Wetland uh it's really not possible to site this outfall anywhere else we're really about as high as we can get uh with this outfall the grade at the 100 foot buffer zone is around uh 229 and the grade sort of in the in the you know this existing House's uh yard over here is at 231 so it's only a twoot drop over uh a couple hundred feet few hundred feet so uh we're trying to get as low as as we can um because you know as it is this pipe is uh very flat um it only has a very subtle pitch to it uh but you we're outside of the 50 so I think that the impacts you know considering the three lots uh where all the impacts we are proposing are just associated with this type outfall I think the impacts are pretty minimal uh but if you have any questions please let me know thank you Paul just um as a note of order so plans even if we're on Zoom they do need to be colorcoded as well and you can find a code um on the website okay okay Commissioners questions is this water the water conveyance is this all con ctual too I get a little nervous that you're telling us that this plan is fully conceptual I'm just why are we so that's just the nature of subdivision plans is the actual houses on the lots are going to be conceptual um you know we're just showing a generic box here I only say that um in an effort to try to uh put the commission's minds at ease a little bit or sort of not to I'm not going to commit to what we're never going to file know some intent for this house but uh this application is specific to the work associated with the subdivision which is just the drainage system so the drainage system will be uh something that is what we're asking the planning board to approve anything associated with lots that's a separate permitting process thank you so none of your septics or any of that stuff is it's all outside the buffer it's just that level spreader that's effect yep just this area here that's within uh buffer zone and nothing's within River Front and there was nowhere else that you could put that you said because of the lay of the land yeah it's you know you can see that uh these Dash lines are the existing Contours you can see there's a great deal of variation but this property was used as a gravel pit um at some point in the past and uh they left some some hills uh but for the it really flat for the most part I mean you know the buffer Zone's at about 229 at its lowest point uh the areas that are actually lower than 229 are within Riverfront area um so we have to go in there in order to get somewhere else uh the grade out near the road is at like 231 and you know these spots are two or 300 feet away so it's very minimal grade change uh so it's really the only spot we can put this so can I ask a quick question so is all the land encompassed in the three lots or is there some land like buffer zone or things like that that's going to be just a common land or in HOA or such no all the land is um occupied by the proposed lws so I'll actually it doesn't show buffers on here but this is the uh the edge of the wetlands no actually this is the flood plane which is a little bit upgradient from the Wetland and you know these are our proposed property lines so there's no common land it's all within ws and that's all labeled flood plane I can't see that on that yeah yeah this dotted dashed line that's flood plane uh and the flood plane's a little bit up gradient from the Wetland so I mean at this scale it's just essentially the edge of the Wetland uh but it actually is a little bit closer to the you know a little bit further Upland then you know this is Upland um to the right of that line is what I'm trying to say maybe this is a naive question but if you don't know what the buildings and uh the lay of the land so to speak is going to be for what you're building how do you know that the drainage will be adequate for it how do you design for that yeah that's um that is always that's sort of a classic concern whenever you're designing drain systems for a subdivision um I mean uh it's sort of something you're always thinking about the way that we've managed this is you know these basins are designed to uh Infiltrate The 100-year Design storm with some room to spare uh each of these houses are provided with roof drywells to fully infiltrate up to the 100y year design storm as these drywalls are are designed they're actually a little bit overdesigned uh in order to account for potentially larger houses so the boxes you see on the screen here are 70x 40 feet so 2800 square foot uh you know roof area is shown here the drywalls themselves are actually designed assuming 3500 Square ft uh roof areas um so the roofs themselves will be taken care of um you know by the roof dry weld we actually I'm going to go to the detail sheet if I'm not mistaken uh we have a note to that effect you know if you build a bigger house than 3500 square feet we're going to have to redesign these make the drywall bigger um and that'll be provided on the SE disposal plan for the individual Lots so that is accounted for in terms of the roofs uh driveways could be a little bit different but you know that's part of the reason why these basins are slightly overdesigned they pave a little bit more than what's shown here those all going to the basins it's built into the design of the system all thank you sorry okay if I jump in we have a few questions here um go ahead so conceptually up to the 100-year design storm the outfall that you're constructing will never dis charge correct do understand correct yeah um what's the basis for your infiltration rates used to design the infiltration Basin uh so we just use the RS rate um this is all sand out here every test pit it's all sand um RS rate is 8.27 in per hour uh it's generally a pretty conservative uh infiltration rate for sand um this is sort of a mixed bag between medium and coarse Sands out here um in reality I didn't I didn't run a an infiltrometer test or any sort of infiltration test other than perk tests for the septics which were all less than 2 minutes per inch which is as low as you can get um didn't run the infiltrometer because because most reviewers are expecting you to use rolls anyway uh because those numbers are conservative and they generally um they're going to account for any variation in the actual