 And this is the Amherst Conservation Commission meeting. Okay. So starting off with just a few comments by me. And so I appreciate that you were sending a lot of stuff a little bit later this time, Aaron. I didn't have the chance to review any of that additional stuff. So I'm either going to ask that stuff to be tabled or I'm going to abstain if there's anything that needs to be voted on. I try to review all materials ahead of time. I have no idea what's in there. Oh, it's, it's all pertaining to it's just, it's extra stuff that I would have ordinarily given to you tonight. Just during the meeting, but I just have been trying to get it out earlier. Okay. So it's nothing like new, new business that's. Cool. You know. Okay, good. I, yeah, I just got scared. You said there's a lot of stuff and I just haven't had a chance. So it's downloading now. Okay. So, okay, cool. So the report from Dave will be very quick since he is not here. And so Aaron, do you have anything that you would like to add? I mean, we just, the agenda tonight is it seems relatively light because we have a couple of continuations, but there's a bunch of other business. So if I could, I would just like to jump into other business. I'd be fantastic. Okay. So I'm going to jump to the end of my presentation. Can you guys see the other business items? Okay. So the first one is seven pot wine place request for certificate of compliance. This was on last. Meeting agenda and it was tabled. And the reason for that was because I went out to do a site visit that this order of conditions, by the way, it was from like 1983, but I went out to do a site visit and there was an area of. Material that. It just, I, it was like sort of sandy material on the side of the driveway and I didn't, it looked like it had been there for a couple of years. So I went to the other side. So I asked them to clean it up with shovels and take it off site and put some wood chips down. So they have gone ahead and done that. They sent me photos that the work was done. The site is fine besides that. So we're basically in a position where I would recommend that at this point we issue a complete certification. And I have photos if anyone wants to see the before and after. Yeah. So bear in mind, this is like right post snow melt. So it looks kind of, you know, like it's been sitting under snow. And this was also a bank bank owned property. These were the piles that I didn't really like the look of. And the wetland is, is it looks close. It's actually back a little ways like maybe 10 or 15 feet back from where these piles are. But you can see the piles were just, I just didn't like the wood chips. I didn't want them. I didn't want them that close to the wetland with that sediment material loose like that. So. This is what it looks like now. The material was. Taken out. And the wood chips were put down. Looks much better. Yeah. Excellent. So any hesitations you have on this one, Aaron, are you good? Nope. I would recommend a complete certification for the site. Anybody else have any questions before we vote on it? Looking for a motion. Go ahead. That's all the magic amount of time that we needed to speak. All right. So I move we issue a certificate of compliance or a complete certificate of compliance for seven pot wine. Place. DEP number is zero eight nine dash zero one three nine. Second. Thanks, Larry. So looking for a voice vote, Larry. Yes. Laura. Anna. Hi. Sletcher. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Jen. Hi. And I for me as well. So we are good on that one. And I see the fun can have in what Canton Avenue one up next. Yeah, so I'm not actually going to share the correspondence from town council on zoom. I did share it in the one drive. If anyone wants to take a look at it and read it. But the gist of it is this where. Just to give you a little update on where things stand. Stephanie, let me know that you guys voted. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm back in mid-March to start finding. And I talked to town council about that. And so that's basically their recommendations of how to proceed is what that letter is, but I don't want to talk about it because it's. You know, confidential council recommendations. In the meantime, though, Tom, I just wanted to make sure that we have all the information that we have. So I'm going to start by representing them and he has facilitated getting the site reflagged. So the site is flagged. And he recommended some possible site visit days to get out there and review the site. So this upcoming. Next Thursday or Friday. He threw out some opportunities for times to visit. I don't know if anybody from the board is able to attend any of these times or dates. So the recommendation from town council is that. If there was still no cooperation that on the next meeting, which would be, I believe. May 12th that we hold an executive session. So. So that we could discuss legal. Issues on the site. So it's really up to the board. If you want to schedule a. Executive session to discuss it with town council. If you want to, if you want to, if you want to discuss it with town council. If you want to discuss it with town council. On the 12th, or if you want to try to schedule a site visit and move forward with working with the. Owners at this point. Yeah, I have a strong desire just to, you know, get things moving. So I mean, if things are flagged, that's what we're trying to do and get that moving forward. The, in my opinion, the. The fines were just sort of a mechanism to try and encourage them. I'll second