2026-11-04 - Conservation Commission

All right, good evening everybody and welcome to the Today is November 4th meeting of the Conservation Commission. Um, this meeting is being recorded and streamed by Millbury Public Access Cable

Television available live on public access channels Charter 191, Verizon 26. This meeting is also available through Zoom or by phone. The um, Zoom call in number is 841-7237-5203. Anyone participating

through Zoom or by phone should state their name or address when name and address rather when speaking. Um, and to start us off, um, Mr. Hill will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance if his voice can

handle it. >> I'm just going to pick this up. Paul a minute to get up. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God,

indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Um, all right, so let's um, go right down the list here. Um, we'll start off on Old Business A, 56 Davis Road enforcement. Um, when we last

left this last meeting, I was going to shoot an email off to um, the proponent in question. Um, I found that email in my drafts the other day and had forgotten to send it. So, I will take care of that

and we will get that moving for next meeting. >> Hit send, got >> It's one of those days, let me tell you. Um, I'm going to jump down to C, um, 211 Riverlin Street notice of intent continuance. Um,

they have requested a continuance to January 20th, 2027. Um, so I will entertain a motion to continue that hearing to the 20th to the 20th of January. >> I'll make a motion. >> Is there a second? >>

Second. >> All in favor. >> All right. >> All right. Um, now we're going to go to B, Rams Horn Pond Dam Management Plan discussion. Um, I'm going to first hand the baton over to Don Flynn, our

conservation agent, for where we're at with the updates and and chat from there. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, a couple days ago, I received an email from Matt Stenzel that the measurement he

made at the gatehouse indicated they were at approximately the elevation 625, which was uh one of the original drawdown targets. And so, I notified the officers of the Ramsdell Pond Association about

that, so they could um ascertain if they could look at it and ascertain evaluate. They could come to their own evaluation. And I went out there and looked at it um last evening, um, just before dark.

And um the the water was about 3 ft off of the wall that we were originally using as an important criteria to protect um during the winter months from ice. Uh, Morse's Morse's wall. It was about 3 ft

off that wall and maybe about a foot in elevation below it. So, I have a couple pictures. Um since then, Linda Donovan has uh made an excursion around the pond. Um, I don't want to speak too much for

her. I don't know how the chair feels, but she took numerous photographs about um properties who still have um docks and infrastructure still in the water in the water in the pond. In other words, the

the water is not drawn down below the elevation of where I guess a number of these structures are. So, I was going to go out tomorrow and look myself and maybe try to take some measurements of how

deep the water there in so I can report to the commission and we can try to go forward with you know, evaluating this this drawdown cycle. >> Um Mr. Donovan, did you want to speak at all on this?

Since you're here. >> some questions. >> Um >> observations >> Does the commission have any questions in that regard? >> Not not to start, no. >> Not to start. So, this is You know what? I actually do

have a question. This is probably better for you to answer. So, if you can I should have just had you do that to begin with. I'm sorry. And just for the record, if you can introduce yourself, thanks.

>> Linda Donovan, 49 Davis Road. >> So, the request to draw it down somewhat further is the primary objective is to protect the docks. >> To protect the walls and any permanent structures. And as Don

had said, the Morse property, I did take some pictures of that, too. Yes, it's 3 ft from the wall, but he has stone steps that project beyond the wall >> Mhm. >> that the water is touching the last

step. >> That is true. Uh the water is closer to those steps. >> Okay. >> So, um the dock situation there's evidently been some residents who have extended their docks. Um So whether they're

permanent, I don't know. Some of the docks that are still in the water, it may be the wheels on the portion that's in the water is maybe just a few inches in the water. >> And those usually get pulled

back in? >> usually do get removed. My dock is still on still in the water but I have somebody that comes in removes them and I'm just waiting for that person. So there may be other people's docks on

the pond that are going to be removed but are not removed at this point. >> Okay. Um so really the biggest concern are these walls? Is the biggest the more >> is ice damage the walls but any permanent

structure is also a a concern. >> Sure. Um so just and just for information purposes cuz I don't know the answer to this. Has the previous drawdowns kept them below the walls in the past or have it

traditionally >> The dam rehabilitation project was completed. The drawdown has been excessive more than what was requested. So there was no issue with structures or ice damage. >> So this is only

becoming an issue because of the additional because of the lack of that much drawdown. >> Cuz yes, yes. >> Do you happen to know what number that was at? Cuz if we're like at the 625 now >> The

excessive the drastic drawdown? Oh, we're thinking um below 622. >> Okay. And you're currently >> almost in >> You're looking at 622 22 >> with Don's suggestion 625 and we're hoping to tweak it a

little bit and elevate and evaluate it and make sure that there isn't anything that can be damaged permanently due to ice. And of course we understand that, you know, if rain comes that um the DPW

will come in, do what's necessary to lower water to avoid any ice damage. >> What would you suggest as a way to sort out the docks that will come out for the year, so we have some way of ascertaining

what might be damaged if we don't draw down enough water? >> The only thing we could do is contact those residents and ask them whether those docks are partially removable. >> A little infomercial,

additional information that I forgot to mention when I was at Morse's wall. Um I just took a stick and went out um about another foot put the stick in the water and 2-in drawdown, 2-in additional

drawdown would bring the water out another foot at that point. And then I reached as far as I could, so I'm about 3 ft off the shore, almost falling in the water and I put the stick down and at about

4 or 5 in additional drawdown it would be 6 ft from the wall now. So I don't want to drive Nat Stenzel crazy uh constantly sending somebody out there to tweak this adjustment, but I might I don't

know. We we might ask about additional drawdown, or we just um get your rent get your members to tell us what will be coming out of the water and when? >> Mhm. >> When when do they normally get pulled

out of the water? Like I know you said you're waiting on your your guy to come through, but like what's the typical time frame on it? >> Anytime between after um Columbus Day holiday to late November.