particle distribution of the sand where your basins are are cited and what have you done to account for following of infiltration Basin and clogging I'm uh I'm sorry I'm I understand it's really nice saying right now right it it what I'm getting at is we permit a lot of infiltration basins that look like crap five years later so my expectation here is that you are not looking at the infiltration rate of pristine Quarry sand that's not it's not relevant um that's not your design condition the design condition is the infiltration rate after this these infiltration basins have SE seen um sanding of the driveways have seen miscellaneous runoff have seen um clogging from uh growth in them and and that's the infiltration uh rate that I want to see here otherwise these things are just going to end up discharging yep so uh in terms of you know we have area drains proposed to capture run off from the pavement um we're calling them area drains they're deep sump hooded drop inlets so they will have sumps to remove sediment in the uh these two Basin areas themselves we have sediment for base which will further uh remove sediment uh and we also have pretty substantial uh specifications on the on the maintenance of the infiltration basins and they got to be checked they got to be cleaned twice a year uh sediment for bades uh are four times a year so uh I mean the number with all due respect it it is entirely naive to think that three individual property owners are going to do any of that and I'm not interested in design based on things that just aren't going to happen yeah I mean the number that we've used for infiltration is already conservative so I think to goer would be it it's not it it just isn't um and and frankly if you submitted this application in six months we would tell you that your precipitation numbers are off by 40% something like that for 100e storm so I'm not interested in being um following I'm not interested in in the argument that this is conservative when we know full well that uh new precipitation numbers are coming can I go ahead can I interject for a second so not to be contentious but um we're looking at an outfall within a 100 foot buffer when we before you go can you just introduce yourself please thank you my name is Mark Gallagher from s Harvard development um when we were out and met um on the site uh Paul was away um and one of the as we Define the riverfront I I just wanted to get back to a question that Madam chair you asked initially which was about a homeowners association after we met out on the site this summer and we um worked with the third party engineer and with the uh conservation team to define the riverfront and the setbacks we went back to planning um to discuss a a different method of of approaching the subdivision and we had offered an open space subdivision because we're just over 9 Acres um and we were specifically directed to go with a standard uh subdivision which would not allow us the ability to create a homeowners association or have open space to further protect the natural resources that um we all discussed when we were out there one of the things that we pledged when we were there were to keep the houses as far away um from the natural resources as we could and I believe although we did not win the the the battle with doing an open space which I think would have been a better development uh because we could have even further lowered the amount of of uh impervious we were able to work with the planning board to reduce the road the road width the road length because there are only three homes out here and a lot of the other items that cause impervious um so we we did try and some of the feedback that we got was that in terms of the open space it's not connected to any other open space in the town there's really no conservative ship to be able to give open space to there's there was no way that we could achieve the goal of having open space which was which was one of our goals so I just want you know all of the board members to understand that we did try to go in the direction that we talked about when we were out there this summer but unfortunately you know Littleton only has a couple of different avenues for us to work with and the board did make the decision to go with a standard subdivision that's the reason why we don't have open space today although that's something we discussed this summer secondly when Paul wasn't out there we have all sand and gravels and as Paul said is there's several you know different we did extensive testing um throughout the entire property in the areas of all of the you know the um recharge areas around all where the proposed buildings are and we also did obviously perks and deep holes for a much larger what we thought was going to be maybe a five lot subdivision so we we've done a lot of testing and the material out there is really excellent we all understand that six months from now a year from now the tables could change on the amount of of these uh rain events that we get that are significant but we can only design around the tables that are available to us today and we can only put certain measures in place to restrict the three homeowners that are there and I would refute that they would not do maintenance to the to the detention basins or or the infiltration basins um simply because in all the the other subdivisions we've done they're all maintaining so Al so Mr Gallagher you're you're telling me that this maintenance plan calls for the property owners to sweep their driveways four times a year and you fully expect that these property owners are going to sweep their Drive way of debris four times a year to prevent following of the infiltration Basin I'm not a police department I don't believe that with all due respect your group as a police department we can only put the measures in place that make the most amount of sense I can tell you 100% agree and and designing based on something that isn't going to happen is not good sense okay but from my from from an engineering perspective I don't know what just suggesting that we find some and I'm not being rude and I'm not being sarcastic some method of determining that somebody doesn't maintain their the their um recharge areas and five years from now there's overgrowth and there could be