 Okay, so we are now recording today is Wednesday, November 18, 2020. This is the Amherst, Massachusetts Conservation Commission meeting. So starting off with comments for me, there are none. Seeing that Mr. Zomac is not here, I will assume he has no comments at this point. So, Aaron, the floor is yours. Okay, so just to prepare you guys, we have a very, very business intensive meeting tonight, but I'm going to do my best to move as move us as quickly as I can. And so my screen. Okay, so let me see here. This is not going to work. I don't know if you can read this or not it's it's tough for me to even see this. Could you go into like presentation mode. I can try but I'm okay there we go. So, I'm thinking. Okay, maybe I'll start with Pomeray Lane first under the request for extensions because and excuse my flipping so fast here just to try to get us there. So we get a couple requests for continuations one of them is for this house lot on Pomeray Lane. It's immediately east of the poor farm property. And three years ago, in February, there was a wetland delineation done here and there was an approval of a single family home. They've requested an extension on the order of conditions work has not begun there. I walked the site with Mike Lou from Berkshire Design they did go and refresh the flagging which was really nice. We'll let it go and the flagging was refreshed we walked the site. No work had begun all positive things. If you look at the at the plan here on the right you'll see some orange highlighted points. And those were some areas where I saw some sensitive fern which is a fat wet species. It is starting to creep up the hill. And these are some photos again it was, you know, we were already in a, you know, frost situation so you know I could see, and it's difficult to see in the pictures but, you know sensitive fern is also called bead fern because you get those those stocks that almost like bead looking features on them, and all around Mike Lou in this picture is is the bead fern stems, and then the top left the the bead fern stems as well of sensitive fern so my advice to, to Mike Lou on this was basically for him to advise his client. And you know, if the Commission issues an extension on this, you guys should build the house soon, because if you leave this property on, you know, unattended it's the wetland is moving, and it's going to continue to move just like it that I mean that's why they have extensions on orders so anyways, it's really at your discretion if you want to issue an extension a one year extension a two year extension a three year extension how you feel about that bead fern area I didn't see any evidence of hydrology on the surface there was no standing water there was no leaf staining, but definitely a fat wet species was pretty dominant in those areas. What are they asking for an extension. They say at a time frame, they just said extension. They said they don't even have anybody to build there yet don't they. They, they do not. I think they they it's not even for sale to my knowledge. Because how long can we can we even issue it. How long can we issue extensions. Under state law you can only issue up to three years. So we're assuming that's what they're asking for them. Yeah, I'm just gonna. Sorry, I'm, I'm opening it as we speak. That's typically what we do extend for not that we need you but typically that's. Yeah, it's pretty standard, unless there's a. And I don't even have the letter right in the folder unfortunately. But usually I'm a little more. It's been a very, very busy couple weeks so I apologize. Let me just see if I can find the letter, but typically three, three years is, is like the standard. He doesn't say in his letter he just says an extension. I did upload it to the. Yeah. No time he just wants to, you know, from 222 to 18. Yeah, wants to get an extension. Yeah. I've got it in front of me now property was really tough. And you can see how they squirreled in this road. And the worst part is that there's this little piece that goes between two pieces of web. Right. And so did you see anything any activity in that little peninsula in there. No, no, I didn't. That area I don't believe was an area where the issue was observed. It was actually in the pocket. And I let me just pull this back up again and I apologize I'm jumping or jumping around because I'm like doing a remote into my machine. So there is it can you see my cursor. There's a field, a mode field in this area. And what it looks like is that water is sort of sheeting off of that field and coming into this little pocket right here. The area between the roadway was there was no indicators in there but this area was kind of where I think just the sheet flow from the lawn, which was just elevation wise just a little higher than, than where this site is I think it's just kind of all filtering down into that little pocket. You're probably right. They had to do some weird things with that road because of how everything that curve that went through there they had to redesign that and there was. Right, it was, it says they've got something in there a trench and so forth there's something that's already been put in there. I mean, when they had to build something in there right over the over the wetlands. I don't think there's anything there now. There's a little bit of an existing road. It's a little farm road. Yeah, it's it's at this point it's more like a hiking path. In some areas it's wider than others is pretty overgrown. We were bushwhacking through most of it. I mean, I like what they're showing. What they're showing in the plan is proposed them. Yes, you know, okay. Give them a two year split the difference give them a two year extension tell them hurry up. Yeah, I think I mean that's right or right about kind of in the ballpark of what I was thinking Fletcher I think that's a fair compromise and I mean I would even say beyond that. If you know if this expands any further that there won't be any more extensions to kind of, you know, give them some incentive to either move along or do something else with it. And it might also be helpful. I mean, obviously Mike Lou's going to know but you know what would happen if nothing happens in two years. Basically, it's a new filing in front of us. Right, right. That's clear to them. So yeah, two year sounds fine by me. So we would just need an extension to that effect. And it's for. I'm sorry emotion. Need a motion to that effect for DEP number 89 dash 635. I make a motion to the extent DEP file number 89. 635 635. Yep. Second. Okay, so looking for a voice vote so on. You put the time in there didn't you. Yeah, he's got you. Okay. Okay. Hi, Larry. Hi, Leroy. Hi. And I for me. So we are good there. Wonderful. So I saw that Dave just joined. And so Dave, do you have any updates that you'd like to give tonight so we have about 15 minutes before our first hearing. There's a new button. I can ask to unmute. He may weigh the rat for a minute. While we're waiting for Dave, I could jump to another probably fairly straightforward. Other business item I'm going to jump around a little for ones that are going to be less controversial to deal with that we can move fairly quickly on. Yeah, we have a couple beefy ones. Yeah, we do. So we received a, I'll just jump into this. We received a request for certificate of compliance from the common school. And I went out and walked the site with my glue as well. And I gave them authorization to remove their erosion controls. And so I, the site was pretty stable. I mean, 90% 95% stable. There was just this one. Let me see if I can share this. There was just this one area that it's kind of like a high traffic area coming down off this ramp. And I asked them to spread some wood chips there. So they're supposed to be doing that. But other than that, the site is, is very well stabilized. I do have pictures that I took throughout the site. I'd be happy to flip through them if you guys want to look at them. So the only remaining thing that is left uncompleted on this project is the plantings in the rain garden. And it's really not a great time of year to be planting herbaceous species. So they were planning to do that in the spring and they were also planning to do it as sort of like a school project. But the rain garden looks great. It's very stable. It's got stone in it. It's stabilized with, with grasses at this point. I wouldn't have any objection to the board issuing a certificate of compliance. I think it would just be another one to get off of our off of our monitoring plate at this point. Yeah, and the pictures look good. So those. Yeah, they do as well. Yep, I am fine. Does anybody else want to see the pictures or am I having questions on this one? I've looked at the pictures and they're there look good. Okay. So then we'll be looking for a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for common school. I'm going to say the whole thing. Certificate of compliance for the common school. Second. Thanks Larry. Thank you. So Anna. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. And I for me as well. So it looks like Dave is still on mute. So I don't know if you're saying technical difficulties or what's going on there. So why don't we just keep on moving here. Okay. Sounds good. So this is Amherst Hills projects. We did get two requests for certificates of compliance. Well, actually we got, let me rephrase this. We got three requests for certificates of compliance for properties on the hills. And then we got two requests for certificates of compliance. And then we got three requests for certificates of compliance for properties on the hills. I'd like to just start with these because they're, I think the easiest and most straightforward of the bunch. 108 Linden Ridge Road 111 Linden Ridge Road. Both of these lots are located outside of conservation commission jurisdiction. They're not even within buffer zone. They're actually completely within upland. The lots are stable and work is complete on them. I walked them and took photos. Happy to share those if you want to look at them. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So this is Amherst Hills. I'm using at 108 Linden Ridge. And there was. Some. Concern from the seller because the, they didn't have a certificate of compliance and it was, I became an issue. So I was, I contacted town council. And with town council guidance, basically issued a letter to the seller stating that the law, was not the best that he said I could do without being in a public meeting to have you guys approve it. But both of these. Certificates of compliance are. As far as I'm concerned, they're. Ready to issue. I guess I'm confused, Aaron. Why is our, why are there even open files on these? These are for the, the subdivision as a whole. Yeah. So. And the next one that we'll look at is actually one that was, that was specifically for a house. So it was house specific construction. But these are actually for the infrastructure for the, the roadway and stuff. It's just tied to the lots. So it's kind of more of a. Technicality really. That all sounds good to me. I assume we need separate motions for these. I would recommend it. Okay. So looking for a motion for certificate of compliance for 108 Lyndon. I'll make a motion for certificate of compliance or 108 Lyndon road. Second. And I'm sorry, I misstate. So it's a Linden Ridge road. I don't know if we have a Linden road, Linden Ridge. We all got it. Second. Excellent. So Fletcher, how do you vote? I. I. I. Larry. I. Anna. I. And I for me as well. So looking for a motion for. 111 Linden Ridge. All right. I move we issue a certificate of compliance for 111. Linden Ridge road. Second. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. And I for me as well. All right. We're cruising. Awesome. Well, as long as we're on. Amherst Hills and we have a few minutes, we can talk about this one. So 115 Concord way is a little different. And so the reason for that is because there's a specific. Specifically, there is a, an order of conditions for construction of the house. So if you look at the plan, the one that's in the center of the screen is the approved plan for the house footprint. And if you look at the one on the right, that is the basically as built plan that I was provided for it. The as built plan is fairly accurate. The only. Exceptions I would make are outlined in red, which are difficult to see, but basically I just hand drew on these little items, which are that the house, see how there's a turnaround in the driveway. The house actually extends to the extent of that turnaround. I'm not sure that that's a huge deal because if you look at the plan, I think that includes that, although it's a little bit closer to the 50 foot buffer, but I think that's splitting hairs. The items that I noticed that kind of jumped out at me the most on this where the deck, the deck is very close to the 50 foot, if not right on the 50 foot. And there's also a underground storage tank. Gas tank. I put pictures in here. I'm not sure why. Oh, there they are. They're just in the wrong order. So you can see that these are the photos of the house. So you can, I just wanted you to visually see the house extends as far back as the turnaround in the driveway. And then there's deck on the back and then. Top left, you can see there's a little red arrow pointing down. That's an underground storage tank. I believe it's a gas gas storage tank. I believe it's a propane. I believe it's a propane. Which weren't included on the. Original plans. And so. Just a slight deviation, shall we say, from the order of conditions that was approved. Underground tank gasoline. Or is it propane? I believe it's propane. Okay. I believe so. The site was otherwise stable. It's a little disconcerting that they're putting a tank that close to the wetlands though. Much worse than it was gasoline. What is it? Would you say what the tank was working? Apparently she thinks it's propane. Yeah, probably for the, yeah. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense to put gas in there. So. But it's in the, I can't see quite. The tanks in the buffer. It's, it's looks like it's right on the 50, right? So if you, so I, I estimated. I estimated that the extent of the deck was approximately right on, right at the 50 foot. But if you look at the photo, see that back of the deck. It's, it's tough to tell, but you know, to me, it looks like the tank is a little further closer in. Not the greatest. I'm not going to get into the confusion from a wetlands standpoint. But. So what do you put? What are options? I mean, certificate and appliance has done to clearly that back, that backyard's all fill. Right. I mean, yeah. I mean, to be honest at this, at this point in time, there's. There's basically two choices. You issue the certificate of compliance. science, or you don't. If you don't issue it. And I, I can double check if the, if it's still valid, sorry, I'm in the middle of organizing my basement, because I just moved, and I tried to do the background, but it didn't work. So forgive my mess in the back here. No one's judging. I know, but it's like, nobody needs to see that mess. The basement. It was issued 1017. So it would have expired in October. The only thing that we could have really required was that they dig it up and move it out. I mean, the question is really if they had come forward with this as a proposal, initially would the board have approved it? And, you know, I think we, it's really, it's really at the board's discretion how you want to respond. One thing you could say is, is to notify Mr. Burke human writing that that can't happen again on, you know, and if, if tanks are being installed that they need to be installed outside of concom jurisdiction, or that somebody needs to come before the board for a, a amendment to the order of conditions in order to propose placement of those tanks. Where is the fill location for that tank? Is it right there where the tank is? Do they have to go out there all the time with the big propane trucks and fill it from there? Or where, where do they fill from? That's a great question, Larry. I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I mean, if they were going to be going out there all the time, it might be more questionable. Yeah. So Nicole Burkume, who's Ron Burkume's attorney is, is actually an attendee and she's raising her hand. So if it's OK, maybe we should make her a panelist so that she can answer to that. She's at least allowed to speak at this point. So. OK. So, Nicole, you should be. You should be there now. And there's another Burkume on the list as well. Oh, that's probably Ron. Let me see. I'll add him as well. So, Nicole and Ron, you are both panelists at this point and you can speak. Nicole, we can't hear you, so I don't know. And Ron would need to unmute himself. I'm just going to try to unmute Ron, but. That's not working tonight. So, but yeah, they're both unmuted now. OK. Oh, yeah. Yes. OK, great. The propane tank is filled up maybe once a year and it's filled up from the driveway. There's a long hose. There's there's still going out to where the tank is. They do, but it's maybe once a year. OK, so what's the propane for? Is it for home eating or is it? Correct. All Burkume homes are heated with a propane tank. Correct. And so is the person who is asking for the certificate? Are they the developer or are they the home owner? Because the construction is the developer. He's asking for the certificate of compliance. Correct. OK, so that's different than the homeowner, because I don't think the homeowner is going to be putting in any more tanks. But the developer, yeah. That was, you know, I don't know if my dad will be able to unmute himself to talk, but I'm assuming that that's, you know, where the tank was approved to go prior to him even putting it in to avoid the risk of having to move it. And I know it has to be a certain amount of feet from the home. So I think the options of where you can put a propane tank are quite limited, especially with the size of the lot. So and I know the septic systems in the front yard. So there's really no other place to put it, I believe. Yeah. And even if we wanted to move it, I would probably moving at this point might do more damage than leaving it in situ. So probably it's more of an issue for me sort of moving forward, because it doesn't seem like it was on the original plans. So that's problematic to us. Well, we can ensure that they're correctly noted on the plans moving forward. Yeah, it's going to probably be important because they weren't on the original plans. That correct when it came from the Conservation Commission? No. Right. So that's kind of a, but you guys, obviously, but you guys say you put all your homes of propane tanks. I'm sorry, propane heat, all your homes of propane. Just OK, just being clear. So, I mean, if the board feels comfortable, you know, putting that in writing, then I would say, you know, you the option would be if you feel comfortable moving forward with requesting that, then to issue the certificate of compliance, but maybe include a correspondence that requests that in the future, any tanks that are placed, and I would say dex, dex as well, dex or tanks that are placed beyond the house footprint that was approved in the order of conditions that those be approved by the Conservation Commission. I prefer to be required rather than just requested, but. Required, yeah. Before that is what the what the bylaws do say. Just be clear. Yeah. And yeah, I also appreciate what you're saying, Nicole. There may not have been a better option. So it may have had to have happened, but it would have been good to at least have discussion and at least thought through if there were some other options. Yeah, absolutely. So and so are there other properties that you guys are working on in the area that may potentially have similar issues? I don't believe so. I believe that the lots that abutted wetlands are sold or already built on. There's other lots that he will build on in the future, but I don't believe those abut wetlands. It's all up and down Linden Ridge. Aaron, I think you probably saw all the lots when you went to one away Linden Ridge. You're all. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah, I mean, I'm not all that excited. Well, yeah, it's not nice where it is right now. And that makes me uncomfortable having something like that that close to a wetland. But I don't feel like there's much that we can do that will help rectify the situation at this point. Again, I think it just would make things worse. Taking it out at this point. But I mean, so other commissioners have different feelings or comments? No, I feel fine. But, you know, thanks. I'm glad you guys are here. It looks like Birkheim Senior is taking a picture of us. I think he's trying to get on. Those are our parents trying to get on. Yeah, but I think I'm sorry. Yeah, I think moving forward, I just agree with what Aaron and I've read. OK, well, does somebody want to make a motion? And so we're looking for a certificate of compliance and a letter requiring prior notice for all future endeavors that are potentially happening within wetlands. Boundaries within wetlands jurisdiction. Yeah, I make a motion for requests for a certificate of compliance as long as you guys are making sure we move forward, specifically with propane tanks and backyards for anything near a wetland. Second. Hey, Fletcher. I Leroy. I Anna. I Larry. I and I. For me as well. So. OK, so I think we are good with this one. So thank you, Nicole. I don't know if Ron was ever able to hear us, but thank you, Ron, as well. OK, thank you very much. And Nicole, the other two were approved before. I don't know if you was on. OK, OK, great. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll move you back to non-panelists. So, attendee, I guess is the word. OK, so they are back as attendees. And so I have 735. So, Aaron, should we move into our first agenda item? Yes. Yep. OK, I think I saw Mickey was here. Yes, he is. I think Neal's as well. I see him there as well. OK. So we'll move them to panelists. And so is there anybody else here? So this is going to be our 730 agenda item, notice of intended continuation for dredging at the UMass pond. There is anybody else here here for that? You can just raise your hand. OK, so Mickey should be coming on. I think I clicked it right. OK, there we go. So Mickey or Neal's, I don't know if one of you would like to start and give us an update on where we are and if you're ready to move forward at this point. Yeah, why don't I start and Neal's will jump in as needed. Oh, Karen has a little kid. That's great. Hey, thanks all for continuing this hearing for many months. So we filed a notice of intended dredging at the campus pond earlier this year. We concurrently filed it as a water quality cert and DEP asked us to have the wetland hearings continued until DEP Boston can look at the soil management dredge plan. There's one individual, Derek Standish, who does this work for the entire state. He's very slow, but we finally rose to the top of the pile. And he and the end of the day had no changes in the plan. He asked for two things that we do additional sediment sampling from looking for lead concentrations in the pond. And he asked that the dredge spoil piles be placed on a plastic liner, but no other changes. So DEP put us on hold and put us back to you. MEPA has issued a certificate from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs for the pond work that was issued on September 25th. And Erin, you should have gotten a copy of that certificate. And if you don't have one, I'll I'll send it over to you. The Army Corps is reviewing it. They the Army Corps and Mass Historical Commission kind of work hand in hand. And they go back and forth. And at this point, so everybody's reviewed the project. And now they've said, OK, now we want the orders of conditions. So that's why we asked you to reopen the hearing. When we last presented the hearing, the commission indicated you wanted to do a site walk. So I guess what I'm saying tonight is we're restarting this process. Again, UMass is trying to redredge the pond. It's about 6500 cubic yards of material. It'll all get put on the east lawn to be water and then disposed off site. So I don't think we need to make any decisions tonight. I'm just asking, I guess, two things. One is with the commission like to go visit the pond and see for yourself what the different aspects of the dredging plan are. And probably ask you to continue this to the next year to have a more in-depth discussion about what you've seen out on the site visit. But none of the plans have changed, I guess, is the bottom line in going through DEP, water quality, the Army Corps, all the other agencies. Like I said, the two changes are really that we just do additional sampling for lead and that we the soil that's taken out of the pond needs to be put on a polyliner. Mickey is the location of the dredged material changing that's staying exactly the same just going on a liner. Stains, yes, three separate cells to allow the material to be water. Yeah, OK, the only thing I would add to what Mickey was saying is that the Mass Historical Commission has requested that we renew our memorandum of agreement that we entered into with the Army Corps of Engineers when we rebuilt the dyke a number of years ago and, you know, which talked a lot about pond management, water levels, plants that are allowed to be. It had a whole plant list as part of it and all that stuff. And the U.S. is fine with because that was basically set to expire or has it expired. It was good for five years. And I know it's right right around now was when it would be expiring. So we we're happy to re-enter into that memorandum of agreement with the Army Corps. Just so you know, the so the campus pond and the surrounding area is listed by the Mass Historical Commission as a as an historical landscape. So when the university rebuilt the dyke it can build the integrative classroom building. They ended up having a memo memorandum of understanding on planting plans and, you know, the Commission talked about re-vegetating the north end of the pond. That was all according to like a prescribed agreement. So what the Army Corps Mass Historical Commission is saying is let's renew that for the dredging as well. So, Aaron, do you have anything that you wanted to add before we open it up? No, I guess I one question is so we only have one meeting in December thus far. The 9th of December and then which is only a couple weeks away right now. And then beyond that we have January 13th. And I'm just not sure that in the next three weeks, you know, you guys are going to have much more movement. So I'm almost wondering if it would be better to postpone until the first meeting in January. Yeah, I guess the movement is now I guess I'm asking the Commission to finish their review and ultimately issue order of conditions. And that's really what we're waiting for. And I think for those of you who are not familiar with the pond, it would be good to show you the pond and show you the outlet structure and show you the inlet structure just so you understand the drainage of the pond and what's proposed. But, you know, if we're able to again, I would like to show those of you who are interested that surrounding just so you have a better understanding of the drainage hydrology. And if you're able to put us on a December 9th meeting, you know, having a sidewalk that'd be great. If you can't do it, we'll postpone it till December. If you guys would be ready to have us issue an order of conditions on the 9th, then I'm completely fine with that. I just wanted to make sure you're you have everything you need in time for that. Yeah, I think what happened is we delay this for like over six months to let all the other agencies review the project. And now, now we're in a circular firing squad. So we've got the comments back. They're very minor. And now they're saying, well, now we need the orders of conditions. So we've come back to you making sure that the plan is not going to change now. So because this is such a complex project with so many parties involved. What I would like to do is just spend some time drafting an order in advance so that I can have some conditions and, you know, I've definitely come up with some