 Okay, so we are now recording. Jen I'm going to make you co host in case there's people from the public who have comment. Okay, and I can't see them if I'm sharing. Thank you guys so much for making time to be here. I'm going to also bring Lawrence cook in he's the representative from amp who's been communicating with us. Okay, let me just kick this off so welcome to the special meeting of the immerse mass conservation commission on January 18 2023 at noon. The one item on our agenda is Hickory Ridge order of conditions at 191 West Palmer Lane. This is supposed to be an informational discussion to catch the commission up on changes to the order to the project and therefore the order of conditions that have been going on outside of our public meetings. So, Aaron. Yeah, so let me just give you guys a little bit of a sort of narrative update. And then I'll turn it over to to Lawrence. So you guys might recall there have been four minor administrative changes to the originally approved order of conditions. And I can, let me see, I can run through what those are, if that would be helpful really quickly. So there was one change which was adding new and larger equipment pads within the fenced structure and those were outside of concom jurisdiction so they were outside of buffer zone when those were approved. There were also changes to the vegetation on site. There was an approval for pollinator species mix to be used on the site. There was approval for changes to the vegetative screening on site. There were changes to the utility interconnect at the roadway so it was changing from one side of the road to the other. And then the other change was that there was a shift in the panels, which was presented to us as a shift but it was actually an expansion of the solar array and this is the post array shifting to a westerly direction. And so the understanding that the commission had when that was approved was that it was moving out of natural heritage endangered species area and moving out of floodplain, which is a resource area boarding land subject to flooding, but that it was moving closer to the buffer zone to boring vegetative wetland. And so those were the changes that were approved. There have been additional changes that have been made now this permit was approved in 2018. So it's a fairly old permit, there have been some changes that have happened so we can talk about what those are. And those are requirements that town staff have required of amp. There's also been sort of triggered changes as a result of those minor administrative changes. So, we've been in constant communication with amp going over iterations of what they need and what we are what the staff asks are. And that's how we've arrived at the plan that's in your inbox. Now I'm not sure that that plan captures all of the asks of staff. But we can talk about that and let's bring Lawrence, let you know bring him into the conversation so we can start the discussion. I did kind of run through some comments on the plans which I have here to share as well once once Lawrence has had a chance to talk with you all. All right, thanks Aaron. I'm sorry I was a little late zoom asked me to update when we tried to join the meeting so I just needed a few minutes for that. I will also say that you will immediately notice an accent I do have a tendency to talk fast sometimes so if anything is unclear, please just let me know and I'll repeat and go over it and try and slow down. Yes, so we have. I work for amp we are the owner of the project. We acquired the site from the original developer. As Aaron explained this was all permitted prior to our acquisition of the site and subsequent to us buying it we've had to. We've we've made a couple of changes one of those was moving from a fixed tilt array to a tracking system that will follow the sun and generate more power and also the addition of some batteries as well to allow us to store excess power and provide at a time when the energy is needed either to meet the evening peaks or as a call on by the utility in times of scarcity. So, we have also been going through the final designs with our chosen subcontractor and in consultation with the fire department. There have been some relatively minor modifications to the access road to increase turning radii to allow the fire department equipment to turn the corners a little easier. That has had a knock on effect of having to reroute some of the utility poles that will be connecting to the site. There's required the a few additional trees to come down. We have also in consultation with Aaron moved some of the fences away from where they were originally proposed and bought that fence line in which has released some areas that we will now not be impacting. Particularly on the Western array where we're because the design of that was fixed tilt so we'd have long rows there because of the trackers go north south rather than east west. That part of the area there where some trees would have to have come down now no longer need to be developed. The bridge that enters the site that was also subject to the approvals. We've obviously had a couple more years deterioration and the engineer that's done the bridge repair design is now recommended that the concrete deck be removed and replaced with a timber deck. And that that building permit was submitted on Monday. The plan there is primarily to do all of the original stuff that was required at the approaches which was to excavate and replace the the cracked concrete decking at the front. The the new requirement is to replace the concrete decking to allow for a more substantial and railing along the edges, but no other variations to the the ratings or or anything else to do with the bridge proposed. So the the battery storage. We've been in consultation with the various departments in the town, which are located on the two pads. We have agreed that we would put in some secondary containment around the batteries the final form to be agreed. We'll capture anything either. If there's ever an instant on site that would capture any of the the transformer oil as well as anything from the batteries. The batteries themselves are self contained. It's called a centipede system, which is basically connecting stacks up to a central control. They have 24 hour monitoring and and thermal run away protections in consultation with the fire department they will also have dry risers for them to be able to connect to it when there was ever an emergency. The road from the original permit is also changed. It was originally going through the the easement for the DPW for that sewer line it's now running across the south. I think that's, I think that's primarily the round up of all the changes. Anyone have any questions or anything require further explanation. So I'm happy to jump in if it makes it easier for folks to just digest this but if folks have questions I don't want to interrupt either. I don't have any immediate questions