>> Okay. >> Um and there is an issue with, you know, these a lot of these docks, I would think most of them have not been permitted. So, we have no way of we have no way of knowing that, you know,

they're out in the water, you know, 20 ft or whatever they are. >> So, I have I happened to bring it with me. Back in 1994, when that legislation was enacted, we sent a letter to the state, and we

received a letter back stating that we were exempt from that permitting process because the information at that time said we were not a great pond. >> Okay. >> Was that the case? >> I don't know, and

I'm not sure I I'm It's funny cuz I I just I happened to look up chapter 91 while we were talking about this right now, and it's like, you know, I'm looking at this, and it's like, this falls under

the structures thing under normal under normal circumstances. If you're being grandfathered in based on the status of the pond at the time of the law, I would need to look into that more. I don't know

for sure. >> That's the letter I have, but >> Yeah. >> So, I think the ones that do have permits are probably newer residents on the pond because they weren't aware of that um letter that we had

received, but most of the other docks are older residents who are taking that as um current situation. >> So, I mean I can I can imagine like if there were docks that were in there prior to at the

time of the '94, like those would be grandfathered and that makes a lot of sense. >> Right, that's what I >> But if you're removing and putting things back and forth in, it's a new temporary use every

time. So, that's why I'm a little That's why I'm just like some I'm just I'm trying to work this through in my head. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking through myself. >> Mr. Hill. >> Uh and another

thing to think about is that because part of what has precipitated this issue is this new um interpretation or application of the law, it's entirely possible that they would expect even older

grandfatherings to not necessarily be respected if they if they've decided to change something that is fairly fundamental. Their intent may simply be to not respect those previous um accommodations.

>> Grandfathering is a great pun. >> It is It is now. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. We found that out after with the dam rehabilitation project. >> I I think that I think that aspect of it is probably a

broader conversation we need to have and if you can forward along a copy of that email to our office so we can kind of look into it and see what's going on. That's fine. We can I'm sure we can scan it

and Yeah. Um So, this brings us back to the >> So, the elevation level and Don's We don't want to keep inconveniencing DPW either. But currently because Morris's steps, the stone structure, is still

abutting the water. It is touching them, then we do need some tweaking for that. >> Sure. And And how long have the steps been there? Cuz I'm I know the wall's been there for ages. >> whole property,

yeah. Long, long time. >> Okay. I'm I'm I'm being pedantic here, but since before '94 >> As long as I've been there, 40 plus years, that wall's been there, so >> At least since At least since '94. >>

Yes. Oh, yeah. Long before that, probably. >> Yeah. >> That's what I assumed, but I wanted to make sure. Please. >> Um how how obnoxious or difficult would it be to just go out and get an altimeter

and measure where the elevation is at the lowest expected point and then figure out what what what's the number we would need to do to protect that lowest point with expected precipitation and

freezing? >> Well, that was a mission I was considering. Um I don't know how accurate an altimeter you can get for that. Um I was going to try to use the current pond elevation as a approximately 625

because it appears to be roughly where that stake was inserted on the photograph you gave me. I mean within a half a foot, I think. It's pretty close. I think it's pretty representative. And then I

was thinking of like Linda was doing today, looking at it and looking at the ones that appear that appear to be deeper on it and take a physical measurement with a tape measure from the bottom to the

current water level. >> Basically do it like a survey. >> And that And but, you know, how long that will take, I don't know. I was really disappointed that you were able to acquire 98 photographs,

some of them duplicates. >> It's a lovely day for kayaking. >> and I'm like, "Oh, no." >> So so the the the wall in question here has that has has always been above the the the waterline for the for

the pond freeze, right? That's what you're That's what we're saying. Okay. >> That's the wall that projects furthest into the pond and um has always been dry during the winter. Dry down. >> I would,

you know, >> I'm now That's just my the wheels in my brain moving very slowly. Go ahead, please. >> Um I mean, I I'd like to maybe work with people to, you know, pull back the docks or change what

they are over a period of time, maybe. Um especially cuz they're not permitted and it's not good for the long term of the pond to keep drawing it down, you know, 6 7 8 ft. Um >> Well, I mean, I think

I think the I I'm seeing this as two as two different distinct issues here where there's the docks that are in the water, permitted or grandfathered or whatever what have you. Like those are not our

responsibility. They are they are, you know, they are they're on state land. >> Mhm. >> There's the wall that has existed there for ages that traditionally has not been underwater and probably serves

a purpose in terms of protecting the land that is behind it and all the erosion and stuff, exactly. That's a different conversation for me, I think, between the things. Like I think I think it's

important that if we're going to propose something to either further draw the the dam down or mess with the water levels any further. It needs to be for the right reasons. And I think the wall is a

different reason than the docks right now. The docks are a different issue depending on what comes about with with these sort of with with the letter and everything. But at the end of the day, I want

to make sure we're protecting we're protecting against the erosion that the wall is protecting. >> Yeah, to make something clear though, when I say the the docks are in the water, they're not deep in

the water. Um some of them you're probably looking at just a couple of inches. The water may be just lapping the feet of the most extended part of the dock. Um they're not submerged a lot. So, I think