sedimentation what engineering book are we going to refer to to find those those and where does it say in our in in your rules and regulations that we have to use something outside of what is the norm I mean I'm all for for doing the right thing and I think I've proven that in what I have done but we're not we're not a police department I'm not really sure how Paul can answer your question when you say five years from now you know you you don't have perfect standing gravel we all agree maybe some sedimentation gets into the pawns could happen and they don't do the right thing and they don't maintain it okay so wouldn't it be more proactive for conservation to put restrictions on and and have rules and regulations that are more uh consequential because as a developer how are we going to plan for that and what book are we going to look to to meet your your criteria that you're setting forth today really really isn't that complicated I'm happy to direct them please give us references so Paul can come back and we'll come back to you with other calculations that make sense but remember we have a third party review that we we've just paid a significant amount of money through the planning board um to to review this I'm assuming he'll go through the same process because it was part of his purview to support conservation as well but I I have never heard of a conservation um committee asking for us to project five years of of neglect in order to be able to to do a discharge we've I believe sary has met the Min the the requirements I was going to say minimum but not because he's already said he oversized the basins he's oversized the roof drains um what more would you like them to do and could you give us a reference Chase what what we need to do is to keep going though I would like to see if any of the other Commissioners have questions for Paul or Mr Gallagher sure thank you madam chairman you noted at lot three it was primarily gravel I think said it was a gravel pit or something so does that mean that there will be less um um infiltration there it'll it'll run down to the swes more than it would in the ones the lots that are sandier uh when I say Gravel Pit that's just it was a quarry the the entire property was was used as a gravel pit but I really just mean that to say that they actually at Sand and Gravel out of this site um corser material is actually going to uh result in less water running off uh uh off site and more of it's going to go into the ground uh so I mean there is some variation in in the material out here but it's it's actually quite variable But ultimately it's all very poor uh very little run off um but how much of it how much of it will be impervious with the driveways and other stuff I'm just wondering you've got the you know it kind of sounds like everything's being designed to drain down to the Swale and um which is cool you know that that's what they're for but uh that means the U fertilizers and other things will drain down in there and and and uh if the swell fills up that means that those things will then go follow that pipe down to the level spreader so I'm just wondering uh did you account for that or if so how uh well we have designed up to the 100e design storm as I've said which is the yeah really the Maxum I mean that's the highest uh rainfall storm that you're require to design for we've designed this to infiltrate the entirety of that storm okay uh infiltration basins are suitable for um the uh asbit tmdl for phos phosphorus so they are suitable to promote phosphorus removal uh really anytime you infiltrate swim water uh it's going to be suitable for phosphorus removal because the idea with phosphorus is just put it in the dirt uh so you know these are really as big as you're going to see for the amount of impervious area that we are proposing uh because they are designed for the 100-year storm uh so I mean based on the the regulations that we're held to I think we've done uh as much as is expected by any of those regulations okay thank you any other Commissioners have questions okay Chase do you have any specific guidance that you'd like to give Mr Gallagher or Paul or yeah yeah it essentially there the the recommendation is to consider what the infiltration looks like under a realistic operation and maintenance scenario and there there's nothing mysterious about human factor analysis and considering human factors in engineering and design that's that's basic stuff so the the recommendation here would would be to re-evaluate the size of the basins based on what you expect a true infiltration rate to be not just the current infiltration rate based on what the expected operation is going to be and I I do not think it is appropriate to transfer the responsibility for um let's say ensuring the compliance of this to the town um years after the developer building the project has walked away other Alternatives can be um finding interesting let's say Financial structures to bond the responsibility and ensure that it's done in perpetuity I'm open to a lot of things you can do that instead of a smaller uh or instead of a larger Basin but all of those are perfectly reasonable things to be done here that I've seen done in other locations and um is is not an unreasonable ask here to consider the the impact of true operation and maintenance on this okay what I would encourage to do is um because I I believe that we do not have a mass D number so we're going to carry this over for another meeting I would ask the applicant to take in the discussion that we had this evening and look through that and come back with your I guess would be your professional guarantee that you feel confident as as designed so as I said we do need to keep moving and Mr Gallagher are you good with that can I ask one question Madam chair yes okay um could I have a reference in town so I can go to the town tomorrow where what you're asking us to do Chase which sounds reasonable on the surface has been provided to you as a conservation committee for another subdivision in town residential that I can refer to and look at and share with uh Paul I don't know is I know one off the top of my head but I can certainly PL point you to plenty of infiltration basins that are not working as designed not not what I asked so you're work so I'm I'm