Aaron. Was there anything that you wanted to flag. Yeah, there's just a couple of things and you know we're we're working through these things so I want to be really we're trying to work with amp particularly because number one the commission has such a limited bandwidth with regard to time and so we want to try to talk about this off of a regular meeting to give more time. So in November of 22 the long year bat was determined to be endangered. And as a result of that amp is trying to observe the time of year restrictions, even though there are no habitats that have been identified in the area it's kind of like, you know, to be overly cautious which I fully support. And so the tree removal which Lawrence noted at the at the beginning, and I just want to point out to you guys really quickly a couple things. So the, the orange here is the original approved fence line location. So like looking over to the West here you can see this is the original fence line location. And you can see where amp has moved out of that. So, part of the changes is, you know, this area is no longer in the project area. So I just want to point those things out. Like as a result of that, even though there's some additional tree removal for the access road, and also you know the fire department turnarounds and things. We are gaining some trees over in this area where the, where it was pulled back and similarly this area here was also pulled back. The new fence line is going to be here that pulls them out of flood zone out of natural heritage area. So these are all good things that we've sort of negotiated. So the number of trees has increased, and part of it is because of the access road turning radius for needed by the fire department and also because since 2018. When these trees were originally surveyed they they've grown. So like in order to be counted they would have been four inches in diameter and now they're over that because they've grown since 2018. So I have no problem with the tree removal changes. Dave and I walked the site yesterday with Lawrence where we're comfortable with the changes that have been proposed. And that's really kind of the most urgent approval that's needed from the board because they're trying to get the tree removal done before January 30 to try to be sensitive to the long-eared bat restrictions. So that I fully support and want to make clear at the at the front end. What are the other things. There was a gate that was requested at the entrance. Oh yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. And I do have that in my notes here. So thank you, Lawrence for reminding me. I keep wanting to call you Larry. I'm so sorry. I hesitate when I say your name. We'll be at a commissioner. Lawrence by Larry. Yes. I just want to say with the tree removal commissioners, does anyone have any red flags on that because let's just weigh in. And just a little bit of additional context so to cut that person off the original plan called for the removal of 191 trees. We're now up to 211. So we're talking about 19 trees, which some of which will be handed back with the moving out of that area that Aaron highlighted so we're not talking about a significant. He's fine. I think I heard Fletcher say he's fine with it. Yeah, I have no concerns. That's pretty straightforward. Very straightforward. So just for the record, green light. Do what you need to do. Okay. So a couple of just sort of administrative things. These plans that were submitted to us have not been stamped by an engineer. So we're going to need those. We're going to need a notation and I'm just going to stop sharing this for a second so I can share the screen I'm reading off of because this has got my actual comments. I hope that's hard for me to see what I'm sharing. Can you guys see Hickory Ridge amp dynamic energy at the top. Yes. Okay, beautiful. Okay. So changes to the roadway. We need a letter stamp and signed by the engineer that the road will not be adding fill to the bordering land subject to flooding. That's an administrative task that can be done, but it needs to be done before construction. And again, those changes were requested by the fire department for turning. And so, as long as we have some sort of confirmation that it's not going to result and fill in the floodplain I'm comfortable with that. So without the additional tree removal, the plans are not stamped by an engineer which we're going to need a stamp set of plans. Lawrence did a reference containment for the equipment pad. I'm comfortable with them saying that they'll provide details on containment, but I do want to review the equipment pad containment details. So I would like to review and approve those prior to construction so I'd like to just work with them on what they're proposing and make sure that I feel that it's adequate. Again, those are outside of concom jurisdiction I believe outside of buffer zone. It's one of them that corner touches the flood zone or the grading touches the flood zone but not the pad itself but I still would like the opportunity to review that. And I'm just going to switch screens really quickly. So bear with me is that when the commission approved the shift of the pads west. So this, this location here it moved closer to the wetland. When the town, the town has been planning its trail system which is still under planning. The plan was to bring the trail system around the array like this and down. When they shifted the array closer to that wetland it made it so that we can't, or don't would prefer not to come down in that skinny area between the array and the wetland. So the idea that was flown was that the town would be permitting a crossing here like a boardwalk crossing going over the wetland and amp would cover the cost of that. And that is basically to accommodate their shift in the design that they've requested. I'm comfortable with that provided that amp provides a letter to the town indicating that they're committing to covering that cost. As you can see I mean I've tried to advocate for reducing the fence line as much as possible pulling it in closer to the array. When we did the original change in the configuration. The fence line state as is and so as we've gone through iterations. It's been clear that the fence line could be reduced so that changes made and I think that's a good thing. We talked about the new gate we talked to, oh. We talked about long eared bats so there was two other items that I just want to touch base with quickly. The first is that the fate the phasing is going to be a little bit different with this permit. And then was kind of spelled out in the order of conditions and I'll explain why. So they in order to even get on the site they have to do the bridge work. And just to be clear the commission was provided at one point, a copy of the updated engineering report, and we reviewed that and didn't think the changes to the bridge were substantive. We didn't issue an amendment for that because it changes