it a little tweaking like Don suggests would probably solve the problem. >> But that would would that then be protected of ice? I mean I >> Well, you're saying that if 2 in 2 in more would be a foot

beyond our side. >> 2 in from that wall at that location means a foot withdrawal. It's going to vary all over the pond. >> yeah. The the the level is different all over the pond. The slopes are

different, yeah. I'm pretty pretty flat and dry where I'm the Ransome Road side. It's steep and yeah. >> Right. >> So, and and you might have said something to the fact of this before, so I apologize

if I'm asking you having you repeat yourself. This has not been an issue with the drawdowns for that wall prior to this year. >> Not since the dam rehabilitation project when we've had the drastic

drawdowns. >> Okay. So, it's it's so this is this is new to this year. This is a problem that is new that is unique and new to this year. >> New to this year in the respect to come up with the proper

elevation drawdown in order to protect downstream habitat, yet protect property damage on the pond. >> Excuse me. >> Please. >> New do this year based on changes by the government or changes on the

the water level. I mean, if it if it's You've been Linda, you've been there for 40 something years, right? And it hasn't been a problem till this year. >> That's what I'm trying to sort out exactly.

That that's why I'm trying >> this year we're we're talking about drawdown levels and minimum minimizing the amount of drawdown for In the past years it's drawn and said um they always close the gate

valve, closed it completely. There was no after a certain month in the summer there was no water going downstream. So, that's a concern for Don. >> So, just so you know, now she's talking about the

refill. >> Mhm. >> And the issue we had this year is that the pond was drawn so far down I because of a misunderstanding on the the how the gate was supposed to be operated, I think. Um that the pond

was drawn way down and it never recovered. It never fully recovered. And so, part of this is trying to have some assurance that we do we can to make sure that that doesn't happen again. However, as

the commission and as agent for the commission, our obligation is to protect the resource area big. The watershed, not only the pond, but Rams Horn water basin. So, that when they refill the pond,

they're not totally choking off the water downstream so that those habitats continue to receive the the necessary water and nutrients so they stay at least viable if they don't thrive. So, we're

trying to arrive at the balance that's needed to do that. The more we draw down, the more likely that we might have difficulties refilling. Although their association has tried to assure us that it's

rarely if ever been a problem. But trying to give you the information cuz you we're here to protect the pond, the the the habitat, and um the wildlife that are in the pond, the watershed around it,

and Lampson Brook, which goes, you know, all the way to Auburn. >> And we're talking 2 in in a lot of cases. And that makes a big difference, right? >> Uh it might. >> It might. >> well, what what she

she reports, I mean, I take her at her word, which is, you know, maybe a consideration, um that we, you know, ask for a little more drawdown. And if that seems to work, um you know, another 6 in, I

don't know. I'm looking >> I think we should come up with some sort of an answer over the next week or two to coincide >> to show you the likes of one of the docks that >> I I don't think the docks

are relevant for this conversation. >> you know that what we're looking at as far as it's not like I said, a lot deep deep in the water. >> So I I I think >> your basis is the walls. >> The walls are

the important thing for our purposes here, for what we're trying to protect. So that's why I'm That's why I'm just kind of putting that dock thing aside for now. >> Mhm. >> Um >> And the other

consideration also is that during the um the winter, you can have rains. We have to be concerned about the ice drifting towards the shore. So, we need a little bit of leeway there in order for that

ice to not crash into, say, the steps at Morse's property because there wasn't enough land. >> So, I'm I'm going through some notes that I have. So, Mr. Flynn, you went over to that dam that that that

wall and my recently, correct? >> Last night. >> Last night. And you said that it was below the wall level? >> It's about a foot. >> About a foot. >> Below the very top of the wall. But uh not as far

below the steps that she's referring to. >> Right, but it's also >> OF THAT WALL. >> RIGHT. IT is also below the steps though, correct? It's not like it is lapping up onto the steps. >> It is below

the steps. >> So, I think >> Barely. >> And I know barely is doing a lot of work in this and I understand so >> I mean, if the wind blows it, it's lapping against the steps. >> Right. So, with with

that said, just again, this is just me trying to understand everything that's going on here. Um like does it need to be another 2 3 in? Like is that is does it need to be that much? >> Are you saying

dry down elevation inches or you talking actual ground 2 in on the ground? >> I I mean, I both, neither. I mean, in all honesty, like I'm just trying to wonder Yeah. >> you're saying. >> What I'm >>

It's important to be clear what we're talking about. Elevation or distance? >> So, I think I think I think that's actually a really good question as is as is the distance from the the bottom of the

wall to the water is X amount, but it also needs to be elevation distance from a certain thing. Like if it's if the wall is here and the water ends here, but it's 2 in down here, is that enough to to

give it the buffer it needs to for the ice damage? >> You need more than 2 in. You probably need about a foot. Because you can have variations. Like you don't want the DPW being called because we had

a rain storm in the middle of winter and that ice now has risen. You need some adjustment room there. So in 2 in would never be enough. >> Sure. >> And then you've got wind blowing the ice all over

the place, so. You need a buffer. >> I think this is a job for Moses. >> If we could get a guarantee on the weather, we'd be all set. >> Seriously. >> I have been taking up a lot of this conversation.