sort of boiler plates but. Mickey or Neils if you guys have any suggested conditions that you think would kind of make things a little smoother for construction and implementation. Because obviously you're going to have there's going to be so many players involved in this there's going to be pre construction meetings there's going to be a lot of people who are going to need to see and follow these documents and so. Just to make sure that everybody's on the same page. So if you have any conditions that you think need to be included prior to the ninth feel free to send those along to me and I'll also get some draft ready. Appreciate the opportunity to do that. Yeah, and I'll, Aaron, I don't know if you have the commission have seen the certificate from the state but we talked about having a wildlife pool like the pond isn't drained on a percent. We've committed to having wildlife monitors. There's a bunch of things that that are committed to that. I think you're right we just need to consolidate in one place. One question I have and I apologize it's been a while since I have looked at this. Is there going to be any revegetation or anything that happens afterwards is that already in the plan. Yeah there's very little vegetation disturbance threat. There's an access point that they're going to use which is in a little area of riprap. And then there's one other area of the bank about 20 feet, why that they'll enter that's where the hydro rake has been coming in and those two areas are proposed to be revegetated, but other than that. There's no disturbance of vegetation, just sediment removal. Yeah I mean is the hydrology going to get changed at all. I mean around the edges obviously the whole things can get deeper. But I don't know if there's opportunities for more wetlands plants or anything like that that you guys are thinking of. We're going to leave all the plants along the edge so the university's slowly been working their way around the pond restoring the banks and revegetating it. The idea is not to disturb that. Yeah, so I think that yeah you guys are ready I think that'd be great to get this moving from our end. So, does anybody else have any questions is anybody from the public have any questions on this one. I'm very familiar with the pond I think probably a lot of people are but it's always nice to get back out there with when we're looking at you know specific treatments that are going to happen as well. And Mickey, just so that for planning a site visits it seems as though this semester it's easier for a lot of people to meet before 9am like so like between seven and 830 to do site walk or weekends evenings. Correct me if I'm wrong folks but it sounds like those are kind of the best times to get eyes and ears of the commission out on the site. Evenings are no longer good because it gets dark so early. Right, right. But early morning works fine for from my standpoint. We're both in town so whatever works for the majority of the commission members and all the students are going to be gone come Friday so. But what a few students there are on campus. Yeah, I mean I'm almost thinking. Mickey and Niels if you want to throw out like three or four dates with morning hours that would work for you and then I can send them to the board and then we can just nail something down. Yeah, I know for me personally. So just check with the other commissioners I mean so what does early morning work. How's that. I mean like so 730 would work well for me. I don't know about other people. That's really good for me. Pre pre work is, is ideal work is 830. Okay. So Aaron, do you want me to email you some dates that were available. Yeah, like for a 730 time meeting. I'm not, I've already been to the site. I've reviewed the plans with, with, you know, your, your folks as SWCA and, and I felt very comfortable with the plans then I think that the revisions really kind of are what I haven't had a chance to, to look at in the, you know, revised documents but I just want to give, give them a brief overview. So that there's a couple commissioners on the ground I think would be great. Okay. I'll throw some dates after Thanksgiving so. Yeah, I was just going to suggest after, after next week's Thanksgiving so first week of December is probably what we're talking about. Okay, we'll do. I would just suggest a 730 times slot on November or December 9 for continuation if somebody wants to move that. So for as long as these are any more comments or anything. Okay. So then as Aaron was saying we're looking for a motion. I move for a continuous continuation of this till December 9 at 730. Okay. Leroy. Hi. Anna. Hi. Letcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I. So we are good to go. So thank you, Mickey. And thank you, Niels. We'll see you on the ninth. Thank you very much. As it is. Good night. Good night. Good night. Okay. So we have 750 so we're fine to move on to our next which is a another continuation is to notice some 10 from BSC group with ever source. So, so for those people who are here for this one, if you can raise your hand. I see Melissa. Okay, so Melissa you should be turning into a panelist here. So it looks like Aaron already got Jonathan. Okay, so I don't know if John, if Melissa, I assume you're going to, if you want to kick us off at this point. Yeah, sure. Aaron, I don't know if you want to pull up the updated information I sent you, but we are continuing from the previous hearing for the access road that we're proposing to put at the podium substation. So in terms of that, the Mark Stinson requested rightfully so some hydrologic connection under the road to make sure we don't sever the wetland that's in the corner of the substation. I had mentioned that I thought, you know, we should just put some sort of larger stone or something like that but I talked to my engineer and, you know, if there is a, you know, flood flooded waters or high water levels here which this area is very dry. You know the stone and the filter fabric that you would need to apply would probably get more clogged than something like a small culvert. And just putting in a small culvert in this location we're proposing here which would be kind of closer to where the, where the wetland would be as opposed to going making it flow more off site so I wanted to make sure it stays all on site. And so this is kind of what it is it's just a small little. I can't look on my plan I can't read that. Yeah, I apologize that for whatever reason the the my bigger screen image quality is not great tonight. And I can open the plan as well if need be. Yeah, it's an 18 inch HDPE pipe is all we're proposing to put there. So I'm going to invert it with the existing ground with about a six inch embedment and the flared in, you know, pretty basic, just a small little pipe culvert. Just to make sure there's a connection there should there be a large storm or some sort of ponding of water here which is, which is, I have not seen too often back there. Is the stone proposed underneath the access road as well. Well, I mean it's the, the whole road is going to be stone so yeah, it will be back filled with stone. And like other than the surface roadway will the the stone underneath the surface be larger diameter stone as opposed to just the surfacing. See how they build their access. Yeah, I thought so too. Yeah, they usually put a smaller stone and then kind of level it off so it's stabilized, right, you know, back it down. Yeah, almost like a rip, like a riprap, and then with like a layer of like stone on top of that for the roadway itself. Yeah. And is Melissa, is there a maintenance plan for the culvert. It's just like everything at the substation everything needs to be maintained but I did not prepare a maintenance plan for this. I can't imagine. It's, it's going to need too much maintenance I really don't think it's going to get too much waters in it. I mean, we can, you know, ensure just like any stormwater infrastructure requires, you know, maintenance. Yep, we can just add that to the conditions. Yeah, you can do that too. Yeah, I mean I would just suggest annual cleaning at the inlet and outlet and making sure that the pipe is functional. Okay, so this seems pretty straightforward. Just some additional details so that's good. Yeah. And then the other part was the access to the mitigation site which I think Aaron you had had those photos to or that plan to and we added that in there will need to be a little bit of madding. There it is a little bit of madding. Once we get past the opera house I think it's called or the whatever that building is that's right at the beginning. And then we can utilize the existing road, and then because it's an agriculture field, we want to protect the field so we'll mat in the field and make sure we can construct the, the mitigation site without impacting the areas outside of our proposed mitigation site will map that area. Is there going to be a stockpiling area, or how is that going to be handled. So they'll probably use the existing areas until they have everything can graded contained and then maybe we can put down a little extra mats or use them existing madding that we have and then they can just will have to take it off site. Yeah, I would, I would suggest either mats for the, for the stockpile, or that it just be taken away, because I feel like the stockpile anywhere other than the construction area is going to create a big mess in that field as well. Yeah, but eventually it's got to be taken away so yeah, yeah. And it looks like you guys have the, the easement on there now so it looks like there's no. Exactly. Okay, that's great. And can you also just remind us Melissa what's happening with the beaver issue out there. So part of this will remove, we will remove the beaver dam. We have contacted. So I'm a sense you remember the name of the company we've contacted a company that ever source uses and has a contract with. And once we get approval for this and probably out of the winter season. We will remove that will get that dam removed. And I don't think they can do it right now. They have a specific period when they can do it and when they can't just for the beaver trapping. Things like that and I don't, I think we might be out of that season. Okay. The dam removal does include beaver the trapping of the beavers right. Yeah. Okay, yes. I think you have to whether they're going to come right back. Right. I mean, they might actually come back anyways but this will least give you some time. I believe it's integrated wildlife services. Thank you. And the dam removal it's more of a breach, correct. They'll, they'll sort of take it down in some areas. They'll have to do the start with the breach and go slowly but I think we talked about doing a little bit more significant than that. So you and I could talk about that. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think just from that standpoint, like as, and we can talk more offline about this, but I think the town is definitely going to want to be sort of in the loop as far as what's being proposed with the dam removal itself just because we would like to do it in an incremental way and I know they may need to do it in a specific way in order to target the beavers but the town would definitely like to do it in a, in a slow, you know, slow let down fashion as opposed to just, you know, ripping it out and having it flood downstream or something. Well, absolutely. I think they, I think they acknowledge that and as Jonathan mentioned, you'd have to breach it first and let it kind of slowly go down and then you can manage it from there how much further you go and how fast you go. So it looks like all the outstanding issues have been addressed. Is there anything else that you see, Aaron? No, I mean, I'm pretty comfortable with what's proposed. I, I don't have a big list of conditions prepared for this. I would just say that, you know, that the maintenance issue of the pipe at the substation would be an important thing to include annual maintenance to make sure it's functioning and to clean the inlet and outlet. And then that the, you know, the town wants to be informed every step of the way with the beaver removal and particularly less so with the beaver trapping more so with the let down of the water levels with the beaver dam removal. So, however we, I can, you know, wordsmith some language, but the, you know, the town definitely is going to want to 100% be involved, knowing what's happening and when like dates certain and what the plan is and stuff like myself and Dave should definitely be copied on no notices of when that's happening since happening on town land. Well, yeah, and you definitely will because of that and because we have to get a we have to get your approval during the board of health permit for any trapping of the beavers. And I am assuming for the breaching of the dam as well. So yeah, but but even before that we'll let you know that and talk to you about that. Yeah, and like for, I know we had talked at the last meeting about having some kind of signage to install at the at the conservation area, like an educational kind of this is what's happening here we're creating a wetland. And this is a, you know, a wetland mitigation project and to let people know that, you know, that it's a, it's a ecologically friendly project that's taking place on conservation land. And maybe I don't know Melissa is that something that we could word Smith together. Yeah, I mean, I suppose that we could just work offline on that and do it anyways I don't know if it can it be a condition of order of conditions I don't know but I mean it is for the mitigation so I mean I don't have we don't have a problem with it so. I'm not talking anything too crazy more or less just like something under the DEP file number that's, this is a, you know, a project, a wetland creation project in association with the town of Amherst and for more information call a number or something like something very basic so that people can Right and ever source and Jonathan can speak to this but I'm sure ever sources kind of would love to have their name on it, you know that I think you and I talked about that too so I don't think they