to the bridge or so minor it's not like they're doing any work whatsoever on the foundation of the bridge or the footprint of the bridge it's it's the decking on top of the bridge that's changing. So Lawrence touched on that but I just wanted to make sure that was clear. But in order to gain access to the site for installation of erosion controls tree removal, etc. They have to fix the bridge first. So phase one is essentially fix the bridge. Once they fix the bridge, then they have to take the trees down in order to comply with the time of year restrictions for the bat. Step two, once the trees are down, then we're going to have a pre construction for the actual construction phase of the project which would be meeting with the contractor prior to any earthwork taking place and inspecting the erosion controls on the site. At that point, once earthwork begins our monitoring would begin on the site. There was just one other. Oh, go ahead. Erin two quick things. One is. Oh, who is the contractor. We're using we're using a company called dynamic energy solutions. Okay. Oh, that's dynamic energy plan changes. Okay, got it. Second question. I just want to make sure I'm up with the lingo. The civil contractor is Jay Bates and some. Okay. Okay. So who will be doing the bridge, the tree removal and the bridge deck replacement work. That's all Jay Bates and some. Okay, okay. And they know that they need to be proactively communicate with Erin about when that work will be happening. Yes, we will have a, when that work is gearing up we will arrange for another sort of pre construction meeting with all relevant parties, and part of that will be discussing monitoring flow of information notifications and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, I've ever been reasonable and you'll do that, but just an asterisk on that is that we have an active community. And if people don't understand what's going on and Erin isn't in the loop and they call it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. So any proactive communication about activity on the site will really help the whole program. So any comment slash question. I know you understand this but when we're replacing the bridge deck, if there is any, like any indication of more work that needs to be done in that bridge it has got to come in front of the conservation commission. So we were hesitant and nervous for to kind of approve that minor amendment, because you know those bridges the bridges over the Fort River have been kind of a sticking point throughout this permitting process even back in 2018. And it turns out that one of those appointments isn't any good or anything has to happen below that bridge deck, you really need to hear about it proactively. Every reason to believe you would but I just need to say that for the record, because that's been a tricky thing throughout this project. So part of the, the change to the decking being proposed was following a recent inspection by the engineers. So when we, we obviously had the original bridge assessment that was done as part of the previous develop had the original bridge assessment done as part of the 2018 permit sets around for a couple of years now so as we moved into taking things over there was a reassessment as driving the changes. So, as part of that reassessment they again inspect the foundations, the lower support beams and things like that. Okay, at the moment, the, obviously, until we lift everything off, I understand fully what you're saying, but yeah, that it will be some information is driving. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Aaron. No problem. Thank you for touching on those items and for the record I did talk with Lawrence about an erosion control inspection prior to the bridge work, a kickoff with the tree removal folks prior to the tree removal beginning, and then the pre construction meeting so we're trying to, you know, there's a lot of moving parts here but thank you for teasing that part. Yeah, and our developer IPC contractor fully cognizant of the the eyeballs on this it's town owned land it's going to be a town owned resource at the end of it. We're happy to have over inspect and over meat and things like that to make sure everybody's happy. This is going to be a wonderful joint effort between ourselves and the town and we were, we're happy to share and flow any information that's needed. I really appreciate that. I like the reframing as a wonderful joint effort. Thank you. Okay. So yeah, the only final, I guess, question I have for Lawrence and this is, you know, I apologize because we're, this is all in real time here. Lawrence, on the draft set that you sent me, we had talked about some, yeah, some stormwater trenching and and for the Commission to understand. I'm a stormwater person, I have a strong stormwater training background, any plan I look at I'm looking at stormwater. I didn't permit this project there was no stormwater incorporated on this order of conditions so I'm concerned that there are some slopes, particularly on the eastern array that needs some stormwater. And I've talked with Lawrence about incorporating some stormwater trenching to capture any runoff that's coming in the form of sheet flow before it hits the slopes. And so Lawrence those trenches didn't make it on that plan. So without that wasn't an instruction for me to remove them. Okay, when we have the stamped plan set, I will ensure that they infiltration trenches, more than anything more substantial than than stormwater features. They just provide an additional capacity and slow rate for the for any stormwater that may be there. So, yes, I will I will ensure that when once you receive the stamped IFC sets that those those are included there. Okay, so for the commissions. So those are the sort of overview of the changes that have been requested delivered and or pending. The, the timeline is tight on the bridge repairs on the tree removal. And once those items are done at that point they're going to be, you know, getting on the ground with start of work installing erosion controls etc. I want to keep you guys informed of everything that's happening by way of changes. For me personally a lot of these changes have been, as I said, either improvements staff negotiated changes to try to reduce impact as much as possible, and also account for changes that were made where to ensure that there's no resource area in the commission. So it's really just to get your buy in make sure that nobody's like your way off the mark and and or just confirm that that the changes that we're negotiating are okay with you. So, that's all I'll say but I'll step back for you guys to talk and if you want to take public comment. And I have the utmost confidence in your technical review of this project and appreciate both Lawrence and Aaron the amount of behind the scenes work you guys have been doing to have this. It's a much improved project than the one that we permanent I