asking you where you've applied the same ask which is not unreasonable where else there are many subdivisions I know that have been developed in town the last five years all of them are going to meet the storm water requirements so there must be somebody that's all of them meet the storm water requirements on paper the way that these do they do not like I said actually end up infiltrating so what we're drawing from here is our experience I shouldn't say we what I am drawing from here is my experience managing the the implementation of infiltration basins which we see repeatedly fail over and over because they fail to consider the actual true operation and maintenance of them okay so that you to your recollection just so I'm not chasing myself if I go to the town tomorrow there there are no prior to this evening the board has never asked this task to be done in a prior subdivision that is contemporary that I could find and look at the results and look at what you know engineering they applied to answer your questions sufficiently for our next meeting I'm not sure but you're welcome to certainly go and pull whatever files you you'd like to see you don't you don't have a recollection of any that you you'd have to pull the files I don't know so in order yep go ahead Amy yeah soorry I mean a couple examples would be derky where that Basin had failed um and I'm not asking for failures Amy I'm just asking for a reference where it sounds like Chase is well prepared in his ask so I don't think he just fires from the hip so if this has been asked previously I'm just looking to be able to grab that information share it with Paul evaluate it with George so when we come back we can provide you with the information that that's very succinct at our next meeting that's I'm just asking for a reference where you've asked for this to be done previously you know um did that subdivision up on uh the Lots up on uh and and Mark what what we're telling you is there are lots of instances where we should should have asked for this and we are seeing these types of failures over and over and it is not my intention to allow the mistakes that have been made elsewhere to continue to be made I right and so Mr Gallagher we may have to so it might be us internalizing that we might have to make some additional bylaw changes but we are trying to learn from the mistakes of of previous developers to try and just really make sure that we're doing our due diligence to really stop this cycle so um I appreciate your your feedback and willingness to to work with us on this but we are just really asking you to make sure that when you come back for the next meeting that you've really really dove into this to the best of your ability okay Amy I'll be down to see you uh tomorrow okay all right and this C this carries on the next meeting is April 2nd wonderful look forward to thank you thank you thanks okay uh 8:15 discussion is now 83049 Matan sand placement is this a a discussion or who's here for this Amy uh this would have discussion and and uh this is Dave bar it is his property uh he was here earlier but um he's not here now um okay let's go ahead table if he comes back we can jump back into it let's go ahead and open our 8:30 which is continued public hearing notice intent Littleton water supply connection Wickham a and Taylor Road Mass d 204-9956 yep okay so let's go ahead um Steve Haden if you can um in say hello um unmute yourself Steve and introduce yourself and happy to answer any questions if you could let us know what your question is pertaining to thank you can you see us yes well no we see a picture of you but that's so we we have this is Dave bar and Patty bar uh we don't really have any controls over it seems like all the controls for the zoom meeting are um uh not are disabled I I didn't know that was you because it says Steve Haden on it so I reproted you there okay um okay here we go uh all right hi yep um yeah so sorry it was um need to change the name well they know who we are now yeah hi okay so you're here for a discussion and sand placement um we are all ears yeah so so this was um actually uh a complaint that went into D about um putting in sand sort of a beach nourishment thing actually December of 22 um and by the time I got out there it it had been completed and that's when we started the discuss s of the whole Lake Shore compliance thing um to grab everybody who's doing this at once and it just slid for more than a year because you know we haven't been able to get that get get that piece of it moving um so you know D is is dinging me every now and then to find out what's happening about this um so I I think it might be time to to move forward either um ask for after the fact filing do an enforcement order say it's nothing that needs permitting um but but come to some kind of decision so the uh as I understand that the uh uh D had been told that we were putting sand in the water and we had uh machines in the water to do that and Amy and Tim came out and they saw that we had put sand down on the beach but we hadn't put any sand in the water we didn't have any equipment in the water but that was during draw down so it's probably underwater as the water stuff comes back up and it will certainly work in the buffer zone um so you know it's whole question of how the Conservation Commission wants to handle this so are there excuse me Mr B one moment are there any um photographs Tim or Amy for um Commissioners how would you like to proceed with this uh I don't have a photograph okay I don't think I have any I could check while you guys are talking but okay Commissioners questions the bars can we get a few more details on what was placed all I've heard so far is that they were sand Ian and I pretty sure I recall the property that we're talking about from other other work but we have a volume of sand a depth or you know what the intent why yeah can I explain yes go ahead Mr bar okay um so uh this was uh part of the work being done when we uh replaced our house and uh the uh all the uh Granite walls on the property were falling over and we were replacing those as well uh the walls that are down next to the beach uh were being replaced or uh and um when we did that work the beach um uh next to the around the walls got torn up and some of the beach