Does anybody else in this commission have any questions at this point in time? >> myself. But yeah. >> When was the dam rehabilitation project? >> 2016-17. >> And like so what did that do? Like why is

it different now? >> They completely rebuilt the dam. And why is the the level was maintained by residents on the pond with an old valve gate valve system. So we weren't calling the DPW >> or >> to

come up and make the adjustments. We did it on the spot as necessary. >> And so since 2016 it's been the town? >> The town paid for the $2 million dam. >> The brand new dam and the new mechanisms. So

it's theirs. >> Mhm. >> Can I sit down? Are you done? >> I I I I think I think so for the moment. I appreciate you being patient with uh some of these questions. Um I I there's more we need to talk

about on this, honestly, and I want to >> I just want to say, however, at this level it does provide maybe a minimal amount of room to work on repairs to the walls, which was one of the factors >>

Mhm. >> involved um in this. And I'm hoping DBW will begin to keep records so that if we do have a rainfall we see that reflected in the data that they're acquiring so that they can understand the

dynamic of 1 1/2 an inch of rain does. What, you know, an inch and a half of rain does, and how they need to respond. That will probably be a little bit of a learning curve over maybe a couple of

years. >> Probably more know more by this this weekend. I think we're projected 3 to 4 inches of rain Friday. >> Well, unfortunately, that the instrument that they ordered that would provide that

level of accuracy to the data has not arrived yet, and it's not installed. So that data can now only be acquired by physically lowering a measuring tape down a hole in the gatehouse. >> Go ahead. >> I

DON'T WANT TO TELL you the number of times that I have done that, Paul. It's in the thousands, okay? And I'm all set with it. >> How long is the measuring tape? >> Do they bend? You use a stick or

something. >> I used to monitor wells all over the state in New England all the time. Yeah. >> Well, I have both learned something tonight and I'm more deeply confused than ever. So I think No, in all

seriousness like well we I think we'll take this back. We'll take a look at some things here. We'll figure out how to make this work whatever that looks like here. If you can get us that information

from when the thing happened state from the state. You know, I think You and I could chat about maybe even talking to Matt about this and kind of getting his feel on it. >> It's probably a good idea

to get his perspective on it. >> Yeah, just I feel like I came into this conversation at a different spot than I'm leaving it and I want to make sure I'm we're doing this we're doing this right. >> I

agree Mr. Chair. I think that's appropriate. >> Okay. Thank you again for your cooperation. Much appreciated. Exciting times with dams. All right. Yeah, exactly. Next on the agenda new business A the

right-of-way easement for the Colton Road. Um Let you get those documents and I can bring them up on the screen right now. >> So there's the letter which um is there's the letter which discusses what

they want to do. I don't know if you really need to look at that. >> I didn't pull it up so I've only got that and the other two things. Yeah. >> He gave the number of square feet they're looking to

modify. Okay, so this is great. If I can give you a little bit of a tour. Uh we have This is Riverland Street here. This is the Buck Brothers Dam right side ave and this is Colton Road up here. This

is the Colton Conservation Area and this the Conservation Commission owns this property and the town also owns um parts of this parcel over here and north. So, it's kind of a shaded area. The area in

question, the area under discussion is along this line. This is the center of the right-of-way for several of New England Power's lines. They maintain this corridor here and a similar corridor here

that's not defined because this is private property. And there's an easement agreement with this property owner for keeping the right-of-way clear of trees that they need to do to protect the

infrastructure. What The area in question is where this crosses through here onto conservation land. They've been maintaining a corridor that apparently is part of an older easement before

conservation acquired it with the exception that one of the lines, the E157 line is very close to the tree line. Closer than the more recent specifications look for to maintain to prevent damage to

the power lines from falling trees. So, they are working to negotiate an ability to widen this beyond what it currently is to meet that standard. They can't do that because this is conservation land

and under chapter 97 you can't do that. >> So, a quick question on the you can't do that aspect of this. Because I know that I and I don't know the exact chapter and verse on it, but like power

companies have the ability to kind of override that in some cases when it comes to emergency stuff, maintenance, things of that nature. Does that not That does not qualify here? Like this is not

something they could come back to us and say >> Or if they didn't have to knock on our door, they would. >> Fair enough. All right. >> And all this is >> Yep. >> You know, they've got some engineers

scoping out all these locations. There's another one in town, but it doesn't impact us um directly. So, they are looking to negotiate access to do that. And it might be a little tricky for us, too. >>

Yeah. >> Um because we're supposed to be protecting this. >> Is this just like they found this problem because of the other work they're doing on this now? >> This is in preparation for replacing and

upgrading that E157 line. Thank you. This is This is kind of thing you're involved with occasionally, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, is there is there any is there any precedent that we can look at

on this? Is there anything that's happened in other Are you aware of anything, I guess I should say. >> I I don't have anything. Um maybe I can go fishing as this you know, discussion progresses. Um

>> Have they given you a number, like how much clearance they want? >> Yeah, it's about 15 ft additional clearance along this whole corridor, which >> On the one side? >> On the one side. >> And just

to be clear, it's the entire way down. Between between number two here all the way to the Rayburn Drive area. They want 15 They want an additional 15 ft along that side. >> Can you go to the other? >>

Yep. >> Uh before you do >> Yep. >> Um >> Oh, wait. >> Their plan is oriented differently. So, you're going to have to kind of turn your mind 90° because this is Colton Road. And on their drawing,

Colton Road is along the uh the north-south or the uh 90° the axis. So, this is Colton Road now. >> Yeah, I think I can spin this. No, I can't. Okay. >> Any way they can replicate it by doing the

damage to what what they're asking, but is there any way they can replicate that by replacing it? >> A reproduction, you mean, like putting something in in another part of the area? >> Yeah. >> That's