that. So. And it could start to get ugly after that as well. So. Okay. Okay. So well, that's good news. So is anybody available? Any of those days or times. Yeah. The Friday morning will be easiest for me. Okay. Okay. So I will. Get back to Tom about Friday morning. And I guess we'll go from there. If anybody else wants to attend, I'll give you guys an update once the specific time is nailed down. I could do Thursday or Friday, depending on how early in the morning. Okay. So earlier, the better for you. Yeah. Okay. Yep. And I would second that. So earlier, the better for me is. So what would be a preferred time for you guys. Brett, what's going for you? Oh, I mean, probably like seven 30 or something like that. So I'm probably not going to be able to get there that early, but I can see if I can arrange a separate time to be there so that you got everybody can see it and we'll get the most people out there. Yeah. Truthfully, I'm free. I have to be back by 10 anytime before that is fine by me. Okay. Awesome. All right. I will nail something down and follow up with you guys. And that plate where that's being flagged. It's also very close to the road. So. People wanted to just kind of do sort of a quote and go drive by. That'd be a possibility as well. Yep. Definitely. Okay. I'm excited to hear that that's flagged. So that's. Yeah. Me too. What's the street address. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There was a number. I recall there was a number for it. Yeah. It's, it's got a map and lot number, but basically if you. If you come out onto Canton. You either come on to Canton and go all the way to the end or you come out on Canton, take, take a left and go to the end. And it's a, it's a dead end basically. And the lot in question is immediately on your left. And what I can do is resend. That shows the flagging. So that you guys will have some context when you look at it. So it was. Reflat. Yeah. I haven't been out there since it's been. Wasn't there like a, like kind of a new road put in. Yeah. So. Where the flagging was supposed to be. Where the flagging, where the flag, where the wetland used to be is basically just. It's like an open lot now. There's no vegetation there. There's a picture from a neighbor of an excavator sitting on, right on top of where the wetland used to be. So. You know, the plan showed the, the driveway skirting around the wetland on the property line to the left side and going back towards where the house lot or where the house would be built. But now the lots just completely cleared and open. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just a piece of correction. I assume that that's your, your second line there says flags are placed on site. I assume you mean they're replaced on the site. That's based on original survey. Yeah. Yes. Yep. So that we can see. Where the wetland originally was located. I thought that was the case, but I wanted to make sure. I mean that's, so that's what we're looking to confirm has been done. So that we can. Determine the square footage of the wetland that was impacted so that we can mitigate and get it restored. Yep. And I assume as with everything else, if we need to, we can call in third party as well. Hey, Aaron. Sorry, where was the email? Where could I find the email from the town council? I apologize. I'm not seeing it in the folder, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot. Is it in the Tafino folder? Is it in. It's, it's just, if you go into April 28th, it's the KP law, Carver Ave. Oh, thank you. Sorry, Carver. That's what. Thank you. Yeah. No problem. You know, Canton. You're fine. I, it threw me. It's all good. No worries. I am going to forever be confused. It's all good. I'm not even sure which one is right. I want to go out there and visually verify it. Oh, it's definitely Canton Avenue. Okay. Well, it's Carver because you want to do it incognito. Okay. So any more on that or should, can we move on to the next? Nope. And just let you know that it is after seven 10. So if we want to do minutes, we can do that whenever. Whenever you're ready. Okay. Yeah. So let's just, as long as we're here, this is relatively quick one. Okay. So I'm going to move on to the next one. Okay. So I'm going to move on to the request to extend the Amethyst Brook bridge replacement. This is a town project. And we just got the funding to do this. It doesn't expire until June, but I just figured if we get the extension, then we don't have to be worried about it or lose track of it. So just a request to extend that for an additional three years. Yep. And so no changes to the plan or anything like that. Nope. Okay. So I'm going to move on to the next one. To up to three years. Or additional three years. An additional three years. It won't take us that long. We're hoping. Yeah. An additional three years. Okay. Looking for a voice vote. Laura. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Jen. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. And I as well. Okay. I'm excited. So, and then I'll just do this last one since we're here. Winston court, multi-floor rose. So I got a correspondence from a gentleman who lives in the Winston court condo association or condo. Development. And there's a huge amount of multi-floor rose that's growing right up against the driveway of the property. And this is a site that's about to be repaved. You might recall, we have an RDA there. And. There's, there's a lot of vegetation out there. Along this area. It's, it is within the hundred foot buffer. And I'll just show you some photos. There's like, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. There's weeping willow trees. There's other natural vegetation. That's in there. Hopefully this. Okay. So I guess my PDF didn't really work very well. I'm not sure why it does this. I can read. We can, we can come back to this if you guys want to see the actual photos. This was, this is kind of a tricky one because they already just did an RDA in the parking area. So I'm going to go back to this. And I would ordinarily direct them to file an RDA. And I can still direct them to do so, but I wanted to pass it by you because the only thing they want to do is just remove the invasives. They're not like, remove the invasives and then put in like turf. You know what I mean? They're just like, basically it's overgrown into the driveway. So they want to knock it back. Right. And it's, it's taking over all the natural veg that's growing in that, in that area that's along the parking area. Can we ask them to plant? Probably not. Without doing it as an RDA, we don't have much sort of say like chemicals and other stuff. I'm not sure what they're planning. So Aaron, do you know if they're planning to treat after or just cut? They were just going to cut and remove it. There was no plan to do any treatment of any kind. I think this is, so this is the, so you can see there's trees already existing trees growing there. It's just getting taken over. The trees and stuff are getting taken over and it's killing everything that's in that little buffer that's on, along the edge of the parking lot. I mean, issue if they're just cutting and they're not even getting into spraying or anything, like, can we just. So under wetland protection act, this is actually. They're, they would be completely permitted to do that. So they would be completely permitted to do that. So they would be completely permitted to do that. So under wetland protection act, this is actually. They're, they would be completely permitted to do this without a permit under wetland protection act. This is completely a bylaw question. And they're not doing any native vegetation removal. They simply want to remove the invasive brambles. They're not proposing any spray. So I think really the big thing is that it be removed, removed from the site properly. Other than that. I mean, I, I don't have a problem with what they're proposing to do. I just wanted to pass it by you guys and get your take on it. I don't want to do anything beyond this. So it's everything is within this, this strip that's between the parking area and the lawn. They don't want to go any further than that with any, any removal or treatment or anything. Yeah, I'm sorry, Erin, you just use the word brambles. Is it really multi flora rose or is there other stuff in there as well? Yeah, it's not like green briar or anything like that. It's definitely multi flora. It's really bad out there. We have lots of places that are really bad. I'm so biased. I'm saying like anything that any effort, people are willing to make into getting rid of multi flora rose. I say go for it. Yeah, I agree. That's my take as someone who is now covered in scratches from trying to deal with multi flora. I mean, I'm definitely not a fan of multi flora rose by any means. I don't know. I'm a little hesitant for people starting to remove material without us having knowing exactly what they're doing. So we don't have really have a good plan. We don't have any teeth that are behind it. We could ask for more information as far as details on the plan for removal where the material is going to be taken. Who's going to do it, you know, that type of thing. But I agree with you. I mean, it's really your call. I feel like I'd love clarity on what they're going to do with the materials just to be safe. But and also make like making sure that they are being clear with us that they're not spraying. Or if they are spraying, like that's a different, that's a different ball game. But if they're just hand cutting and then they tell us where they're taking it, that feels, for me, that feels okay. Brett, is your concern that they'll cut things that are not the invasives that they'll just cut it off? That is part of it. So I mean, a lot of people, you know, they have some general idea of what's out there, but not fully. And I mean, they have good intent. I'm not arguing about that. And I agree that. Yeah. The more we can get out the better. But I mean, without treating it, it's just going to come right back anyways. So I'm not quite sure how much good they're going to do. It'll knock it back, which is good. Well, unless they're planning on cutting it every year for. I date years, you know, Which would be good to know. I mean, cause. Yeah, absolutely. I agree. Yeah. And I mean, can we request that? Yeah. We say, Hey. Sounds good. Only do the multi-floor rows. Continue to cut it for a couple of years or something. Yeah. No, then instead of asking what they're going to do with it, remove it. I think you have to tell them what we want. Yeah. Bag it. Can we, can we without, I don't know, but rather than asking, I think we should just tell and then see where it goes from there. I don't know. I agree. I don't see much of an issue with it, but. It's glad. I'm happy that they're bringing it up. Yeah, me too. But so I agree with what you're saying, Fletcher. I'm just not sure how we can do that without the RDA. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And I mean, normally if people are removing anything, we would require an RDA. I get it. That's invasives and we all want them gone though. And this is just our bylaw, right? Just under the bylaw. Yeah. Right. So it's not, it's not chapter 131. It's our Amherst bylaw. Still carry some weight. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm not, I'm not saying it's not, but. You know, bylaws great bylaws. So, so Aaron, just to, just to be really clear, we can't talk about an amendment to the RDA because it's just a bylaw or we, this is because the RDA is already kind of wrapped up. Right. So you can't amend. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I feel bad. I'm leaning towards RDA. Does anyone have a sense of what's been done historically? This is where my short time on the commission doesn't serve me well. Historically would be asked for an RDA. Historically, people are probably doing this and not telling us. That's what I was going to argue. The fact that they're telling us, I'm sort of concerned that if we ask them to do an RDA, they'll say, Oh my God, we've got to stay away from these people. Or they're not going to do it at all. Okay. So this is, this is something that I've is very unique about Amherst and I actually, um, in. In Sturbridge, where I worked previously, they had a separate permit, which was called a letter permit, which is where people could write a letter to the board. On things that were strictly bylaw related. Um, and as part of that, they could, um, They could write a letter to the board, but they could never write it. But the law was strictly bylaw related, and they could get approval from the board in the form of a letter permit, basically the outlined conditions. We don't really have an option for that. The only option with an RDA is following our, our bylaw is posting a legal ad in the paper, which is almost, you know, can be in the realm of two to $250. And then, um, notifying the butters, which in this case, can be up to $1,500 strong $7 per certified mailing. So it gets expensive to take on a community project like this, filing the paperwork and putting a plan together and everything a lot of time and a lot of money or something that's relatively, something that could be done just with clippers on a weekend. You know what I mean? But we need to make sure that that's all that they're doing is clippers on a weekend. That's my concern, Erin. I'm totally with you. I think that if I tell this gentleman that a permit to file an RDA, I think what will happen is that they're just going to let it go would be my guess as opposed to doing something about it. What if we did something along the lines of saying that if they did anything more than X, so did more than remove it by hand, something like that, then an RDA would be required. If they are just going to do Y or move it by hand or however we want to phrase it, then we're fine moving forward. And that way we know that if they do do something extra, well, they were warned and we can do an enforcement order, not that we're going to. I agree with what Brett's saying, and I'm curious if, sorry, really loud truck, I'm curious if that's something that we need to maybe, and not to open a complete can of worms, but look into amending the bylaw to add something around like invasive removal by hand, clarifying what's meant to be done with it, but then also saying if it goes beyond clipping by hand, then you need to file an RDA or restart the process. Does it reach that level, Erin, or is it enough to just kind of do these, not ad hoc, but sort of asterisks judgment calls? I think it could go either way. I think we have been looking at revising the bylaw and there's definitely a lot of revisions that need to happen to the bylaw, so that's something that could be considered long-term. But I think it's really, this type of situation right now is one of those situations where it could be at the commission's discretion to allow it. If you think it can be done responsibly, like we could issue an official letter with conditions, like Brett said, state the limits of what can be done is invasives only by hand must be removed offsite properly, and anything beyond that would result in basically enforcement or a permit filing. That seems good to me. I think for me, it's really like the idea that the alternative is for them to leave it and for it to continue to expand is just that's so much worse in my mind. And so I'd rather like figure out what the method is and also make it so that it's consistent for folks. That seems important as well. I'd also like to see added in there perhaps a statement that this is a very invasive species and so it would be useful to do it by year, by year, by year. Right, like having an invasive species management kind of like section or something around that might not be a bad idea to consider. And this is also very context specific where this one is fairly, from what I can tell is fairly far away from the wetland itself. And so if it was a lot of invasives right up to or in the wetland, we might wanna think about this different. And so, but given what we're dealing with here, yeah, and with this sort of caveat and approach, I'm okay. So a letter with just very strict parameters that anything beyond that would require a filing and that if anything's done over what's being outlined, then it could result in enforcement action if the conditions aren't followed kind of. Specifying like that. And we encourage you to continue next year. Okay. Yeah, are we, okay. I think limiting it to just hand loppers might be a little too restrictive because it's really difficult to cut this stuff. Yeah. So are we okay with them using equipment or you