sand ended up being removed from the site along with dirt uh uh around the around the around the walls uh when the work was done uh we uh um there were whole there were you know uh trenches there uh from uh working on the uh on the wall and uh the dirt that had been removed and so we brought sand back in to restore the the beach to its uh original condition um and we basically put the sand um where it had been the the holes had been created uh along the walls uh and while uh they were doing that they smoothed out the rest of the of the beach um the the beach area had been used as a staging area for uh the stones that were put on the wall and so it was kind of uh also torn up and so they smoothed it all out uh but basically filled in uh the restor the the beach to what it had been and the holes that had been uh created in working on the wall were filled in how much sand do you estimate was brought in Mr bar I don't really know um couple of um couple of loads uh I mean they they basically replaced what had been there were there were several uh you know uh truck uh I mean not truck loads but you know several uh trips of trucks uh the S dirt removed and several grips of trucks que you that we brought in uh they weren't like dump trucks full I don't I I can't tell you what the actual amounts were I think that would be helpful for the commission to know if it was a you know one ton or if it was something as large as a triaxle which I know you can't get in there but I think that would be important for the commission to know yeah I I think it was a uh probably a couple tons Commissioners questions how would you like to proceed I know that we've been in different conversations now with Beach nourishment Amy do you have any guidance for the Commissioners um well it doesn't sound like this was actually Beach nurs m per se but restoration after construction but you know this amount of work I don't believe was considered in the original nose intent and Order of conditions um so I don't know potentially you could either do call it a minor mod to that order conditions or an amendment to that order conditions um my my suggestion would be to move this conversation to the next meeting and either do a site walk or have someone bring photos to the meeting so that we can understand um more intelligently what's what's going on what would the commission like to do um when you come and look at the at the property you'll see that the beach is there I'm not sure that um what um you know and I can send you pictures of that you you'll see that the beach is there um personally I'm confused about what we're being asked to do I mean if you did the sand work two years ago what uh it what was not part of the original filing so the work the work may not have been authorized had it been on okay the application okay so we were authorized to uh replace the walls and this was just part of replacing the walls and in replacing the walls they they dug down to put in uh New Foundations and in doing that they ended up with trenches uh along the along the walls and they just restored it back to the way it had been and and the work on the walls was uh approved so all the work was done inside the erosion control measures right yeah we had saltations uh out on the beach between the uh we did the work um you know when the uh when we can when the water was low enough that we could that we could do the work and um it um was yeah and we had saltation fences and uh Waddles um along the beach um but between the work and the water okay and so I'm just trying to visualize so the sand that is there now is that underwater uh some of it uh but I mean it was it was like I said it was smoothed out it was It was kind of uh the the sand that was put in was put in along the wall but then uh when they had the machine you know on the beach putting the sand in they smooth out the the the rest of the where only where we where the sand was already in place you go out ways and then it becomes muck right and that was already the case and so they just smoothed out where the sand was already uh on the beach um uh and you know the during the during the summer the that sand that's there some of it's in the water yeah start some with the water comes up Commissioners what would you like to do so just just to summarize does it come down to you know that the material that was removed was simply part of the construction process and and it may not have been noted in the uh original conditions uh just as an oversight I mean it seems reasonable to restore everything to the condition it was before after repairing the wall or or so it seems to me yeah I agree with you Michael I guess it's a matter of if that's what happened right I I think that's what we don't know and it sounds like that they're being you know being SCP was told that that's not what happened is I guess the way I think without without seeing the final product in terms of with the erosion control there we need to make sure that the work that was done was within the filing and Upland of the erosion control so I I I could see how it could be questioned because if they're sand that is now in the lake we would not have permitted a project that was at that water mark well the the S that's in the lake was already there they just smoothed it out we we did permit that though right because we let them do it during draw down so down yeah they were already do they already did work that is where the high water level is we we know that and we worked with them and asked them to do their work during the draw down so that it wouldn't affect the water I I mean [Music] Beyond calling this a minor modification based on that same was brought in I don't know I really don't know how what we have to stand on that says that they placed sand further into the beach the beach area than than was there before and that's what we were just just trying to figure out and and maybe it's it's not even a mod modification maybe it's just a clarification of of the work um sure restoration should be part of all work right so if that's yeah this is just a little you know Messier to degree because of the lake level rising and falling but I I can't remember when I was out there you know over a year ago if the erosion controls were still up when you're doing this sort of