That's a thought. >> I mean, seems like the most reasonable >> Mhm. ask. I mean I mean, I just off the top of my head it seems like the most reasonable ask. But >> The only question I would have in

response to that though is those two cut-ins, are those owned by private owners or is that city land? Who's Like like you know, if we're if we're looking at replication in you know, in an area that's

relatively limited Is it Is it number two there? >> So So yeah, so that's that's a good question. >> Like who owns the >> two sides of Colton Road there. So on the bottom one there the Colton Road's

in the middle. >> So this is Colton >> This is Colton Road right here. This is private property right here. >> That is private. >> Private property here. >> This is private property here. >> Right? >>

So where is >> This is This is what you folks are responsible for. >> So from this red line here out. >> Over here and over here is Millbury land. >> So we are talking about >> Talking about this this

strip right through here like this, Mr. Chairman. Right here. It's blurry on here, but this line with these little flags on it is the E157 line. >> Any way they can they can >> Whoa. I got >> Here we

go. Any way they can follow Colton Road right down the road? >> They can what? >> Is there any possibility they can follow Colton Road right down the road using the road as as their space for the >> I

don't So are you saying like they could they could replicate over here? Like where where I'm where I'm moving the mouse around? >> saying moving the whole line over to Colton Road. >> Oh, no. >> No.

>> Because this line goes See where where does it go? I you think it goes goes west? I got to think now. >> Yeah, be west. Yeah. >> I go south. >> Yeah, that sounds right. >> Yeah? >> Yeah, let's go

with it. >> You mean is it oriented on the west side of the of the current gap? Or east? >> It goes north, I think. >> Yeah, cuz from the other if the other map is oriented true, that would be a

north-south corridor on the west side. >> Cuz it's all going to the Quabbin, right? >> It's It's the same >> Right here. Same thing, yeah. >> If you zoom out, we can we can get >> Not not that >> the

Quabbin on there. So, but the corridor that goes comes all the way through from I think Yeah, from Grafton from Grafton Street, from the the power stations off of Providence Road and 50 Grafton

Street. It comes down this way and then continues on to There's the north and southward towards Rhode Island. And so there's several of these lines and I don't know what acquire new rights-of-way, Mr.

DeCicco, in order to move that. They want to improve that, upgrade it. These are used to be if they're not now, they were wooden poles from 1946. And they're trying to upgrade a lot of this stuff to

you know, increase capacity maybe and and at the very least maintain reliability. That's what they call it. >> So, if I'm reading this correctly here, like if you look on the bottom here, this is the

tree line that they're talking about that kind of wiggles its way around here, but the same tree line on the top goes right into this easement right here. So, that's what they That's why they want to

essentially push it back a little bit. >> Yeah, I think, you know, you got to be careful with these tree lines on surveys as far as they're kind of a cat too. You don't survey the tree line. They're

probably looking at an area going, "Yeah, it's about there." >> There were trees there. We're >> But, this is where they need to make it wider. Just make it wider. >> Wider in the blue area? Sorry.

They want to make it wider in the blue area? Not the top Not Not on the other side? >> Right. >> That's the east east face of it. >> Gotcha. Okay. I think I was thinking it was on the other side.

Okay. >> Me, too. >> Oh, this is This is what exists right now. If you go wind up Colton Road, you can just drive down River Lane, you go, "Oh, yeah." >> Instead of us sitting here trying to figure

out a way to say no, um wouldn't it be prudent if we just went back to them and said, "Give us an alternative plan. This is what we're looking for." Throw the ball back in their lap and then come back

and we can make a decision or not make a decision right away, but have a better idea of how we can let this project go through without this uh upsetting the uh wetlands. But, let them Let them present

another engineering report for us. >> Well, that's a point. I'm not sure that there are any wetlands here. Uh I would say off hand that there are not. >> But, there But, it is conservation land and

that's what we need to be aware of. >> So, I don't think you're protecting your That was a good point. I should have brought it up. Up here, this is pretty high ground. I'm 99% certain there's no

resources up here. It's just It is not just It is important conservation land that offers a lot of recreational uh uh capacity for people. There are numerous through here. Um, I I was thinking more

along the lines of, you know, you can take the limbs down, but you can't go through here with your vegetation management and lay waste to everything in the right-of-way with, you know, herbicides and

cutting machines. >> So, pruning would be acceptable if something if they can show us that it's not going to disturb any part of our our land. >> That's an idea that >> I think it's a great idea.

Yeah. >> popped into my head. >> It's a solution anyways. >> Um, I'm concerned they're going to come back and go, "Well, how do we get at this without a roadway?" Well, maybe you actually can. >> I'm

I'm on foot. On foot like you do. >> Yeah. >> On foot just like you would do when you go out there. >> Well, ask her how she does it. >> Walking. Um, do you Do they give you the number like what the

current clearance is right now? >> They say they need another 15 ft beyond what they have. I you know, I don't know how. >> And you And typically just, uh, for whatever type of line it is, we just

have a set clearance that we want. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> What I don't know, you know, is if I understand it right, and you help me out, that there may be more than one circumstance where within that 15

ft is the tree. And you can't just trim it. The tree goes away. Right. Because taking that much off the tree and cutting it up >> frog, that's what they do. That's what trees do. >> No, it still has

habitat value. >> Right. >> Even if you >> Yeah. >> take the branches off. It still has some habitat value. You know, woodpeckers and you know, other wildlife. >> there's anything that's been

consistent about this this commission, it's that we like our trees and we want more of them. And I you know, I don't love I'm I'm not really actually joking on this. This is actually pretty serious.