have a problem with that or. And that's fine. So we can work on that one or you can just say a educational sign will be heard and then you and I to be coordinated with the with the town with the conservation commission or. Well, and I think we're I think we're talking about two different things here just to be one would be during construction just to let people know. Oh, okay. You know just just very kind of rudimentary let people know that it's a, you know, wetland creation project and then once it's constructed. Yeah, I think putting an educational sign of some sort that you know we could work on together would be would be a great thing I'm not sure that that's something we need to condition unless. We want to if we want to include it as a condition then that's, that's great. But yeah, I think that I think that would be great for educational purposes to include. Yeah, so I mean I think that in the conditions we should just have something about a temporary sign signage. Yeah, I think we'll be good with that. And as far as the road coming into Podic, like from Route 116 into the conservation area. If that road gets chewed up or damaged, I'm assuming that they'll kind of smooth that out once the instructions completed. All of those roads, no matter where what's being used will be returned to the construction. In terms of, you know, running during construction may look like, you know, all messy and stuff but then they are, they will and we will tell them we will recommend to them that they need to fix all of that and repair any ruts and stuff like that. Yeah, absolutely, because it could happen if it gets muddy out there. So I mean I can, I can rerun through some of these but in addition to sort of the specific ones that we're talking about I definitely like to include some just boilerplate conditions that we would include under state and local, like as far as posting a DEP file number having a pre construction meeting. Sort of those basic ones and the only ones that would be a slight variation from a typical order of conditions would just be the long term monitoring of the plant because in this case, I think the town is sort of taking it taking onus of the wetland upon itself as far as monitoring it. So it will more or less just be for construction of it, written in into the boilerplate, as well as like the other standard boilerplate conditions. So let's see, are there other commissioners have any questions or comments. I'm not a commissioner but I, sorry, I just wanted to talk about the culvert and the condition for that for a second before we move on if that's okay. In terms of the maintenance I mean, as I mentioned the they do regular routine maintenance out there for the road and for any. I don't know because they definitely don't want the flood the substation to flood. I don't know if there's any way we could maybe not require it to be every year but I don't know if there's any way we could say routine inspections should be conducted to ensure the culvert and the inlet and the outlets are, you know, maintained instead of saying every year it has to be inspected I don't know just to maybe, I don't know I mean I leave that up to you guys but I didn't know if there's any way that could be just. Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we have like a maintenance log on it or anything like that. Like, I'm not saying that I'm going to be stopping out there saying like I want to see your maintenance your annual maintenance log of when you clean this and who did it you know like I'm. This is this is more so really for you know the long term viability of the wetland and also the stability of the driveway itself so. Okay, annual doesn't seem like that big of an onus. Okay. So, okay. So again, any other commissioners have any comments or questions. Is there anybody from the public, you can just use that little feature on zoom to raise your hand. Okay, so I'm not seeing any. So Aaron, did you want to put up the order conditions on the screen did you want to read those out loud and we can have somebody, you know, just parrot them or you know just say yeah. I think I'm I've been just kind of jotting them down here I don't have them on the screen but I will verbally run through them so so first and foremost I would include the standard boilerplate conditions under that we use under state law and our local by law with the intention of the long term long term maintenance and monitoring of the replication area that the town wants to be included and informed of all steps related to the beaver dam removal. So that should be provided for the project to alert people and provide a contact number for the project. That the road will be returned to a stable condition upon completion of the project. I believe that's all the conditions that I had jotted down. Thank you, Aaron. So Larry you want to work your magic on that one. How about so moved. I was looking for a second. Okay, so Fletcher. Hi, Larry. Hi, Anna. Hi, LaRoy. Hi, and I for me as well. That made me miss Jen, you know, she she would have done the whole laundry list. She would have done the whole laundry list off the top of her head without any notes. She did do that tonight with a child on her lap. So, yep, absolutely. One hand behind her back. So thank you very much, Melissa. So I think we're in Jonathan. So I think we're pretty much closed on this obviously Aaron will be back in touch with the details. Thanks. This is going to be great. Thank you. Yeah, it's cool project guys. Thank you. Yeah, thank you guys for working with us. We really appreciate it. It's going to be fun to see what happens out there. Good luck with it. I guess it's us. So good luck to all of us with the viewers. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. See you too. I'll be in touch and talk to you later. Okay. Bye bye. Okay, so I think we are back with just commissioners as panel members. Okay, so a 10 so we are good to move on to our 740, which is another continuation of a notice of intent. And this is from conservation works in Castro trust for the same area so for product. Yeah, I was having some technical difficulties earlier, but I could hear you and now now I can see you and and hear you so. Yeah, zoom is doing something a little different tonight, I think. So I know they did some updates on it. Sam it seems to make things better do that. Yeah. Okay, so I thought I saw Pete so Pete should be a panelist. And yeah, so Pete, you should be able to, we should be able to hear you. Yeah, I was having some technical difficulties earlier, but I could hear you and now now I can see you and and hear you so. Yeah, zoom is doing something a little different tonight, I think. So I know they did some updates on it. So it should be a panelist and yeah so Pete you should be able to, we should be able to hear you now. And so if you want to go and where you were at. Sure. And, and Dave will have more to add but as you may remember from the previous session. What we're proposing is actually only on the Catherine Cole area. So the code part that was put into the original application has been deleted. So we're asking for approval for 2200 220 linear feet of bog bridging in three sections 8090 and 50 feet long on basically what is disturbed ground that's been pretty well trampled. And the the disturbed areas that will no longer be walked on after the bog bridging is in. I'll tell you what Hadley suggested is that we keep an eye on them for a year and see if they green up well and then if not we can reseed them. Hadley met last week and approved the wooded parts of the bog bridging that are going to be in Hadley so those will be on partly on Podic and partly on Catherine Cole and partly on food bank, but this proposal is only for Catherine Cole. So what what Hadley did just so you know is to approve the wooded parts of the bog bridging and then for the field part that is different in that it would be the bog bridging would go on existing vegetation that hasn't yet been trampled but he agreed that what we need is to keep people confined walkers confined to a given route so that no unnecessary damage is done and what they asked for was a small replication area totaling 56 square feet which is you know about 10 by six. So we're going to outline that and present that but for the wooded part they did not ask for replication. Can you just remind me. For the part that's on Amherst land that's all wooded though I believe I think that's all wooded. Yeah, okay. It's I don't know where that boundary is I was out there recently but I can't quite tell. Yeah, it is marked with flagging and it's several hundred yards west of that bridge across the stream. Okay. Right, could I add a few things. Please. So for Fletcher and just, I think tonight is kind of a chance to reset a little bit on this project and I just wanted to clarify a few things. So, you know, as most of the Commission knows, you know, we were part of this much larger conservation effort spearheaded by Castro to preserve about 190 acres of land, both in Amherst and Hadley, we ended up with the fee interest in the so Zala property between Catherine Cole and Podic. And our goal here overall is to create a trail system that makes sense is is a responsible trail system that safeguards, you know, the ecology both in Catherine Cole and Zala and Podic. And so, you know, really, conservation works was asked to come in by the partnership between Castro and the town to really do some of the Bob bridging work so that's what brings conservation works and Pete to the table here. In some regard this, if we took conservation works out of the equation, this would be the department, if you will, coming to, to the Commission and Brad and Tyler would be doing, you know, proposing to do the work. In this case, we had funding through Castro, and it's a way for one, one less projects to be on the on the shoulders of Brad and Tyler. So it's a great opportunity to partner with Castro and conservation works. So I think tonight is really about kind of resetting and I just wanted to kind of rattle through, you know, the, the trails that Podic, the trails we're talking about, and, and are focused on are probably been there for 50 years. Our choice here in kind of doing nothing is that, you know, if you've been out there as some of these trails are, are, are muddy wet in season. And what happens is when hikers when users when people encounter those conditions during wet seasons, what did they do is they, they go around them, and create braided trails, and they impact more wetland resource areas, riverfront areas, etc. and the list goes on. So the trails are becoming braided through the woods. I think a great example of this, frankly, is that Amethyst Brook. And I think none of us want Podic or Catherine Cole to become Amethyst Brook in that regard. So our goal here is to try to keep people on the narrowest portion of the trail, which would be, you know, on these raised boardwalks. If we, if we take action, that's the result is that we concentrate those impacts on, on these, there's so many linear feet of, of, of bog bridging. So I think, you know, that's our goal. Our feeling is that this, this project doesn't adversely impact any of the interest of, of the act of the Wetlands Protection Act, the goal is actually to protect wetlands. So, Aaron, I'm not sure we did have our, we did hire wetlands scientists to go out and do some, some delineation. I'm not sure is that ready for primetime yet Aaron or not. I could share with you what the plan looks like, but it's, it's basically a hands-on rendering, which it makes sense to me because I spoke with him, and he kind of explained the methodology behind his notes. And I kind of give an update on that. And what he saw when he went out to the site is a basically very similar to what my interpretation was when I walked, which is there are some segments that are wet. But the, the, what the DEP wetland layer shows is that the entire area is wet and that is not an accurate representation of what's going on out there. There are sort of fits and starts there's like sections where it's wet and then it's dry again and then it's wet again. And then there are sections where there might be a wetland that encroaches on one side of the trail, or encroaches on the other side of the trail, but it's not just, it's not just bog bridging plowing through a huge wetland complex like it would appear looking at the DEP wetlands layer. It's, it's sort of a meandering wetland boundary and the trail does not just wholesale plow through that wetland. So, I think that it's a very good thing that we had the, the wetland specialist go out and take a look at it because at the end of the day, there's going to be quite a bit less documented impact in wetlands than what we're showing now. And the other thing that's interesting and this is related to Hadley is that the gentleman who did the delineation discovered that in one section on the, on the Hadley side, that if the trail gets moved about 15 feet to the east, they would be completely out of the wetland. So that might be an opportunity for mitigation if the trail just gets moved 15 feet because then the previous trail could just get seated down and it, you know, it wouldn't be putting the bog bridging through the wetland. So that's just kind of a brief explanation. I could add one thing. An item that Hadley wanted to know about was the extent of temporary disturbance as we put the bog bridging in and we have a way of putting it in as we go basically so you put in one section, and then walk on that to put in the next section and they're tied together at each end so that you don't get different heights as they are used over the years. So the disturbance during construction is very little. Aaron, I realize this is just an informal sketch, but can you enlarge that at all? I might, maybe others are having trouble. Yeah, I can. Yeah, and let me just try to interpret this a little because I did, he did kind of explain his methodology here. So like if you're looking at this, at this area where the trail is located, sorry, just trying to get this to stop popping up. So like you can see the trail comes in. There is a wetland between one and