regrading smoothing um no they weren't certificate of compliance Amy not yet okay okay all right Commissioners what would you like to do no there AR I would ask that if there's a commissioner that can go out on site or you bring photos to the next um hearing with the applicants support I would encourage contined discussion at the next meeting yeah I mean I can just uh mention that uh some uh additional um uh masonry was done uh this uh recently in one corner of the the beach wall and uh we reinstalled the uh erosion controls uh the citation fences uh around that work uh to make sure that um you know it was in compliance while that work was being done Amy if you can um if you or Tim ideally or both can coordinate with Mr bar to go out on site that would be great sure we're gonna move on it's now 8:46 so yep all right so we're gonna go ahead and open the 8:30 continued public hearing notice of intent Littleton water supply wckc come ab and Taylor Street Mass d 204-9956 evening Ty Manis from Weston Samson um looking for Kevin McKinnon possibly as well thank you Cory or Matt that should be end and Sarah before we begin I'm just gonna recuse myself because my brother is with the water departments thank you and also I just want to double check because Carl's not on this meeting we're not presenting any new information for this project we just want to give you an update that natural heritage is further delayed and we're probably not going to get a letter for another couple months so I just kind of wanted to make sure if you needed Carl here for anything didn't want to lose him for the next meeting when it counts okay great so if you want to just do a quick update with basically what you just said that would be great okay great thank you um so we were requested by natural heritage endanger species program to conduct another pumping test and uh meepa actually indicated to us that we could not go for another extension and we need the letter from natural heritage to move forward with the seir process so at this point we're in a pause for the uh Trumble well project and we're going to uh move into re uh repumping which is under a different noi through uh an order of conditions through the Conservation Commission so that's pretty much where we're at we're hoping to get a letter from natural heritage after we conduct some additional testing by early May and hopefully be in front of you at the May meeting or one of them okay thank you and when will the pumping occur next on the agenda that's the next agenda item so sorry I knew that okay all right so we will move on to if there's no further discussion we will move on to 8:35 request for minor modification digital property new source approval m 204-9416 is for additional pump tests great thank you very much again tan mcmanis from Weston Samson I've got Kevin McKinnon here our hydrog geologist for any questions if you have any additional info you need for the pumping test then Matt Silverman from Littleton water uh so as just indicated um we are required by natural heres they've requested for additional information there are some concerns with the Blanding turtle as far as the impact that potential well may have on those uh they've requested that we do an additional 5-day pumping test if you recall when we were approved back in November 2021 we received uh approval to conduct a 15-day pumping test the time period for that was dictated by mass DP drinking water groundwater group that's scheduled for timing wise usually in August and and September normal time period where it's a significant drought at that time the ephemeral pools at natural heritage is concerned about uh were actually dry and right now they have water in them so they'd like us to conduct a pumpy test immediately and kind of check out the indicators and you know potential impacts what they may be uh for the uh similar tests exactly what we did before it's just going to be five days instead of 15 uh we're monitoring those with Peters uh we have data loggers we're checking against storm water as well as rainwater and other impacts um the data we're going to collect it all very similar to what we did before this time we're actually going to just meet with natural heritage and present the information discuss with them any potential Turtle impacts and then hopefully at that point they can determine uh the Project's insignificance or impact if there is a take or any other concerns that may have the intent for them is to issue us a um additional it's going to happen one way or another they're likely going to require the little and water to continue monitoring for the next couple years once the well is constructed but in the meantime the goal right now is just provide them with more data so that they can review a little bit more um tests will be conducted the exact same way that we did before before there was no issues with that it'll just be again five days same pumping rate I'm going to just bring up a map here just to refresh everybody because I do feel it's been a couple years and just show everybody where we're going um it was several meetings I believe uh a couple meetings we had you know a couple years back and we had actually readjusted the location um initially here's the well I know you're all very familiar with our site here um but in this case this this blue line here represents where we're going to be running uh hosing to discharge uh to Beaver Brook and very similar to what we did last time we're going to be using an energy dissipator we're going to be pumping directly into a segmentation control bag it's a continuous pumping rate for five full days we may do an additional day if um if needed um but the intent would be to do exactly what we did last time no impact occurred last time that we conducted this as well and just contain the uh the discharge of this pumping rate which is about 180 or so gallons a minute um so we're just letting you know that this is an intent for the water department to go back out there and start work our hope is that we can get permission if we need it in first place I know we have a order conditions now but we just wanted to reiterate the workload and make sure everybody's aware uh if everything's good for on your end we're hoping to start this pumping test um this Thursday actually if