Like we we definitely play around with we we talk about trees a lot. Um >> Oxygen. >> I Oxygen is also helpful, yes. Um I think that I want to I think I want to I want to know what a what has happened

when this has come before. Because I don't I don't I know you don't know this answer and I know that we need to do some digging or perhaps ask some people who know the answer. But like I am wary both

of setting some sort of a weird precedent by them being able to point at it if we make the wrong call or us uprooting uprooting a bunch of problems that come along that they've already solved, you

know? I don't necessarily expect National Grid to know all those answers. I think that's, you know, this is such a weird circumstance and we're talking about what? 200 ft of land when it's all said

and done, 15 ft within 200. Like in that little gap. Like I mean, I'm just >> on that >> I I the scale is somewhere else and >> 1,000 sq ft. >> Right. So, I don't know. I just I I think if we can get

that information and you know, I can find out who we should reach out to and I don't mind being that squeaky wheel, but >> I was thinking of um asking the planning director to make an inquiry with

town council about their experiences with this because it does involve some legalities. I would be concerned about going off without >> Oh, for sure. >> a firm legal understanding. Exactly as you're

saying, if this is a precedent, we don't want to do something egregious. >> Yeah. So, if we end up in a situation where there's like preferred clearances and mandated clearances where our requirements

run up against their legal requirements as well. And that's just not a mire we want to be standing in. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so, yeah, I think we've got some questions we need to ask on this. >> He did

offer a site walk. >> He being the guy from National Grid? >> He being the I believe he's a contractor. >> Okay. >> for National Grid. Um >> A site walk where? >> A site walk. Site walk. >> Oh, I

thought you said site walk. >> Walk this. >> Site walk, yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, you know, like I I think it would be an interesting site walk regardless, but I also think that that's not like at the

end of the day, a site walk isn't going to give us more intelligence as to whether or not us allowing them to do this work is >> Well, it'll it'll give us a flavor for the character of the land and

then how what they do will impact it and that might change our feelings about >> This might be a devil's advocate question. Does that matter when it comes to be being conservation land as opposed to

it We're we're not We're not so much concerned about like the specific impacts in this case here. It's more of the generalized this is work that's being done on conservation land. We are tasked in

protecting that conservation land regardless of whether it's next to a waterway or not. Like that's the Maybe I'm If I'm asking the wrong questions, I want to know. >> Well, I think it goes back to

you know, Mr. DeCicco's suggesting that well, if we're going to lose something here that we think is valuable, maybe we can negotiate establishing a similar area. >> Yeah. >> A lot you know, some of

the money. >> I think that's a great great suggestion and I know we've kind of batted around a few ideas like that as this has come up in conversation. I think you know, I think I'm just approaching

this from a pure mechanical perspective where this is land X, this is rule Y, this is Z. How are we going to make this puzzle fit together type thing, you know? And perhaps that's not where I should

be looking, but >> In either case, either side is protecting for the public. For example, National Grid wants to improve their the right away there for for the line, which is in the long run, it's in

the benefit of the public. We want to protect our our conservation area, which in the long run is to the benefit of the public. So, we've got to come up with a solution of a some sort of compromise

that's legal. >> Right. >> Okay? >> Yep. Yep, that's it. >> Also not a benefit to the public. >> All right, let's try to at least see if we can get town council to weigh in on this, I think, because

at the end of the day, it's going to have to go through them anyway. You're absolutely right about that. >> And um I'll send you a walk I'll forward an email to anybody. I'll just make it and anybody

who can make it comes along. >> Yeah. You need to get a golf cart for me? >> We'll take the We'll take the Komodo park. You come. >> I can bring my lawn mower. >> You can bring your lawn mower. >>

That's your idea. Just write right here. All right. Well, thank you for that. I feel like we talked a lot about things there at least. I don't know if we got anywhere with it, but we're getting there.

>> No, this is >> Getting there as we get something. >> We need this information together. >> some feedback to kind of, you know, work work it through myself. >> Work your magic. >> Who's the Mike

Miller on the screen? >> I don't know. >> Is this for 211 or Ruin? >> No. >> No, okay. >> Um Yeah. It's okay. I'm not worried about it. Um all right, so nothing on the trails committee, nothing new

there. You haven't heard from Ruin recently, that's fine. So, let's go to the agent's report. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um let's see. Uh I didn't make any notes on events of importance here. A couple

of them we went through tonight just now, so um Um as you know, I've been observing the the drawdown progress on Rams on uh so I can report back and we can formulate um tactics uh for the strategy of

protecting the pond and um property to the extent we can. Um 1537 Grafton Throw Road, I walked the property as a prelude to uh a meeting that the town planner I had. Um there's a large building over

there that they want to market, that the current owners want to market. And they were trying to get a feel for the kinds of things that the conservation um in planning departments would be looking for

when they um put together a plan. There are wetlands behind it. I saw beaver activity behind it. Um So, they have they have some constraints, but I don't think it's outrageous. Um 207 Riverland

Street, the solar project. Um I complained to the current interim town manager about erosion on the site um just above the transfer station roadway where they created a low spot that didn't completely

address uh storm water runoff. The slope is slowly eroding and the material is getting onto the access roadway to the transfer station. It's only a short distance to the intermittent stream. It's not

going to get My opinion is it it's not going to get better without a better design. Um I tried to work with the contractor but they had one foot out the door and um I don't know if if the uh town has

signed off on this or not but I haven't got a response. So, I need to follow up on that. Um I happen to go by the Lieutenant Haynes Drive. There's a wetland crossing there. Lieutenant Haynes Drive

runs from Wheelock Avenue in and around to JFK Drive. They did a wetland crossing there. Um No no major issues. There's some problems with the retaining wall. I don't know how bad they are. I just

haven't been there. I haven't looked at it in a while. Um Gentleman wants to install a shaw a shed at 399 Greenwood Street. The mapping showed uh an intermittent stream running right behind his house.