two and five and six. There's a wetland there and then there's an upland. And then the wetland starts again between 10 and 11 and extends to 15 and 16 and then it becomes upland again. And it continues on until I think that's 21, 20 to 21 there. So then it starts again, that's where the stream is. I can't quite, I think it's 25 to 26. It becomes upland again. And as you continue along the path, there is, in this case, there's a between 30 and 31, there's sort of like a little wetland that encroaches on the trail. And so you can see like on the DEP wetland layer, which is the yellow hatched, it shows the entire area is wet. But based on the delineation, there are sort of these little, little sections that are wet and that there are uplands in between. So based on those we could, you know, collect data points in the field and actually estimate how much of this bog bridging is proposed in in wetlands. And I think at the end of the day, it's not going to be very much. So I just wanted to give it a sense of that. And then Could you point out just, just I know it's in another town, but just because this whole trail system is all one, where, where, where did he propose moving the trail 15 feet. So we're up here where it's 7070 to 777, I believe, and then 60 to 68. This is the area where, if the trail gets moved about 15 feet to the east. That this what the this wetland complex that the trails currently going through could be completely avoided. I know that section well that makes a lot of sense and Pete, Pete does too. Oh yeah and that's something we can definitely look at I've walked that section to the right, you know it's always an issue of how easy it is to close the old route that's been used for a long time but definitely something that we can look at. I appreciate that I know we don't want to get distracted tonight over in the neighboring town of Adley but we provide that information for for Pete and the concom. We're, I'm curious, Aaron, what what would be your recommendation for us to move forward in terms of of the delineation is, is he contracted to do more than this and actually he's going to prepare a report to us which has actually his his data sheets the the filled out wetland delineation forms. And so what I'd like to do with that is, you know, basically just prepare more or less a response to the DEP comments because the DEP comments on this project were extensive. And there was more comments on this than there were on some pretty major projects that we've done. And so just to address some of the comments a couple of them were related to the wetland delineation itself and so to say okay well we're not using the D we're not using the DEP wetland layer here we've hired somebody. This is what the delineation looks like and then we can actually get into more nitty gritty as far as the footprints of alteration because on the original NOI application, it was noted that there was no alteration, but there was no quantifiable square footage cubic footage of of wetland impact. And what this would allow us to do is to quantify that so that we could revise the forum and actually include what the modification would be and address some of the additional impacts, but I think it's a great start and I don't think we have to really change the project. I think the project can stay as is I think it's just merely illustrating that there's quite a bit less impact than what it first appeared from the application. I think we identified something like 45 square feet of impact and from the looks of the map there it's going to be probably 38 instead of 4045 so you can see that there's there's some difference but not a lot. I think we have read for for the commission, you know, I, you know, I, Pete, Aaron and I had some long conversations about this and no I we took the DEP, the DEP comments, really seriously and and took the added step to say let's get to the DEP lineate along this trail and and I hope that the commission appreciates that and we, you know, we, we, we, we, we are trying to address as many of the DEP comments as we can, and and reduce any impact and as Pete said, the impact could be really quite significant when when all is said and done here so I'm curious what the commission kind of thinks and if they have more direction for us because it is really the department working with Pete and Kestrel to move this Bob Bridging project forward. I think all of us need to be I'm sure everybody is we have to be cognizant of our potential conflicts of interest, once it's on our own lands. And so that definitely gets kind of awkward. And so making sure that we're holding ourselves to at least the same standard, as if it wasn't town lands. And that's why I wanted to point out that this really I signed the application. So even though conservation work conservation works is the contractor. I signed the application so that's why I also pointed out that this could be Brad and Tyler doing this work it's really, you know, I think that was a great comparison there that it's it's Pete and conservation works working, if you will, for the town of Amherst but being paid by Kestrel to do the work. Yeah, and I mean, one of the reasons for all of the initial DEP filings or DP notes was because I don't know if the property, the project was much expanded that point at that point there was also work being done on the northern that's where most of it was and just by removing that I think that's probably solved most of the issues that's right I think that set off a few alarm bells. And just so the commission, the commission knows about the podium section which was in the original application and was removed. We won't know what the trail looks like to the north on Podic until until the beavers are removed and the water recedes, because that trail for for most people. I know I've walked it and, you know, actually took off my boots and Pete walk right through there but there's a good, I don't know four to 10 inches of water probably in that in that large ponded area there, where there used to be a stream crossing with a couple of culverts will have to wait until the beavers are removed the water comes down to see what the condition of that trail is, will we need to redo that stream crossing. Will it still be there where we need Bob bridging there, what will the condition of that be that is an old road I will point out that is an old farm road just like much of on Catherine coal. This entire area was farmed, and of course, the Zala's harvested firewood in Podic and Catherine coal. So that's why you know we're, for the most part use these old woods roads these old farm roads as as trails. Okay. So, Aaron, I know that you were making comments, you know, as this one long enough you have additional comments as well. Well, I mean, as, as staff. I mean my recommendation would be for for me to, you know, I haven't gotten the report from. Dave Hines yet, but to take this and actually get it onto a GIS plan where I can plug in the distances of the Bob bridging through the wetland areas, and quantify a square footage of impact to include on the No I form, and then to be able to provide this data back to DEP to address some of those issues and then basically what I'd like to do is kind of get all our ducks in a row so that at the December 9th meeting that we're, you know, I'm prepared with a recommendation for us to issue an order of conditions and I guess just just to feel like I'm giving this review some some rigor based on the, you know, extensive comments that were received, and also potentially some recommendations for the Hadley side based on the delineation we could share this with Hadley as well. Because I think that that will eliminate a lot of impact on the Hadley side. Yeah, I agree with the overall assessment I mean I think this will, you know, at the end of the day it's really going to improve the conditions out there. Okay. So other commissioners, do you have any comments or thoughts on this one. I agree Dave that's going to be interesting to see what happens with POTIC it once the water goes down. And just as an FYI on this the there were for this date, there were additional abutters notified for the first hearing that opened only a portion of the abutters were notified so just to make sure that check that there's no public here that attended that was not notified the first time around. And for any commissioners who haven't been out there I know Fletcher you're out there regularly. It is a nice little walk out there. So it's pretty flat, but it's a nice little walk. Yeah I'm hoping to get out there later, like this week or next. I'm really hoping. I would. I would recommend wearing orange during the next. My go to color now Dave. These areas were and historically hunted and they'll be today. Bring muck boots hunters out there at a long time but it's possible. Okay. Orange and muck boots. I'm now very scared. Thank you. Stick your hands in the woodchips really you know really get it out there. Are there any comments that I know we have a couple of people on the call any of those folks want to make any comments or public if you have any comments just raise your hand, virtually. Yeah so one of those is Michael Lou so he's probably not hearing any at this point. And so anything else on this one if not we'll be looking for a motion to continue. The only thing I'd like to say and Pete, Pete, I think we'll get a chuckle of this when we say those trails are 50 years old. My birthday was yesterday and I can I can tell you that I was out on those trails when I was very young so maybe I remember being out there when I was, you know, eight, nine, 10 so Pete and I go way back on these trails at Bodick is that right Pete. Yeah, you look pretty good Dave you're getting old. Yeah, well Dave was just saying that's only 20 years ago Pete so yeah. It was a long time ago, but it was a 50 number rings true in a lot of ways. Congratulations on the big number. So my number is higher I said I was out there when I was I'll leave it at that a little mystery. Congratulations on a number. Well also congrats and we got that property protected in the middle and we're doing some good some other good stuff going on there too so. Yeah, this is all wonderful stuff. I mean, it's it's fantastic. I mean this is like this is this is what we do this for is to make things better out there and the end of the day I think that's exactly what's going to happen. It's just going to be such a great improvement and the wetlands are going to be protected better than they were before. I think one thing to mention is that this probably wouldn't have been put up this year if the food bank if this is all a property hadn't we hadn't finished the APR on on that one. I think Dave and I both work for years, talking to Tony and then talking to Ray in the family about the APR and now that it's with food bank, Andrew Morehouse the executive director is very glad to support the project he thinks it's great. Excellent. I know be a related Pete, Pete Westover myself and rich Hubbard who has done land conservation in the Valley for 30 plus years, I can distinctly remember being in Tony Zala's living room, trying to convince him to protect his land. And I think one of us even brought a pen and the APR documents and, and he would look at the documents maybe have the pen in his hand and then go, I don't think so. And, you know, we went multiple times to his living room and we would talk for an hour and hope to come out of there with with wedding can we never did. And sadly he passed away I think in his 70s or so but his his brother ultimately did the deal so. So anyway, good Ray is still with us he's a great guy. Yes. So, good, good stuff takes a while that was 25 years ago probably. The long game. Long game. Real long game. Okay, so to move the meeting along do we have anything else that we want to say about this one before we continue. I just do we know the date and time of that. Um, I would recommend that we say December 9 that 735. All right, I'm ready. I wrote it down I'm not Jen. All right, so I moved to continue this to December, the meeting on December 9 at 735pm. Second, thank you. Fletcher. Hi, Larry. Hi, the Roy. Anna. And I for me as well. So Pete, we will see you then. Okay, thanks very much you guys and have a good Thanksgiving. You too. Okay, so that is our last official agenda item. Obviously we have some other ones that are on the list. And so I was noticing over on the attendees that Michael Lou that you're with us. And Aaron, does Michael have any other items he may not know that we already dealt with some of them so. Yeah, I'm going to promote him to panelists real quick just so we can give him a very quick update, because he's been waiting. And. You'll just have to unmute yourself, Mike. Hopefully you can. Is that all right. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. So, so Mike at the beginning of the meeting, we had a bunch of time and I'm so sorry that you've been sitting here because we. Oh no. We handled a couple. So common school got their certificate of compliance and the Pomeray lane. Single family home lot was given a two year extension. Two year. Okay. Yeah. So we have a strong encouragement to move the project forward because of those right wetland those wetland fact wet plants that are are creeping creeping up that hillside. I've already given the property owner that information, obviously he's trying to sell the lot but, you know, anyway, we'll see how it goes. I appreciate it. I was on another conference call with a client in dear field earlier this evening so I couldn't check in earlier, but I enjoyed my time listening to the discussion. You all had. Nice. Anything else that you need to relay to me. Otherwise I'd be happy to report this to common school and rolling Hills properties for the Pomeroy lane parcel. I think that that those were the only two items I had for you Mike on the agenda tonight. So, I think so yeah. Yeah. All right. You weren't associated with Avenue at all. I think that was bucking. No. Yeah. All right. Um, hey, I appreciate it. And have a good night, you guys. You too, man. Next time. Take care. Good night. Okay, so are we ready to go on to Canton Avenue or are you saving that one for the end for us? Um, I think we should jump to Canton Avenue because I see Bob Stover on the call and I believe that I just got a message very late this afternoon, which I didn't have a chance to respond to but from Peter Wilson. I believe Bob is his consultant and I just promoted him to a panelist so he can speak. I'm not sure if the person on the phone that might be. Um, so if whomever is listening is able to raise your hand. I think you can do that on the phone. Okay. We can allow them to speak for a minute. Okay. So where was on the phone you're allowed to talk right now so if you wouldn't mind, you can identify yourself if you want, you can stay anonymous but if you are associated with Canton Avenue now be the. Yep. Can you hear me? This is hell Wilson. Excellent. Okay, good. So, yep, we can hear you. Okay. Okay, so Aaron, do you want to refresh everybody on what's happening with can. So at the last meeting, we had received a request for a continuation for the Canton Avenue permit which was DEP number eight nine six to nine. I went out to do a site visit and check flagging and when I was out looking at the flagging. I documented that clearing work had started on lot to which is the lot that was in the picture on the screen right now, hopefully picture on the screen. Okay, thank you. Let me make sure I should properly share that. Or we can see your screen at least. Okay, so this is a picture of the lot lot to that was cleared and and maybe even filled it's it's the wetland is the site is pretty unrecognizable and and where there was once a wetland there was not a peer to be one anymore there's no flagging anyway. So, basically it was documented that you know the order of conditions was violated that the town was not notified of the start of work there was no pre construction meeting, no erosion controls no DEP file number flagging was missing or removed. The site was cleared the wetland appears to have been compromised. I spoke with both Dave Dave Z and Brett about this to try to come up with a path forward because it was kind of a shock right before the last meeting and I wasn't sure how, you know, folks wanted to proceed. So based on conversations, the determination was to issue an enforcement order, and basically request that the owner attend the hearing tonight to discuss it. There was no other conditions placed on the enforcement order. So, basically, I think what we should discuss. Well, first of all, when and if the Commission chooses to ratify the enforcement order, and then determine kind of what the next step forward is. And by next step, you know we have a request for continuation for this project. So to issue a continuation, are we going to require that the site be restored, kind of what, what does the Commission feels the correct path forward. And just to give you a visual, the little blue arrow is where I was standing when I took the photo, and I highlighted where the wetland was located where the flag wetland was located. And so hatching kind of indicates where the clearing was. And you can see that in the photo here. So, that's a quick update. And Aaron, can you just remind me this is Bob Stover. I'm sorry one second Bob. So Aaron, can you also just remind us if this is just for the continuation is just for a lot one or if this is for a lot one and two because to it looks like there's no activity on so far when I was out there. There's actually three lots in the subdivision. One of them, there was already a house on to my knowledge. And then there was lots two and three so that the, but the work associated with the order of conditions was for lots two and three I believe if my memory serves me correctly. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so Bob if you want to give us an update on what's going on out there for any sort of clarifications. Yes. Aaron, could you put the lot plan back on that you showed us. Sure. Yeah. So I have spent some time out there especially yesterday and about a week ago. And I did mark all the flagging that I could find. Refresh it. There are flags missing. In the clearing of some brush and some trees that were dead have been cut. No grading has taken place. All of the clearing of brush has happened in the buffer zone. I mean, most of the lot is in the buffer zone. The, the area shown in red. Those flags are missing, but it the area seems to be intact. I didn't measure that that flag that is the left most. So the work. So I don't think that any wetland has been impacted yet. I'm sorry Bob can you just introduce yourself yourself so we know your background in your affiliation with the project. Peter has hired me to help him. Move forward on this project. I've been out there a couple of times since the spring. Peter tells me that most of the work that we're talking about was done last fall. Oh, 30 years in wetlands work and wetland replications wetland delineation. I'm very good, especially trained in soils and wetland soils. So does that answer your question. Yeah, that's great it just provides a little bit more context so thank you for. Yeah, I mean, just to respond to what Bob said I mean, I'm just looking at the image this, this area here that's been cleared and grubbed directly in front of me was basically standing right in front of that wetland area so I'm not sure how. I mean, it wasn't like brush clearing there was, there was significant clearing and grubbing and probably stump pulling that occurred in this area. To say there was no grading there was definitely some earth work that occurred there it was it was open bare ground. There was no flagging that I could see on this lot at all. And the access on the plan shows if you look at the plan where that blue arrow is it see how it shows the driveway, cutting very far left and skirting around that wetland right down to the property line versus looking straight into the property, right where that wetland would have been is basically like a patch of sand. I'm not sure. I mean, I think a site visit would be a good idea to go out and take a look at the refreshed flagging to see because it seems like it's not squaring up with what I saw in the field. That that's very good to me. This is the owner Harold Wilson. Hello, Aaron. Hello. Yeah. Hello, Aaron. I just was going to jump in real quick. So that area that that you're you're talking about on the right hand side. As you're looking at the lot that had no that nothing there nothing growing there on that thing there was no trees no scrub. It was just like it was. I stayed, you know, on the left hand side going in, you know, far away from that wetland area. And like Bob was saying, we just went in and cleaned up dead scrub. There was several tall dead trees that were, we thought were hazardous. And with the kids in the area there, there's small kids across the street that want to play. We wanted to knock those down and get them get the hazard dealt with. So that's, you know, under, I understand what you're saying, but it's a violation of your order of conditions, and the town was never contacted prior to the start of work, which is a requirement of your permit. And it just seems very, you know, to have a violation like that no DP file number no pre construction meeting. It's when you have a permit like this that's you know, a state permit and there are jurisdictional wetland areas. We have to be notified so we didn't we didn't realize that we didn't have any any paperwork showing us that we had to have these things done just to go in there and do any any like said, clearing up this dead material. So you guys didn't have the order of conditions. Yeah, we have a we have a we have a plan for that a lot. That requires us to do all the things you're talking about. But for this lot that we're talking about now there was no conditions at all for this lot. And we were told that we wouldn't have to cross any wetlands. We've got 30 feet from the proper line over to where the wetlands starts. So we, we didn't realize that we had to do any of this that you're talking about for that lot. Well, the order of conditions covers both these lots the plans cover both these lots. So there is no there is no plan for for this lot that we were not receiving. We only have the plan for the for that a lot because they're separate. They're separate. They're not together. They're not, you know, they're separate lots. They're two separate building lots, correct, but the order of conditions that the plan that was prepared by buddy sparkle shows both lots and and the work that was approved was on both of the lots and there's wetlands on both the lots. I realize that there is there is a wetland on that lot. But not a we weren't anywhere near that. But go ahead. And the other thing to remember about this one and obviously this predates you, but it is part of the history of these lots. These were fairly contentious lots when they got put in. There was a lot of input from local neighbors from a butters. There's a lot of discussion from the conservation commission. There's only I think two of us on here now who are there then. So this is a fairly sensitive area, which again that predates you but just let you know the history. Yeah, you're not familiar with that. Okay. But particularly the one that is this plan always gets me a little confused because it's not oriented how I think it should be. I could be wrong on that but I'm going to the right. Okay. I think that was the one that we definitely spent a lot more time on. And so when this first got brought to my attention, I was a little confused as well, Mr. Wilson, because I was thinking of that one and not this lot. And so I had to verify that with Aaron as well about if the conditions covered both. Okay. Probably a site visits probably the next step. I think so. I guess the commission, this is just an important consideration for the board tonight so this came to us as a request for an extension to the original order of conditions, which expires. Well it expired yesterday but I mean, I could I could predate a an extension if the board felt that they wanted to issue an extension on it. You know, recommending. I'm not making a recommendation in any in any direction I'm just letting you know that that's how this issue came to our attention and that originally when it was submitted it was like a day before our very busy first meeting in October and so I put it to the second meeting in October to give myself some time to get out there but it expires. It has consequences. So, just to put that out there. So, just where we understand what the ramifications are, if we do not move to continue it today, we cannot continue it on the night. And I'm not saying that we'd want to but just so we know what our options are. I'm not saying that we'd like to update some gray area because, you know, it will have expired. It will have expired. I mean, the commission could certainly, you know, backdate it but I do think that that gets, I mean, 24 hours I think is one thing but three or four weeks is another. So I, it's the timing is not great, but it's, it's an important consideration. The other thing we can do I mean, we don't have to continue for, we can set how long it continues for. So I guess in theory we could say that we could do, we can continue this for three weeks with the current enforcement order in place which is cease and desist. I mean, that would be something else would happen but that would give us the opportunity to continue it at that point if we so desired. Does that seem logic or possible Aaron. Anything you wish to do, as far as a continuation is, I can make happen. So just just to put in perspective, you know that that it's a legal document I've got to send it to DP and it also has to be recorded at the order or at the registry of deeds. So I just think we should, depending on how much time that the board decides to give on the extension I just think the board should be really strategic about how much time we allow in consideration that, you know, that that whole process has to be gone in order to make sure it's legal. Yep, and it's no fun and yeah, it's not good. And then the other piece would be if we let it expire, then for additional work to happen on this property they would have to refile. For the construction of the homes they would have to refile a new notice of intent application, correct. Yep. Okay. I'm confused about one thing was Mr Wilson, not associated with the initial request. Correct. So the original application came through as a separate owner and from what I understand Wilson construction or it's under I think listed as Wilson construction LLC or Wilson properties LLC as the owner acquired the property I believe last year. And did not receive any of the documentation from the previous owner. Well, to be perfectly honest, any, any real estate transaction that takes place. An order of conditions is recorded on a deed. And when there's a title search that's completed for a real estate transaction. An attorney will find the order of conditions which lists every condition that is listed on the project as well as a reference to the approved plan associated with the project. So, could, could somebody buy a property and not be aware of it. Not likely. I mean they requested a continuance. So I'm assuming they knew about it. You know they requested a continuance a year later so I'm assuming they knew about it. They knew there was an order of conditions on it. I'm sure they knew about it in a general sense. I might not have ever seen the order of conditions although they were aware that this was required permitting due to conservation wetland issues. Yeah, they may not have seen them they were available. They're definitely on the deed. So, yeah. So we don't need to speculate on that. They should have seen them. Well, either way, so the situation we're in now is if we let this thing expire. So we have to figure out if we're gonna let this thing expire or not, because obviously the consequences of expiring. So we have to figure out how we're going to do this enforcement order and continue. Well there's an enforcement order in place tonight that we should ratify ratified separate a separate issue. So we can just ratify the actual