okay so Amy what do you need from us I would think if if youall agree that that just approving this is a minor modification um it isn't really different than what they did before I was out there I don't know two or three times in the last pump test and and I agree I didn't see any issues at at either end discharge or or intake um so I think a vote would be the cleanest way to do this if you're so inclined someone if we are inclined is someone willing to make a motion sure I will um I before I make a motion Amy I know a question for you on I guess the paperwork aspect good for them I guess in the long run that this sorder of conditions is still open um but are we what is the paperwork going to be like when they are requesting a second order of conditions at the same site for construction work yeah 204 the the pump t number 20499 whatever um 944 sorry uh is is still open um so a minor if it's a minor mod it would just be a letter um and basically put that in the file um their D doesn't like two orders conditions on the same property for basically the same thing like if someone's trying to do one kind of subdivision and then some other kind of housing um these are two projects um well at least in in terms of time where even if you end up denying the well the pump test would be a separate project um and you're you're going to be seeing something similar on Cloverdale where there's going to be kind of three projects at the same time none of which rely on each other so so you can have the two order of conditions um well especially something like this where you're doing testing before doing the final implementation okay thank you okay then I'll make a motion that we approve a minor modification for the additional pump testing uh at the digital property Mass DP number 204-9416 is not here uh let's do a roll call vote real quick Kyle got die Michael Michael Livingston I Ed Ed FS ey myself Chase gerig ey and Sarah I very good it carries five to you okay thank you okay next is okay request for extensions and minor modification longle aquatic invasive species removal M 204-0488 once or not that's we're gonna just do it separately yeah um so Amy do you want to talk about these or we just want to make a motion I believe there's some folks here who can talk to it uh for this one and and for the other ones at this one at Long Lake they're asking a for an extension um which is fairly straightforward and B A minor mod that would um include uh mechanical and physical controls not just the uh the herbicides how long are we looking are is the extension being requested for uh three years okay thank you is anyone here present on Zoom that would like to speak to this I think John were you going to speak to it he's trying to unmute is that working now yeah oh good thank you so much I appreciate you having us tonight uh we are looking to extend the uh the permits but also John can you quickly just identify yourself and where you reside certainly thank you I'm John fome uh I'm the chairman of the uh clean Lakes Committee in Littleton uh and uh I live at 21 lak Shore Drive um we're looking to expand uh the uh the permits to cover uh our new process of uh of uh uh Eco harvesting it's a way of uh of actually drawing the uh the plants so the invasive uh uh aquatic uh plants that are uh that are in our Lakes uh out of the Lakes uh to remove the uh uh uh uh remove them from the from the water stream um that'll that'll be an improvement over the uh the past where we've just usually uh used herbicides you may remember Echo harvesting from the permit uh that we um got for uh Lake mwan Last Summer Okay does anyone have any questions or if there's anyone that would like to make a motion make a motion we approve the Long Lake aquatic invasive species removal m d 204 d0431 I'm I'm sorry I didn't get that was for the extension in the minor mod H yes okay second roll call vote Michael Michael Livingston I Ed Ed B Kyle Massi Sarah ER Seward I chase chase G gu and myself I it is unanimous okay following the suit request for extensions and minor modifications spectacle Pond uh aquatic invasive species removal Mass D 20451 3 does anyone have any questions on spec Pond if not do we have a motion so is this the same work the same modification each each three are the same extension same modification okay thank you I move Bo just one thing and I'm boy am I reluctant to bring this up uh spectal po does have natural heritage um jurisdiction over on top of it and I don't know if anybody has talked to them about whether or not they have an issue with yo harvesting the other two lakes on the agenda do not have the habitat areas Amy could we approve this subject to natural natural heritage approval of it I believe you can if this was an order of conditions I would say no um but I think with a minor mod you can so you can definitely do the extension so we can break this into so this can be broken up into two I would make a motion that we uh um approve a three-year extension for spec Pond aquatic invasive species so that would be the first motion I'm going to second that okay all those in favor roll call votes um Ed Ed F Michael Michael Livingston I Kyle Max Sarah D ey Chase Chase G and myself I it's unanimous so Chase getting back to um if you want to make a motion or someone wants to make a motion that it would be issued with support of natural heritage so moved in your own tongue yeah I was afraid you were gonna make me do that now I have to go find the right page with the mass DP file number uh let's see4 513 okay uh move to approve the minor modification for spec Pond aquatic invasive species management M file number 20453 um subject to approval of the minor modification by natural heritage second roll call votes Michael Michael Livingston i eded f Kyle Max Sarah Sarah I cheese cheese SC guy myself I it's unanimous so John just to clarify what that means that you'll have to contact and maybe work with Amy to talk to natural heritage and they have been very slow we understand it's at least a month's uh lag uh if you talk to the water department it might be even longer you you know what I here's what I might be willing to accept here to the extent that Amy's able to get someone on the phone with you at the same time I I would be perfectly fine with Amy was here to was