believe. So, I really appreciate that and you know I don't see any red flags. Any other commissioners questions or concerns. Seems pretty thorough to me. Yep. Seconded. Okay, so I'm just going to open this for public comment and see if we have any members of the public comments or questions. So if you're here in attendance about the minor administrative changes and current plan for as permitted for the amp solar installation at Hickory Ridge please raise your hand and I will bring you in. Michael. Remind me I have after this that I have one idea about how to communicate tree clearing Aaron. Okay. Okay, Michael you bring you in as a panelist. We can see that you're here Michael but you're muted. I just have some questions about the schedule. Okay. I don't have access to all the information you guys have obviously but so today's the 18th. And I see seven work days until January 30th. And my understanding is there's something concerning, not cutting down trees to connect it to the long year back. Now is that January 30th you're talking about January 30th, 2023 or January 30th, 2024. The board mind if I respond. Yes, please go ahead. Okay. So what we have, I don't know how aware you are but the US Fish and Wildlife made the determination back in November to move the designation for the long year back from threatened to endanger. They made that designation in October and had an effective date of January 30th for the new regulations to take. Those new regulations have not been posted yet. There is the existing window is till March 31st, based on the the threatened species. But the, we don't know if those new rules are going to apply from January 30th. And until those new rules are posted. Then then we have kind of two dates that we're working to January 30th would be ideal because that would be before the effective date, but March 31st would be a kind of fallback date. If there's no new rules published by the. So the reason why I'm asking is it really seems unrealistic that there would be the needed bridge repair and a crew going out and cutting all down the trees that were needed to be cut by January 30th this year that sounds totally unrealistic. So there are two ways of cutting down the tree. There's elements to the tree removal. There is the cutting down at the trees and then there is the removal of the trees themselves. So the trees could be cut down by chainsaw within that time without needing to move any heavy equipment over the over the bridge, and then the actual timber itself would be removed once those bridge repair has been done. Okay, so the plan is really send a crew out there with chainsaws cut down all the trees, deal with the bridge, then go down and deal with the wood that's been already knocked down. Correct. It wouldn't be ideal, but that would be the fallback yet. At least that sounds a little bit more realistic. But along along those same lines. This is a, this is a project that doesn't have a building permit yet right. Yeah, there is a pending building permit for the bridge, but the IFC sets that are required to submit for a building permit are subject to the approval of the concom for these minor changes. Right. So, well, some of the changes that have occurred in this project, I really would consider minor. When you talk about the number of batteries that are now proposed, and don't show up at all in the original, you know, proposal from this BS special permit from the ZBA. But there are lots of things that seem unsettled with this project. And it sounds like you guys are giving the green light to take down close to 200 trees for a project that still seems really fluid to me. It doesn't have a building permit. There's no guarantees that, you know, what the company says they're going to do, they're going to do. And yet, it seems like being given the green light to actually do the project without a permit in hand. I don't know if that's the way things usually done in town, but it just seems strange to me that something of this size in particular in a site that's so sensitive is being given a green light without having the necessary permit. And actually the necessary details on the plans, for instance, the containment system for the batteries that was mentioned. Well, yes, they say they're going to do it. So that's my concern. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate where you're coming from. I just want to clarify a couple of things there. So this project is permitted by the Conservation Commission. So this is something that we have the opportunity to look at what we've considered and previously approved as minor administrative changes. This isn't something that we're deciding to go through with now. This is a permitted project. And then the second thing I just want to say is that I think what you've probably heard us discussing and me emphasizing throughout this special meeting is the need for constant communication because of these factors that you're highlighting that we need to figure, you know, there are some fluid parts of this project and we need to communicate early and often about it, but you should know that there are many intersection points where Aaron meets with Larry Lawrence, excuse me, amp solar and the contractors on the site to make sure that we're doing everything we possibly can to protect the resources on the site. So in fact, this project because of this process, this fluid process is much improved in terms of protecting our resources than the one that we permitted in 2018. And so I just want to flag that I understand your concerns. And I appreciate you being here for this meeting. And also just to just to add to the batteries and the change in the racking and things like that that has already gone through ZBA approval. The civil IFC set which is going to be required for the building permit is subject to the changes to the road and things that have been made that have necessitated the changes to the tree. The changes that are required for us to submit the building permit is the minor ones, the major ones to do with batteries and things like that have already been agreed by the camp. Great. Thanks Lawrence and thank you, Michael for being here. All right. If you are a member of the public and you have any further questions or comments about the amp solar project at Hickory Ridge please raise your hand. I'm going to see if anyone raises their hand the one my idea. Jenny. Caleb I see that you have your hand up give me one second. So Aaron sometimes when the DPW is doing big construction projects we get the town has like a list served to notify residents that it's happening. Is that something we could use to notify residents that this work is going to start. Yeah, it's a, it's a great point Jen. So there's like going to be a whole publicity campaign about this, which Dave is working on with amp right now it's going to probably a notification in the newspaper it's going to include signage on the site and it may include additional items