Um it was not the case because years ago they had put the stream in a culvert. Um very long time ago. So, not an issue. Um We're back to Ramsdell Pond. Uh I don't think I need to go into that too much

because we discussed it tonight. Unless Okay, sail on. Um I stopped into the 449 Southwest Cutoff, the National Grid Training Center to check the erosion controls. Um Everything seemed to be in

reasonably good condition. Um And that was on my way to a site walk for 333 Southwest Cutoff Miller fence. They wanted to start their project. And they were looking to do some I think they're

relatively minor changes to the plan. I put them out on the on the SharePoint drive on that drive if anybody's had the opportunity to look for them. They wanted to a little bit less paving on the

outer riparian area which is currently paved. Which means they will take some of that paving away. Put in what they're referring to as a diaphragm, which is basically a a shallow well, a 4-ft trench

filled with stone. This is to avoid taking down some nice mature oaks. And they will more than offset that with some additional paving where personally I wanted to see them pave originally down where

the pond crosses under an access road and goes out to Broad Meadow Brook. Um So I was hoping to get some feedback from the commission to see if they uh need to do an amendment. And if you need to move

this forward to the next meeting that would be fine, but I put those drawings out there. Did anybody get a chance to look at them? >> I did not get a chance to look them yet, um but I can make sure we

review them in the Robin. Can we get this on the agenda for next meeting? >> Awesome. >> Okay. Um that would be helpful. Another potential change is that they may they they should have done this in

phases and I think I brought that up at the time. But now they're saying that they want to do this as a phase because they're not even sure if they want to do another part of the project or if they

might want to change it. Part of which is in Worcester. So when you look at the drawing they have a kind of like a a red cloud around the area they want to try and accomplish this fall into winter. >>

Mr. Chair, if I may. So there's a question of whether we need an amendment on it for the first issue. But there's also a question of whether they want to alter is it the order of operations or the

scope of operations in this this area? >> They want to accomplish the storage area. Is a priority for them so they can expand their operation and have the materials that they need. The other part of

the plan was to put an addition on a building and do the infiltration system required by that building addition in order to meet the storm water standards. Um And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

>> So other than these the the changes the proposed changes to paving and the diaphragm and the trees, the rest of this is shifting things around and reordering them. Is that what I'm understanding?

>> Um I think they're hesitating to even do that. So And that brings up a point because if they only do 2/3 of the project or you know, what whatever that number turns out to be, what proportion of

the project it really is and they don't want to complete it. That puts the commission in a position of issuing a partial certificate of compliance which this commission never liked to do because of

uncertainties of what you're actually sp- you'd have to specify what they really did. >> That's kind of where it what what seemed to raise a flag for me was if if they only do part of the project, um

you know, does that mean that they're also not responsible for, say, the protections that would have been in that part? And are those protections necessary to work with the other parts of the project

that they did do? Uh, it to just to me it begs the necessity for a more comprehensive review. >> And that was part of my discussion. And so they said they would install the erosion controls and modify

just an aspect of one string of erosion controls to encompass the additional paving area. Because on the plans currently there was a different set of erosion controls for that other work. So it

wouldn't made sense for them to break it off at a similar point. So the commission could say we want an amendment. And you can phase it and then we'll let you do the erosion controls the way you want

to do. Um And if they don't move forward with it we can approve that phase of the project and it makes it clean. I think. That's That would be That would be my opinion. >> time would we give them on

um coming through with the completion of the plan? >> Uh, well the orders of conditions usually last 3 years. Is that what you mean? >> What was the question? What was that? >> I don't I don't

Standard of conditions allows them 3 years to complete a project. >> Okay, 3 years is the normal. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, the normal thing. >> I know we had some come across here that were 15

years old. >> Sure. >> A while back. So. >> Well, they don't come for a certificate of compliance. And you get certain projects that get extended ad nauseam. You know, um >> Yeah, and then this one's

been floating around for ages, as is. So, yeah. >> Um >> Okay. >> So, bear that in mind, and we'll go at it the next meeting. >> I think I mean I I I would definitely like to hear from the rest of the

commission on this. >> Well, this might be why Michael Miller is on. Uh he may be monitoring this for Miller Fence Company. >> Mr. Miller, if you are around or available, if you wanted to speak up,

please unmute. Okay. Maybe not. >> Maybe not. >> Okay. >> Went home to have dinner. >> Um shall I continue? >> Please. By all means. >> Um More ramps on damn things. Um plans submitted or reviewed. Um

We just spoke of it, but the revised paving plan for the Miller Fence Company. Um on other matters, 297 Milbury Ave. Um requesting an update on the enforcement order from uh I requested uh an update

on the enforcement order uh from the consultant Glenn Kravosky. He provided an initial conceptual plan. Still needs work, and um promised it would be in soon. Kind of open. Uh similarly, 34 Nicole