there to hear it with you John and they blessed it I I just want to make sure we're moving forward I I don't know if others are comfortable with that but yeah that's great we won't have the work done we won't be doing the work until uh Late July perhaps okay great all right let's carry on requests for extensions minor modification do full pond aquatic invasive species removal M 204 582 modification and extension do we have a motion this is the same as along Lake it is okay I move that we approve the request for extension and minor modification dolil do Pond aquatic invasive species removal MD 20458 two second all right roll call votes Michael Michael living I Ed Ed Pai Kyle Max Sarah Sarah steart I chease chase G gu myself I it's unanimous okay thank you okay thanks very much yep thank you all good night next is lak comp guidance discussion uh so just um one quick wrap up one quick summary the um Michael and I think it we've been through the brochure piece of this and are sass by the language and I actually ran it by chapter 91 also they made one small tweak um so I think that is all good to go the question is what do you want to do next um the um questions would you want to do a policy which is similar to what stow and a couple other towns have done um specifically regarding docks only not not any of the beach nourishment piece of it so that um either if someone comes in and there's they have an unlicensed on permanent dock uh if they come in to do something on their house or something else uh they would need to bring the dock into compliance um or they could just go ahead and do it um so there could be a policy on that which I distributed a while back um and then the other and if there's any other I don't know issues or or threshold to the commission wants to consider like you know if the dock is one of dp's threshold is 600 square feet which is pretty big um but for example if the dock is less than 600 square feet then they can do this as an RDA um and you know the whole sand dumping Beach nourishment type stuff is is kind of a different issue and with that I'll say I wasn't really thinking you'd actually get through tonight so I didn't expect to have this conversation well I also think it it has been a little bit and so I don't know if people are ready to discuss this or if we want to move it to the next meeting but the timing is really important on this so I think that we should not keep caking this can down the road well I I think about now is when everybody's um getting ready to put their docks in so if it seems like a good moment to raise awareness one way or the other um catching them as they have work done seems like the best way to to go otherwise you know what do we have to go around every Lake and start looking for docks to have uh permitted I mean it doesn't seem practical so uh yeah and and that would not volunteers to do yeah yeah someone volunteers to do it fantastic uh otherwise uh the next time they're permitting to do something they they need to get caught up but seems very fair Amy do you need a motion for that or what would you like no so why don't I make sure that um I stand around the latest and greatest for the April 2nd meeting um I don't know if you're ready to vote on the brochure if you want to take one final look at it beforehand because then otherwise I can print it and stick it out on the desk at the very least I thought it looked fantastic yes you do I the last iteration I looked at was great as well okay I would say let's go ahead and and go with the Brer as presented okay I mean my original intent was to send it to all the property owners and and I think that's just going a little far but we can get it to the water sets we can put it in some of the kiosks that are around and and just have it up on website all on definitely on all the websites for all the lakes and the I would say building department but also conservation site as well yeah yeah and ask um conservation trust if they they would put a link on to theirs as well and we could also circulate with the uh you know the Lake Associations and what have you and that be as for their good faith yeah yeah okay the next is tree protection policy discussion any thoughts on that anybody uh pointing at me or you're pointing at Chase I'm pointing at Chase no he I have thoughts yeah that's let go ahead we'll move into real quick to update with that though um Matt kahill has provided their uh the draft of what they are presenting to town so I have that on my test to go through and see if and what is applicable while Chas so maybe you want to we'll just put that on for the next meeting Kyle and you could just maybe just do an update for us I'm hoping by the next meeting I'll be able to get caught up yeah okay cool um so just go ahead just one more thing on the Tre is I'll say Tim has pulled together the um the Arbor Day Tree City USA recertification say um which has been kind of a pain the but he's going to the select board next Monday to just have them Proclaim Arbor Day as Arbor Day and get the tree City certification put back up excellent thanks for doing that Tim oh yeah no worries okay um it says continued administrative discussion does that mean we're talking about it now or moving it review standard order of conditions that last item Amy that's on the agenda I don't see it yeah you have a different agenda tree policy is the last one on my agenda really that's interesting yeah same for me okay every now and then I send you a separate one Sarah just to see if you're awake so okay so I think that's it it's now 910 can I have a motion to adjourn and our next meeting is April 2nd and oh Sarah before we close out tonight I was able to find the latest CPC numbers if you guys want to hear them really quick yes please sure so it looks like an undesignated by the end of the fiscal year will have about $468,000 in community housing we'll have $5,095 in historic will have 310,000 and this is before any of the projects proposed at the upcoming town meeting will be um taken out essentially that's great I appreciate that a lot thank you okay no problem it's uh 911 I make a mo to adjourn today meeting for March 19 2024 second roll call vote Michael Michael Livingston I Ed Ed F Kyle Max I Sarah Sarah SE word I chees CH G gu and myself I we're adjourned