such as what we're driving. But yeah, to answer your question yes there's going to be in the very very near future a large blast of information that this is kind of are the last, I would say requirement with the exception of ZBA needs to review this but if the concom gives this its blessing there's a very good chance that it's going to move forward quickly so. Yeah, yeah, just so that you know if, as, as Michael just pointed out you know people are headed out there with Jane's house in the next seven working days. We might want to notify. Yeah, president that that is expected and limited. Yeah. Okay, sorry about that. Jenny, I am moving you in as a panelist. Okay, can you hear me Jen. Yes, thank you. Thank you just a very brief follow up thank you concom for very careful work. I'm thinking about this particular project, the way it's being handled with all the changes as a precedent within town. Let's suppose this project goes incredibly well, and everybody cooperates and make sure everything gets done. The projects are permitted and then so many changes occurred called minor changes. And those of us in the public actually never see what's going on. It's truly invisible, what's been happening at Hickory Ridge, to the rest of us. It feels as if one thing to consider is precedent. Projects will have to change we know that technology changes are going to require re examining conversations perhaps with batteries or other issues. The concom which so diligent and so detail oriented handling this one, but I'm thinking, going forward, we've got a precedent here that could be a very bad precedent for the town that permits occur, then lots of changes are really needed. Perhaps the company and the contractors we're dealing with are much harder to deal with. So I would request that public access to the whole process from the time there are changes agreements that are made sort of behind the curtain not in the meetings to use that expression. But there are town needs to have a method for posting what's going on so concerned public can know about it, and also that this particular process, which is quite complicated and quite dependent on cooperation is of deep concern to me to repeat myself, I can see how a process like this could go terribly wrong, and puts an awful lot of pressure on a commission or committee to be very, very detail oriented so thank you for for listening to my comment and again appreciation that this project seems to be in the hands of very detail oriented and very cooperative parties but it's the future. As a precedent that concerns me. Thank you. Thanks Jenny. Jen are you still with us. So, it seems like we've lost Jen's audio and maybe her video to. I'm just going to say Michelle's got her hand raised I'm going to see Michelle do you want to take the comment and maybe by the time you return. By the time you complete your comments, Jen will be back. So, in regards to the tree cutting and the schedule for that. I'd like to request that if the trees are not cut by maybe February 15 or mid February that there be nesting hawks survey done on those trees. In which case, they wouldn't be able to cut at least some of the trees and maybe a buffer. So, I hope that that's extra motivation, and there is enough motivation right now the trees get cut before mid February but that should definitely be done because that's there could very likely be red tails nesting out there that's pretty good for the red tail habitat. And I know I don't know the trees specifically but there are some large trees out there so I'm interested in concoms opinion on that but that would be a concern that I have. So my only comment on that and Jen can you hear us and can. Just a little bit of Michelle's comments are in my wire. I dropped off but it was it about a certain species of bird and clearing trees during nesting periods. Yeah, so her comment was that if the clearing wasn't completed by February 15, February 15 of 23 that the Commission require a nesting hawk survey, because apparently hawk nesting begins at early. So my comment on that would be that the Commission can only require that for trees that are within Conservation Commission jurisdiction, unless the amp agreed to do it areas outside of concom jurisdiction, just for the sake of, you know, complying with the migratory bird Protection Act, you know, regulations. So just wanted to make sure that was clear. I see Alex and Andre both have comments Andre. Sure, thank you. I had a question for Lawrence from before and that I was a little bit kind of got stuck on here. Lawrence. You said that January 30 is when the endangered species. The designation takes effect. Is that, did I understand correctly. Correct. Yes, the, the announcement made by US Fish and Wildlife was that the effective date of the new guidelines would be Jan 30. I'm sorry, the guidelines can you. So what they, there's currently with the northern long adbap there is with its designation as a threatened species there were limitations on periods when we could clear trees it's primarily outside of I think May to August kind of period. So if you sort of cut beyond that the, the new guidelines will take effect from January the 30th, but those new guidelines have not been published at all yet. So in the event that those guidelines are published before the 30th. So then we would have, then we would know what we're dealing with post that time. If they aren't done then we'd still be under the existing regulations which would allow for clearing up until March 30. Okay, so what you're what you're trying to do is you want to have this approved to cut the trees prior to the actual regulations, or to the guidelines. Yes, I'm sorry from the guidelines from the federal regulations are posted is that what you're saying. Yes, I mean, I would start off by saying that there is no indication from any of the surveys or anything that have been done that this is a habitat that would affect northern long adbats that the broad brush approach with an endangered species would be that you'd have to go through a consultation with the National Wildlife to be given a tree clearing window. Sure. But what I'm so I'm a little bit concerned that what you're, you know what you're saying is you're asking us to kind of hurry and approve this in the sense. Prior to the issuance of regulations or guidelines that will be applying to the long-eared bat and I, you know, I'm a little concerned about that because I, you know, we're, we're you're asking us to do this minor change without us knowing what the guidelines are going to be. We're asking for your permission to be able to do it under the existing guidelines, which is that we can cut the trees that will before. Oh, I understood exactly what you're asking for. I'm telling you that I'm concerned about that. And I'm telling the rest of the commission that I find that concerning. But can you, can you go into a little more detail of that because I, I guess I'm a little unclear on