Drive, Mr. Krawoski is also the consultant there and he said he would put pressure on the engineering firm to uh finalize a a preliminary plan soon. Um I made a weekly reminder to approach I think the

panic the planning director um to approach the new town manager about appointing the public land coordinator which was requested by the trails committee in uh the October 16 meeting. So, I've got

myself a reminder so that doesn't fall off the radar. I'm not going to push the town manager with this kind of thing before he's a month into the job. Um but I don't want to lose track of it and

certainly as we get into the spring, we'd like to have clarification on the insurance for the Kubota. Who can drive it? Will it be town registered? And uh who can drive it? Um 252 West Main Street I

followed up on uh reports uh uh an anonymous report of burning going on on the property at 252. I went up there today and um went on the property and knocked uh rang the doorbell and then saw some

work near the wetland and I went there and uh we the town hall received a a call that I'd gone on the property without asking permission and they wanted to know what was going on. So, I told them that

I was investigating a report that there was a wetlands violation that they were dumping things in the buffer zone to a wetland and that we needed to work with them for resolution. I was promised that

they would work with us if we promised to work with them on it. They indicated that they thought the neighbors were harassing them because of activities on the property and allegedly other things that

are out of our jurisdiction. So, I won't go there. 183 West Main Street, I stopped in there and then I called the property owner Fadi Al Massih. He has a negative determination of applicability

because he's building a house out of the buffer zone, but the property is within the buffer zone. So, he filed a plan in that he would have erosion controls maintained where the property is in the

buffer zone. He has not done a good job of that. I called him and asked him to refresh the erosion controls to sweep the streets, keep the materials off of West Main Street so they don't go in the

storm drain. And he said he would do that. And we just had the discussion of the access to the Colton Road right away by National Grid. And that's what I've been up to lately. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>

Um a question for you, and you may not know or have an answer on this, um but with the passage of that ballot question regarding the conservation fund >> Oh. >> at the State House, have you gotten any

um information as to what that might look like from a local perspective, or is that still remain to be seen? >> Um I haven't gotten an indication. I only have my take on it, which may not be worth

reviewing in front of the commission. >> Fair enough. >> I know MACC was highly supportive of it. The >> That's the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. >> as written in the in the

um um in the guide that the Attorney General puts out, um was written by Mass Audubon, and they were for it. >> Mhm. >> Um I'll leave it there, unless you >> No, I was just wondering if you had gotten

any any intel on it from your >> Uh nobody's >> Copy that. >> inquired. >> Yeah. No. I know it was pretty quiet in the grand scheme of things with all the questions we had, so I wasn't sure if that >>

Yeah, I was surprised there wasn't a little more discussion. >> my problem with that is they they say the funding's already there. It's coming from parts of our sales taxes. Is that what it is? >> On

sporting goods. >> Right. But you know that's not going to down the road it it's going to be another Mass Save. They're going to get another fund, take it out of your electric light bill or something.

That's me. >> And right. >> I don't know. >> Yeah. And then the second year they want all the tax money from that. I I you know >> Okay, >> it. All right. Good enough. Fair enough. Um thank you very

much. So, um we did have some minutes in the in the uh drive. I don't remember what the date was off the top of my head. >> The 16th. >> September 16th. >> September 16th. Um so, I was able to review

them. No issues there. If everybody else has, I'll entertain a motion to accept those minutes as written. >> I I was not there. Paul, were you there for that? >> Was I there September 16th? >> We may

not have a quorum for that. >> Uh yeah, I'm pretty sure. I was here. I'm pretty sure. >> I was definitely here. >> One of my colleagues >> I don't think you were there. I think it was you >> might

have to wait on this till >> Utah. >> Yeah, so we'll have to wait on this till Stacey's back. So, that's okay. Okay. Um Mail. >> Uh mail, we've pretty much already discussed that we on Sunday we

received from the Lake Singletary Watershed Association a sort of a response and rebuttal to the Massachusetts I'm just going to get closer to the Massachusetts guide to algae and aquatic plant

management, all called the Mass APM guide. Um It's pretty thorough. It's got seven points it looks at, some of the reasons for the guidelines that they're using for the enforcement, some of the

adjustments that they do support. Um I As far as I can tell, this is really something for us to read and assess. I don't know that this needs to be something that uh other people want to read unless

they really really want to. >> And it'll be on file for at the office if you want. >> will be on file at the offices if you really want. >> A comment I would make, if I may, is that it points out

exactly some of the issues that we're still dealing with regarding Rams Horn Pond and we will possibly continue to deal with. Um >> It's quite thorough in terms of like chapter and verse in terms of

justifications for past regulations. So, it's a valuable read. >> I agree. >> Is this the same thing you sent out or is this a different thing? >> This just came in on Sunday, it looks like. >> Well,

I may have had it before and not put it out on the drive. >> Well, it's dated November 1st, so >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I thought you also sent something about the FGEIR. I've seen that actually. >> I

think it was that. I think that's what it was. They were trying to address the F They were actually they were critiquing the one that is with under comment right now. It's open for comments. And so

these are the comments. So they're planning on updating the 2004 document. And I think they want to finalize it. So this is highly appropriate that this be addressed right now because if it's if it's

addressed skillfully and adequately it would provide I think a pathway for this commission to arrive at decisions that are supported by uh guidelines as well as the regulations. You know, I think I

think some of those points should have been brought in to the proposed uh revisions to the Wetlands Protection Act. And I'm not sure that they were. That would have been appropriate. I see this as

would would have seen this as an opportunity to create another limited project criteria under which you can say yeah, you can do that project even though it exceeds all the other thresholds. We're

going to allow it because But I don't know if that's not the case. >> All right. Any more mail? >> That's That's it for mail. >> That's the sound of the gavel, I got. >> All right. Is there anything

else to come before the commission this evening? Hearing nothing, I will entertain a motion motion to adjourn. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none,

we are adjourned. See you on the 18th. >> the hammer over there you can use, you know. >> Yeah, exactly.