enforcement order, but then yeah what we want to do for additional actions, if anything. So we can just ratify the existing order and let the other conditions, let everything else expire and there's no other action I don't think we would have to take. At that point the owners would be back on the owner to refile. I also just want to bring up one point of clarification that's sort of sensitive, but so we are short to people tonight on the commission so I don't know how people are going to vote if we're going to vote in unison. But if we don't we need at least four people to to approve a motion tonight. So not to put any pressure on anyone. So your votes all count but they count even more tonight. I mean the ideal thing I mean I'd love to get out there. I've been out there. I'd love for you know to get out there with, you know, I didn't have permission to be on the property so I didn't go there I just stood on the road and you could see what Aaron saw. Well I would like to meet you out there. That'd be great the problem is that we have to make some sort of decision tonight's the problem. So, yeah. You know I served on the belcher town conservation commission. And it's a matter of some trepidation to quote their policies to the Amherst conservation commission, but they. We always felt that if there was an enforcement order that that kind of suspended the, the process of renewing and continuing a notice of intent. I'm working on a subdivision in belcher town and it, it's my understanding that it's been in functioning on an enforcement order for since the three or four years I've been involved in it. I mean, I think the ideal solution from my point of view is that that the we ultimately get an extension of the order and that we resolve all the issues that are out there. Get the wetland flags back up. As I say I, anytime I found a remnant of an old flag. I reflagged it. I would like to get out there and reestablish all the other flags. The flags are missing in this area that was outlined in red. But we measured it off from there's two property pins right there so we had some good ties to identify where that that south most I guess flag is. And I think you'll see that the wetland itself has not been damaged but it work was done right next to it. I think you'll see that most of the clearing that we've been talking about happened in the buffer or even a little bit beyond the buffer. Yeah, but I mean just altering the vegetation the buffer that's problematic as well obviously. Oh certainly, certainly. So we are you will, would you be able to, well, at least we can agree on one thing we want to see a site visit would you be able to reflag that wetland before the site visit. If it's all right with my clients I would love to do it. Because then we could get a better idea of what we're looking at if those wetlands that are on the original plan are flagged again. And so now we can really get to identify the extent of what we're talking about. Yes, I think other than that area that was outlined in red flags. I think I found most of the remnant flags for the rest of the delineation on that lot. So, yeah, so I mean, Aaron. I mean there was a survey those those flags were survey located and I think what we're talking about is re identifying the survey locations of the original flagging. I just want to be very clear about that, as opposed to reflagging where we think the wetland is now. I'm not talking about reflag re delineating it. I'm talking about re establishing the original flags. I just find it curious that flags exist on the entire project footprint with the exception of this one area that appears to have been cleared and altered. So just, it's just very And Bob are those being re established via survey methods. So using survey equipment or some other methodology. I think to do it in time for a site visit I would. I would simply go out there and re establishing myself using take measures, etc. But they could be replaced by surveyors, eventually. Okay. I mean, that would be the preferred methodology obviously survey. Yes. Yeah. And so, yeah, I mean, I kind of know where I'm leaning at this point I mean I think it would make sense to do some sort of continuation, probably, you know, as Aaron was suggesting being strategic about it so making not a three week, but you know I'm not sure what would be a reasonable time so few months type of thing with the current conditions on there so there's still a full cease and desist and nothing else is happening out there. That would give us time that would give the applicant time to reflag do everything else that's necessary out there give us time to go out and do a full site visit, and then reassess. And at that point. Yeah, we can move forward I would think. Very prudent Brett and quite frankly, any extension on an order of conditions requires that the flagging be in place at the time that the extension is requested. Even a request for certificate of compliance requires that the original flagging be in place. So for the flagging to be gone, it's impossible for us to render any type of judgment on the site. However, I do think that a condition of the extension should be that they're placed based on survey points. Yeah, I mean particularly given how much disturbances out there. Yeah. By the way, can you see me. No. No, it's all I see is my name in a black square. Turn your video on your video on yeah. I have some experience with zoom but not a whole lot. The lower left corner. Okay. So that sounds good to me. I agree. Aaron, would you have a general recommendation on what sort of length would make sense. I mean, you know, somewhere probably like three months sounds about right to me but you would know better than I. One question how Bob how long would it take for flags to be replaced based on survey. I don't know. I don't know. Probably, I would think a month would be a safe. Yes. So, let's just say a month that would put us right before Christmas. So two months, let's just say would put us end of January. If they could be placed within a month, then that would give an additional four weeks in January for the commission to get out there and look at the survey placed flags. And then at the January 27 meeting. There could be consideration but I think Brett makes an excellent point which is, you know, will we have a quorum will we I mean, will will we have had a chance to get out and do us everybody do a site visit all those things and we may want to give ourselves a little extra time. I think three months is a exorbitant extension period I think that's very reasonable for us to try to resolve the enforcement. So, Bob and Mr Wilson does that sound like a reasonable timeframe for the two of you. Yeah, I think so how about you Bob. It sounds good to me. Okay. Okay, so why don't we first set the, can you tell us the date and time for that one Aaron and then we, we have a couple of things we're going to need to do we have to first ratify the current enforcement order. And then we're going to need to do a continuation. Yeah, so my recommendation would be that the, that the that the permit be extended until February 24 that the order of conditions be continued to February 24. And we don't need to set a specific time because this is not a hearing. Yep. Okay. So looking for a motion for that for extending the order conditions. I got it. All right. I moved to extend the order of conditions to February 24. Second. Thanks. Fletcher. Hi. The Roy. Hi. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I as well so okay so we are good on that one so that. So the order stands until the 24th and we'll come up with some sort of resolution before that. And so at this point we need to ratify the enforcement order Aaron. Yeah, and I would recommend that on the ratification of the enforcement order that the commission include conditions or requirements for a site visit with the board. That prior to the site visit that flags be replaced based that wetland flags be replaced based on survey. And do we need to reiterate cease and desist or is that already in there. That's already in there. All right, so I moved to ratify the enforcement order with the conditions that the survey. The wetland flag would be replaced by the survey points. Second. So Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Roy. Hi. Anna. Hi. And I as well. Okay, so I think we have a path forward for this one. So once you have an idea of when those points will be in the field. If you can get in touch with Aaron and then Aaron can coordinate a time for us to actually get out on the property. That'd be great. Okay. Is this anything that a butters have to know about. I don't think technically. So. They're a butters would be interested in this stuff. That's what I meant. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thanks guys. Yep. Have a good Thanksgiving. Bye bye. Bye bye. You too. Bye bye. Okay. Hope you guys had your coffee. I think I'm going to go get some. I'll try to go through this really quickly for you. Just keep getting bigger and bigger and more like consuming. It's fine. I know I'm going to try to make this go. Trust me. Trust me. I'm tired too. I know. Okay, so let's start with Apple Brook. So we received a request for certificate of compliance for a lot seven. On Apple Brook. And I'm just going to give a little. Disclosure. I filed a. Notice of potential perceived conflict of interest. Disclosure with Dave Zomek and also Paul Backelman because. My aunt and uncle are direct to butters to a lot seven. And I wasn't aware of this until I pulled the plan. On Friday afternoon and saw where, where it was actually located. So. Just for the sake of transparency, I'm not going to offer any recommendation. I'm just going to sort of present. The application and the photographs for this. But just to provide. A little bit of information by way of background. There's actually three. Orders of conditions that are recorded on this lot. Or on. There's three overall orders of conditions that are tied to this lot. And I don't know the entire history of. The site. Other or of the subdivision other than to say. That I know that the first two orders of conditions were. Related to. Denial superseding orders work never beginning. So basically two of the orders of conditions were basically. If certificates of compliance were issued, it would say basically work never began associated with the given orders of conditions. The third order of conditions is the order of conditions where the subdivision was approved. And. I think all that a handful of the lots. That the homes have already been constructed. This being one of them. So. This lot, there is no home on it. I don't, I'm, I. From what I understand. When the, when the permit was originally filed the lot, the, the area where the subdivision is located was cleared. Lot seven has come up with. A lot of information. But no home was built there. And. Just show you. So this is, this is what the lot looks like right now. Like the one to the right is, is a better representation of what the overall lot looks like. It's kind of a regrown with, with vegetation. The silt fence is still in place on it. So. The proposed single family home was located outside of jurisdiction. Outside of the 100 foot buffer zone to the wetland. The wetland is basically along that tree line in the photo. And. What this would do is issuing a certificate of compliance would basically. Mean that. Could be the house. The public could even. Concom jurisdiction would have to refile to build the house. Because there's no house there. And this is basically it's. It's saying. We're closing out the order of conditions and anybody who, who wants to do anything there is going to have to refile the 100 foot buffer zone. Somebody could build a house here. Without encroaching on the 100 foot buffer zone. background on it from reviewing the plans and such. There is a paved driveway, which comes into the lot, not all the way into the lot, but just sort of like, I would say maybe 30 feet of driveway comes into the lot. And then it's a patch, the one on the picture on the left kind of shows. There's like a dirt patch in front of the driveway. And then it's like a stockpile area. They've been using it for stockpiling building materials. And from what I understand, there's a closing on this lot taking place on Friday. And that the stockpiles are being removed on Friday at the closing time. I mean, when the closing occurs on the lot and it's owned by a potential owner, the stockpiles are being removed. So again, there's three orders of conditions tied to this. So certificate of compliance would essentially clear it from all three of those outstanding certificates of compliance. And the final order of conditions does include a house footprint for this house. So they'd have to start from scratch if they were within jurisdiction. And Erin, so is this another one of those examples where the orders of conditions are really for the whole subdivision? They are not really impacting this one as much directly? So the other the Hills subdivision is a different is a kind of a different animal altogether because on that particular order of conditions, the board required individual filings for homes that were located within jurisdiction. Whereas with this subdivision, the subdivision itself included house footprints already. A lot of times the former will be done on lots where people are doing a build to suit situation. Like the owner is going to buy the house. They're going to design the house themselves and decide the house footprint, how large, decks, and et cetera, versus a situation like this where it looks like they actually very carefully planned the house footprints. And so they were already included in the order or in the application. OK, and again to clarify, so issuing this certificate of compliance basically means that it clears it for sale so there's no paperwork hanging on the deed. But they cannot build at least within jurisdiction without coming in front of us again. That's correct. But why would we not give it? I don't see I'm not there. There's I don't really see any reason to not issue it. Right. Yeah. I'm just trying to be as neutral as possible on this one. Right. Yeah, all right. Yeah, so I'm going to house. Yeah. OK, so anybody else have any questions on this one? No. OK, so yeah, so I think we're looking for a recommendation to issue the order of certificate of compliance for Lot 7 at Applebrook. Yeah, and I would recommend that any any motion to. So it's actually to issue three certificates of compliance. So I would just motion to clear to clear the lot in its entirety with certificates of compliance for the three outstanding orders of conditions. Oh, fine. OK, I motion to I'm going to try it. And I'm not going to get it right. I started to rate it and then I messed it up. I motion to clear all three lots of the certificates of compliance. No, that's not one lot three certificates certificates in the one lot. There we go. Is that it with the orders of conditions? Yeah, I'm sorry. You're close. Yeah, so it's to issue to clear lot seven of all outstanding orders of conditions by issuing three certificates of compliance. OK, so I motion to clear lot seven of all orders of conditions by issuing the certificate of compliance. Perfect. Never check it. So LaRoy. Nice job. Hi. Anna. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I for me as well. At least no one's watching at this point. You're doing good. It's not easy. It's not easy to do, especially in front of a bunch of people. Just said it, I literally just had to pair it. And it was apparently too much for my brain at this moment. This thing is recorded. That's why I like to say so moved. So moved is so nice to you. It's the principle of it, Larry. I know, I know. Well, that was the other hard one. I think we're going to move on to some easy ones now. Hickory Ridge is a little funky. Yes, well, so it is, but I don't think it's too funky. Once you see the plans, I think it all makes sense. So Hickory Ridge, there's two outstanding items on Hickory Ridge. The first is a request for an amendment to the origin or to the order of conditions. And just to visualize what the request that's being made is, if you see, this is the approved solar, the approved solar arrays on Hickory Ridge Golf Course. There's already outstanding orders of conditions for these two approved solar array setups. The amendments are for the two orange pads that you see. So they're requesting to add those pads and it's for a battery storage system, is what I understand. There's a narrative associated with that, which is this was provided by Tom Reedy. They are the DC size of the array will increase from 5.24 megawatts to 6.2 megawatts. Less panels, but larger panels. Racking system will be changed from fixed tilt to single axis trackers. So basically what they're doing is they're putting in, they're changing it from these fixed position solar panels to panels that will actually follow the sun. And the change in the system itself requires a change to the battery storage system, which is what those orange footprint changes are to the solar array. But it's still kind of within the footprint, no? The original footprint, what's that purple shading? Yep, it's all within the original footprint of the original orders of conditions. OK. And do we know anything about the batteries? Are there any potential issues associated with those? But what are they adding? Yeah, what's those battery storage already there? No, no, those are new. So these are new, total battery storage. I'm not sure why they're keeping storage there, because normally they just want to put it straight into the grid. Is this for the trackers? Pardon? Is it for the trackers? Yeah, the batteries are for the trackers. Man, the town I used to live in got these and they broke within like three months. And now they're stuck facing the wrong way. Oh, sweet. Clear some more forest lamp for our solar. That's a good question, though, is there issues with storage? Yeah. Yeah, but I mean, they're, I mean, I'm interested in that, but I mean. It's not relevant for us. It really make a big difference, right? Yeah, it's not. It's not pertinent for what we're talking about. Yeah. OK, so we moved to accept the amendment. Yes. Yeah. I moved to accept the amendments for Hickory Ridge. Second. Oh, you got me. Larry. Aye. So Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. And aye for me as well. OK, let's go on to some contamination, Erin. Oh yeah, so and this is more of a verbal update, but there on the remediation side of things, they did some drilling to look at the soil contamination just this past, just this earlier this week. And what they found was that the area of contamination is much smaller than what they had originally thought. And so they're looking at different options in terms of the in situ treatments, which would be basically injecting ozone into the area of contamination to cause it to, you know, it basically breaks it down faster, the area of contamination, versus doing a excavation of the contaminated soils. So right now, they're doing the exploratory part to determine the best process to clean the site. And that's kind of where things stand. That was my last update, which was today. So it's a quick one. OK, good. Yeah, there's a lot of technical stuff that they sent over. So I got lost in it somewhere. Yeah, there was a lot. So just while we're still on Hickory Ridge, if Dave is still with us, do we have any updates on sort of the overall project at this point? I am here. Yeah, actually conservation staff, we took a tour of Hickory today, as a matter of fact, this afternoon for an hour. We are moving toward closing. I mean, these are all great steps. The 21E cleanup is progressing nicely at no cost to the town. And our hope is to close, I think, late in December is a little optimistic, but as soon after the first of the year as possible. That's exciting. I don't think I remember hearing a potential closing date yet. So yeah, I'll be big. OK, thank you, Dave. Sure. OK, Erin, next. Yeah, so this is a this is this is another request for a minor amendment to the order of conditions. This is associated with 200 Leverett Road, which at the time it came through it was zero Leverett Road because it didn't yet have a address associated with it. Construction, I did go out and do a pre-construction meeting with the folks who are doing work out here. They're building. You may recall it's on Leverett Road. If you're headed towards Leverett, it's on the left-hand side prior to going over Eastman Brook. It is a single family home, and they're also putting in some pasture land for horses, a little dog kennel area, et cetera, that was all approved by the commission. And they're also putting in a leech field. The original application did not include installing a well because they were operating based on the assumption that the town water line extended far enough that they could tie into it. But what they discovered is that it is about, let me see. Did they say how long it was? It was like 200 feet or something. I think it was 200. Sorry, yeah. Had the exact length of it. But yeah, I think it's like 100 or 200 feet too short. So basically what they're trying to do is just extend the water line. It's on the opposite side of the road from the property. And they're working with DPW to their paying and working with DPW to extend it so that these folks can tie into the water line. But there is a, so if you look at this little hand-drawn sketch, which I know is difficult to see and I apologize, it's right on the other side of that. There's kind of a little pond that's down lower from the road. And so they had recommended doing a toad in silt fence along the road, which I don't really like the idea of because it requires actually digging out to put the silt fence in. I would much rather see something like a straw waddle installed there during construction. And I mean, I think they're right along the road shoulder with the work. And yeah, so they're just requesting permission to extend the water line up so they can tie into it. Sure, if you think the straw waddle is good. Yeah, I mean, I would definitely include conditions that there's no stock piling and that they stabilize upon completion. And so this is open trench that they're doing? Yeah, yes. Yep, they're just digging a trench, placing the pipe, and then closing it back over. I don't, do they need to revegetate? I mean, it's going to be a small trench, I assume. It's on the shoulder, isn't it? Yeah, I mean, I think that they should reseed and they should stabilize with mulch, preferably, like straw and seed. OK, that all sounds reasonable to me. OK. Anybody else? OK. So I would just request a motion for minor amendment to the order of conditions to allow this to be installed. OK, I'll make that a motion for the minor requirements for the amendment. Second, I'll cut you off. It's all right. I'm so excited. So Fletcher, your vote? Aye. Anna? Aye. Larry? Aye. LaRoy? Aye. And aye for me as well. We're getting close here, aren't we? We are getting close. That's complaints. How do I get out of here? There you go. Yeah, so complaints. Monitoring reports. There's really nothing major to report. I'll just, this is very quick. I'll make it super fast for you guys. There were, I've been following up on a couple complaints here and there. And I just wanted to make you aware of two of them. One of them was a driveway, which is on West Palm Roy Lane. And basically what happened was it was observed that they were installing the driveway, putting down a base to pave. And there was pretty clearly a Fragmite wetland in the back of the property. And so I contacted them, went out there, took some measurements with them. And basically what we ended up negotiating was that they remove a portion of the driveway and move it back a little bit so that they were outside of 100 feet. And the landowner was totally fine with that. They put in erosion controls. They pulled out the section that was, it was literally like 20 feet within the 100 foot buffer. They pulled out that section and then reseeded it as long so that they're over 100 feet away. So that was one resolution. And then, OK, so the other one was a complaint about some properties along Pulpit Hill Road. There's a gentleman who owns a property, I believe, on Mill Street. And he owns a large piece of, well, his residential home. And then there's a large piece of conservation land that he owns as well that's immediately adjacent to budding his property. And then there's a row of homes along Pulpit Hill Road where the back acreage abuts his little piece of conservation land. And his conservation land is wetlands. And he contacted me because he noticed that a couple trees had been cut up back there. It was really relatively minor from my perspective. It looked like there was three dead trees that had fallen that somebody had cut up with a chainsaw into log size pieces that they would use for cordwood. And then there was one tree that appeared to be a fresh cut. So it was maybe a total of four or five trees that had been cut. And it was spread out amongst, I would say, an area maybe 200 feet wide. So it wasn't like a clear cut or somebody was out there doing any major damage. It was pretty minor. Nonetheless, the guy was concerned that Dia Butters were coming down there and cutting land on this area that he was keeping in conservation. So I reached out to the three landowners. And I believe that I determined who the person who was doing the cutting was. And I've been in touch with them to try to encourage them to go about this the right way, basically letting them know, hey, if you do any future cutting, you need to file a permit. You need to do a wetland delineation. And so anyways, I'm working that out. But I just wanted to make sure that I kept you guys in the loop about it. 99 Pulpit Hill Road was one of the properties that was in this row of homes. And you may recall last year there was an enforcement order on their property because they were doing some clearing out in the back. On this guy's property, which is part of the reason why he's keeping an eye on things and he was upset. And so I requested a follow up on their enforcement order because they were supposed to be doing a restoration plan in the back. So that's it. Just wanted to give you a quick update on the complaints and how I was following up on them. But I don't think it rises to the occasion of enforcement. Does this happen to be the same person, the same landowner who was encroaching last time or is it a different person? It's a different neighbor. Yeah, the guy who committed the violation wasn't the one responsible for this. I think it was a different individual. And he thought he was on his property and he said just cutting dead trees that were down. And he didn't know that there was anything wrong with that. Which really cutting up a dead tree that falls over is OK. It's just a question of where the property boundary is. And whether the tree is alive or dead, just to make sure that I'm giving clear guidance to folks. So. OK, thank you, Erin. You're welcome. I think that's everything. So we're good. I believe that's everything. I think we covered everything. Dave, since we missed your update at the beginning, granted, it's about 9.30 now. But I'll give you a chance if you any quick updates that you wanted to provide, Dave, or? Given the late hour, I think I won't. I will just share this one observation. Brad and Tyler were out on Station Road doing some brush hogging today. And they encountered a female moose with a calf right near the Hop Brook. Oh my god. Yeah, so kind of a cool sighting down the trail. I think they were off. They're going to send some videos. So if I get it, I'll send it to Erin and she can distribute it to you all. But I have a cool sighting. I mean, moose are more common, but seeing a female with a calf is kind of cool on Station Road. That's great. Awesome. Amazing. Yeah. Thank you, Dave. So with that, unless I hear anything else, looking for a motion to adjourn. Go, Larry. It's all moved. Second. Fletcher. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. And I, for me as well, thank you, everyone. We're good. Good job, everyone. Enjoy. Have a safe Thanksgiving. Thank you, too, guys. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. See you, guys. Yep.