sort of the. So just to give you some context to this, like we have forest cutting plans going on right now, like approved DCR forest cutting plans. There's no like time of year restrictions on when that tree cutting can take place. My, and, you know, I'm just talking to the, the developer thinking, this is, this is a good thing in the sense that they're aware of it and trying to potentially avoid an impact to the bat. Because my assumption is that they're going to be after January, after January 30, there may be activities going on by the best that we're trying to, you know, prevent from happening but again this is, I'm not familiar with this so. Yeah. Is it hibernating habitat sorry that might help. There's no, no indication that there's any habitat is it is just that tree clearing activities throughout the potential area would be impacted so that the towns, pre cutting would also fall under these new regulations as well. Yes, there was some exception for municipalities, because it would be any tree, tree clearing activities in the potential habitat of the northern along it that which is all over Massachusetts. Sure. And so I, and I understand that and what I'm. Let me just put it into the context of where what I'm seeing is that you're, you're asking to be able to do this. You're asking for us to approve it quickly because you want to have it done before January 30 when they're going to be some other regulations that that may put a kink in those plans right. Not not what the kink would be that we'd have to negotiate a tree clearing window with us fish and wildlife. It's not that the US fish and wildlife and say that we couldn't clear the trees and anything like that is just that that window. Yeah, yeah, I understand I'm from Fish and Wildlife and there's another person here who who's also from Fish and Wildlife. Can I just step in for one second here. So, Andre, this, this project is permitted. You know, so moving minor, I'm just, I'm just clear, just clarifying things. So that this, these are, you know, things that as a commission we've agreed are minor administrative changes to this permit. So I guess the one thing I would say is, would you, what, what would you, what would be your preferred pathway, given the situation. Number one to do what I just said was, which is to express my concern about being asked to hurry up to do something to avoid finding out what recommendations are given by Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the long-eared bat is protected. That's the main thing I want to make sure you all understand. And I'm also a little bit concerned that there may be some recommendations that we might want to have taken into account that we're not going to be able to do now. Yeah. So can I ask in your experience with Fish and Wildlife, is there any way, is there any middle ground between knowing nothing about what the requirements are and knowing everything about what the requirements are. Like, we know that it's not, so is there any way, is there like a contact person who could indicate for us, like what the likely scenario is so that there's a middle ground between kind of the full understanding of how this, this endangered species going, is going to be protected and where we are now is kind of in limbo. Well, these, what you're talking about is a process of the Code of Federal Regulations. So in the Code of, so you have the Endangered Species Act, which comes out of Congress, and they say, yeah, you can't take Endangered Species X, Y and Z. And then there are certain nuances, if you would, what gets put on Endangered Species Act and so on that are put out in the Code of Federal Regulations. And so, right now, it was proposed and apparently approved to put the longer bat on the threatened list of species. And then that goes through an approval process, public comment and so on and so forth, and now apparently from what I'm, and now I'm just going by what Lawrence Cook just said to us is that they are about to propose, or they're about to put out, publish. And Lawrence, if you can correct me on whether that's a final rule or not. They're putting out their recommendations or their guidelines as about what, what they need to do. So the middle right to me is to wait until we see the guidelines to figure out what the legal way to do it is once those guidelines are issued. But otherwise, we're being asked to kind of rush something before we get the guidelines that say don't do this because we need to do something else. Okay. Okay. Okay, got it. Thanks, Andre. And Alex, I see your hand rates. Michelle, did you have like a clarifying point or a. Sorry. I don't want to just wondering if we approved it now and the guide they published the final rule which changed the guidelines, if that supersedes what we approve. Right, thanks. Yeah, so that was kind of where I was going is like, is there any middle ground between waiting on the approval, can we approve and condition that if the guidelines are released and it indicates that there would be no cutting permitted at this particular place at that particular time that we would revisit the cutting plan, you know, is there some way we can add a contingency for when these guidelines are released. Okay, but let me, Alex, I know you've had your hand raised for a long time and Andre, I see you. Just just real quick, I think that is a middle ground right there. Yeah, right. Yeah. Okay. Alex. Thank you. I have a couple of points one is going back to Michelle. A simple request. If we could change the word wrap the word Hawk to Raptor. We have owls nesting now. Just a simple note to Jen. And if you're approving cutting plans for DC, that's probably something we should talk about offline. Going to the issue of the bat. And I understand full well Andre's discussion about the regs. To me in this project what matters perhaps the most is whether or not there's habitat. If, and Lawrence has said there is no habitat in this site. So evidently, he's had somebody look. And maybe Lawrence can provide us the consultants work. That's in fact says there's no habitat for the long-eared bat on this site. The first thing we want to do for an endangered species is unknowingly provide harm or do harm. So if there in fact is no habitat for the long-eared bat on the site affected that we're talking about. Then. That to me is something worth knowing. And I don't, I haven't seen. I don't know if he could provide that information. Maybe he could provide that to Jen. And that would help us speed along on this decision. But I understand the regs and. We can wait for the regs to come out and have a condition in there like you're suggesting. But that's kind of not going to change whether the bat is present or not. Right. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. All I had for now. Okay. Thanks, Alex. How much? How many trees are in our jurisdiction for this? You said there's two, there's 211 trees that are going to get caught. How many are in our jurisdiction? 20, 19, right? Is that what the answer was? 19 trees in our jurisdiction. That's a great question. 22 trees. That's a great question. I think we went from 190 trees, 100. That was total though, Fletcher, not within jurisdiction. Not within jurisdiction. But that difference was a total difference in tree clearing for the correct. I know. But I was going to. Right. So, and we have a permitted plan here. And so now are we able to start adding these conditions? I'm kind of confused on how, where our jurisdiction lies with this. All of a sudden. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it was an administrative change, but clearly other people have different ideas, which is totally fine. But I'm also running out of time here. So we got to. Yeah. Yeah. I got to go. So let's get. Yeah. Let's get somewhere. Yep. Fletcher, I was going to camera and I see your hand up. Give me a second. Thanks. Yeah. So Aaron, what do we do? I have a hard stop at one. I think what we should do is continue the discussion. I think Lawrence, we're, we're all aware that the, the bridge work is going to be going forward. So let's proceed with the bridge work. I think there's questions with the commission. It seems like generally the changes are acceptable to the board, but I think we have to have more discussion. And I think. If the commission's uncomfortable in any way, then we don't proceed. And we continue the discussion to our next meeting and we put an item on the agenda to discuss it more. And I know that limits the window, but unfortunately that is the situation and we're not controlling the timeline. So we're doing our best to vet this and get more information. Cameron, I know you had your hand. I just had a quick question. If there was any kind of precedent on for other species, even though everyone has a different, you know, like what they need. But I was wondering in past cases where there have been species listed in the regulations and guidelines are posted. The places that are not deemed as habitat. Are they left alone? Like where, what happens with those ones? Cause I was wondering, could we anticipate. You know, if there was any kind of mentioning like talking to somebody or what could we just anticipate that these would be regulated themselves, the land that we're talking about now. Right. That's exactly, I think exactly Cameron. Great point. I think that's kind of what Alex is saying where it sounds like Lawrence is indicating that there's no indication that this is long-eared bat habitat. So can we kind of document that? And then kind of, is it possible? Yeah. I think it's a good point to add some sort of condition that says like, look, we're moving, we're approving this cutting plan with the condition that this is not longer bat habitat, but when those regulations are released and the bureaucracy is in place in order to do that assessment. Can we do it at that point? And then revisit the cutting at that, you know, I think this is tricky because this messes up the timeline. You know, as our Michael pointed out, you know, this is, we're talking about seven work days in which they wanted to do this. So it's tricky, but yes, Cameron. Good point. And good idea to kind of find the middle ground to thread through this. If I can just do one final thing in the reason why I say there's no indication is because the habitat of the known nesting sites are compiled as a list that based on the threatened species. So you do a survey to look at the, how close they are to known nesting and habitats of the northern long in bats and none of those are in the area. So there's been no indication that this is one of those areas. Is that, is there documentation of that survey? It's not a formal service. So what you would have is if you have a site that is in within a certain distance of a known habitat or known roosting location, then you would have to have a survey done to confirm either that they exist or that they don't exist. So is there any paper trail? Because there's no indication of a habitat in the local area, there's been no requirement that the survey be done because. Okay. Okay. Fletcher, this is going to be continued. So go ahead and do what you got to do. Sorry, couldn't get anything done there Lawrence. Good luck. Well, I think that's not entirely true. I think, you know, Aaron's list of the slide that she shared with everything to move forward with on these plans is all fine with commission. It sounds like it's just the sticking point of the cutting relative to the fish and wildlife service release of requirements for the newly listed endangered species. We could cut the 190 trees that we have permission to do at the moment. Right. That's the other thing is you could, you could cut the permitted trees and then the remainder we could wait on. Okay. All right. Aaron, I have to go. Yeah. Alex's hand is up. I'm going to have to hand it over to someone else to chair the remainder of this. But I will check in with. I just have a quick question for Jen. Before you go real quick. You said many times this is fully permitted. I also heard there's no building permit. What, what is the order of permitting? What is the order of permitting for us? We have issued a notice. We have issued a permit under the NOI process. And it's what happens is there's been. This project has changed hands. And so there have been what we as a commission in public meetings have determined as my understanding that. I understand that. I understand that. I have to go to another work. Okay. I can, I can address that question. I appreciate it. Appreciate it. I'll see you. Yeah. Thank you, Jen. Aaron. Just for my edification. Yeah. I heard there's no building permits. So the ground cannot be broken until there is a building permit. Is somebody waiting for us to finish this is the CV. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if there's a town. Before they can break ground. Right. So. And also in this answer. Please explain to me why. What the concom has done. Allows them to go forward without being fully permitted. Concom has done that allows them to go forward without being fully permitted. They don't have a fully permitted project. Right. So. Okay. So. In order to construct the facility, they need a building permit. And so. There's two things there. There's a request for a building permit right now for the bridge. So the bridge requires a separate building permit. Versus the facility, which requires another. That has nothing to do with the tree removal. So. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. The town has already approved the tree removal that was in the original order of conditions. This is like a difference like 15 trees. That were needed for the fire department for their turning. And, and two. Fletcher's point there. I think that probably out 20 to 30 of them are located in concom jurisdiction. I'm just, I'm just throwing a number out there, but just to estimate that there, it's a fraction of the overall tree removal. So. Okay. I'm just putting a little bit of ego. Handle on. The basket of permits that's required for this project. And can they go forward. Without having the basket full. Well. Right. So if, if. They could move forward. With everything. That was originally permitted. Right. for those modifications to the plan. But typically how it works is in order of conditions is issued a, let's say, special permit from the zoning board is issued. And then once they're ready to move forward with construction, so usually there's a pre-construction meeting. At the pre-construction meeting, they would then either have a building permit in hand or the building permit release of that would be pending the erosion control inspection, which is what's happening with the bridge currently. So once I've inspected erosion controls, I can release the building permit so that the work can go forward. But my sign off is needed on that as well as the fire department sign off and all of the department sign offs. So they need all the permits from all the various entities in town to sign off on the building permit. So the building permit is kind of the last piece that they get before ground is broken, if that makes sense. Well, OK, thanks for the clarification. I don't want to drag this out any further. And to Fletcher's comment about jurisdiction, I think the Endangered Species Act goes to the entire town. The fact that that issue is coming up in the concom, I think the town expects the concom to react to that and have something to say there is no other committee in town that would address it. So whether it's in jurisdiction or out of jurisdiction, I think it's fair game for us to talk about it. Oh, I completely agree with you. I just need the commission to understand that our jurisdiction ends at the resource areas that are spelled out in the Wetlands Protection Act. I got that. I got that. The Endangered Species Act goes to the town and the state. Fletcher's comment was somehow that our discussion was inappropriate and I disagree with that. Yeah, I mean, I think it's really interesting because I've got a 1.30 meeting, but I have time to talk about this until then other folks, if you need to go, please speak up. But Michelle and I have been talking a lot about this offline and I know the question has come up about the Migratory Bird Act. And one of the questions that arose was about forest cutting plans because there are new. So and forest cutting plans are not approved by me. They're not approved by the town. We don't have a forest cutting bylaw in town. If somebody wants to do a forest cut anywhere in the state that doesn't have a forest cutting bylaw, they go to DCR and they have a licensed forester who puts together a forest cutting plan. And then that forest cutting plan is sent to us as a courtesy where we can, if there's any issues related to wetlands that we want to bring up, we can comment on. And it's approved by the state and then they can move forward with their forest cut to my knowledge. And we're in touch with the state, with the supervisor of the state service foresters. They're not even aware that there's any time of year restrictions for the migratory bat or I mean for the Migratory Bird Act or the. With regard to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, I think it's fair to say that Andre and I are experts in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And I myself worked on special regulations for that act. And I'm happy to have a discussion with you about the implications of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and taking of nests and eggs. But not now. Yeah, of course, absolutely. And I think that would be great for us to get your insight. And that's a whole other discussion. Yeah, absolutely. I do have to go because I'm getting a call from Dave right now. I have a meeting in 15 minutes. We have to talk. Erin, can I just ask? So OK, so our jurisdiction is wetlands. This is on conservation land. No, it's not. It's not conservation land. Pickery Ridge isn't all. It's not OK. No, it's not yet. I'll let you go. It's not yet. So I think we should continue this discussion. Lawrence, let's check in offline about sort of next steps. But I think this is good. I mean, this is the democratic process and the reason conservation commissions exist. So you guys are doing your job and vetting this. And, you know, we'll get through it together and we'll figure out a solution. And yeah. So what are our next steps, Erin? Well, we'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting. And then we can sort of re-engage the discussion at that point as to the next steps. Quick question from me to everyone. Obviously, is the remaining discussion around the bats? Or is there any concerns with the proposed changes? Because a lot of the stuff that you highlighted on your note could be done by issuing the IFC sets and we can submit the building permits. It's just we didn't want to have the stamped IFC sets prepared if you were going to direct us to do other changes. Because changes we've made have already been directed from the town. We don't want to have to go back and then do other changes. So is the proposed or other proposed changes an issue? Or is it all to do with the timing with the northern longhead bat? Does anyone have any concerns about, in principle, the additional trees coming down, the changes to the roadway, the pulling back of the fence lines and things like that? It seems like what you want to do is kind of poll us. As far as I'm concerned, that was my only concern. Or that's what I was concerned about. I don't know about the rest. So we have four members of the of the concom present. Is that enough to vote? It is. It's enough to have a quorum. Yeah, but go ahead. I think I think we decided already that we're going to talk about it the next meeting. Yeah, I don't feel I need a vote to settle this. I just need to have some indication of whether I'm going to expect to have some changes to direct to the engineers, and in which case I'll hold off on issuing an IFC set. Or if the discussion is just about timing and longhead bats and owls and red-tailed hawks and things, then that's fine. We can have that discussion at the next meeting, but I'll be further down the line with those stamp plans, which will address some of the things that Erin showed up on the or all of the things that Erin showed up on the original thing. Yeah, I think my sense is that the commission was on board with engineering changes and that the discussion is just around the cutting at this point. OK. OK, so I don't want to jump in as chair. If one of you want to jump in as chair and direct emotion, that would be wonderful, Michelle. I move to adjourn the meeting at one eleven p.m. So. And vote. Oh, sorry, Cameron. Hi. Andre. Hi, Alex. Hi, and I'm an eye. All right. Thank you, everyone. You guys later. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Lawrence. Bye.