just only want hand tools only? Is that, or was that considered just hand tools only? Or are we just gonna keep it like, get rid of it any way you can, but properly as well? I mean, the controls include a saw, like a mini little, little brush saw. Yeah. If you're using it by hand, it would, but I would like to avoid getting into something that would be more of a like a brush hog on the end of a tractor. I feel like that would just make a disastrous mess of this. So yeah, I think- It's just because we got to be, you know, because these guys might have an idea of like, yeah, we're just gonna bring a brush hog in, knock it down and that's it. So I'm just making sure that we're- But that feels like a good line, right? Like if it cannot be removed by hand tools and coming back with an RDA seems appropriate, at least in my mind, right? Like if you need to go brush hog or if you need to- Rips out? Yeah. Exactly, it rips out like, then that feels like an RDA kind of situation. In my, I mean, in my mind, that's my, yeah. And Erin, I'm sure you would do it in the letter, but it'd probably be worth in the letter also just saying thank you. I mean, so it's great that they came in front of us. And so we don't wanna really scare people away. Yeah, yeah. And so- I think that's it. We're gonna work with us and we're trying to work with them. I think that's a really massively important point. Yeah, I agree. Awesome. Well, I think that's, I think that's very fair. Cool. Yeah, so you have what you need for that one? I do. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Oops, your voice is cutting out there, Erin. Oh, he is with us. Okay, there he is. Here. Is that just on my end or are other people having a hard time hearing it, Erin? Yeah, I also can't hear. Yeah, I cut out for a second. Oh, guys, hear me now. Yes. Okay, I'm just turning off my video just in case it's a Wi-Fi issue. That's very magical, she's very Wi-Fi. Dave is now with us. So we could jump to Dave's report if you'd like. Okay, yep. And we're still, yeah. And then at that point, we can also start to go into our hearings as well. So we are of time. You know, I'm gonna save you some time tonight because I really don't have a report tonight, so. And it's such a wild and crazy week already that I'm gonna leave you a little time in your agenda. Erin's got lots of updates and reports going on with the various things in the field, but I think I'm good tonight. Okay, thank you, Dave. So Erin, why don't we move on to our hearings then and then we can come back to our other items? Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. And so that would be, so we're starting off with a notice of intent, which was continued from 32421. So this is Haines Hydrologic Consulting for Amherst-Pore Farm. Correct. And they have requested a continuance to May 12th in order to do some additional work on the Notice of Intent Application and solidify a few things, mainly a farm plan, I believe, that they're working with NRCS on. So we, I guess the first line of business is to request the continuance for the next meeting. So looking for a motion for such. I move to continue the public hearing to 214 Palmyra Lane to 512-2021 and 730. Second. So voice vote, Laura. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. Jen. Aye. Letcher. Aye. And Larry. Aye. Okay. And so it looks like there's also a little bit of an update in regards to the restoration plan as well, Erin. Yes. The Huckleberry that was shown on the restoration plan was unavailable from New England wetland plants. So they asked if we would consider another native non-agricultural producing plant species to replace Huckleberry. And they also noted that there are a lot of natives that are currently re-establishing in the wetlands that were cleared and that they would like to favor those native emerging species in the restoration areas, both of which I thought were completely reasonable and fine from my perspective. That makes sense. Do they have any suggestions or thoughts on what the other natives might be? No, but I think at the next meeting we could get more clarity on what Dave was able to find from New England wetland plants as far as species. Yep. Okay, that all sounds good. And yeah, just if it's another sort of berry producing good wildlife species, that'd be great, but it's based on availability. Yep. That'll make sense. Okay. Anything else on this one, Erin? Nope, that's it on that one. Okay. So I have 735. So we can move on to Tafino, which is going to be continued anyways though. Yes. So just as far as an update on this one, the issue that we've been having is that we're just at an abnormally low rainfall for the season. And so we've been holding off on having art go out and look at the vernal pool boundaries because it seems concerning to confirm the vernal pool boundaries if we're practically in a drought right now. And I've been communicating with Jen offline about this just to get some professional insight on how to approach, you know, if we should wait a little while, ride it out and see if we could, if it looks like we're going to be getting more rain down the line or if we should have him go out and just move forward. And Jen, I would, I guess, defer to you because at this point, the recommendation is to wait and hold off if we can until later in May. Yeah. So just to fill everyone in. So our streamflow and groundwater levels are at abnormally dry conditions even after the rain last week. And in some areas just north of Amherst we're actually in a moderate drought already. And we're kind of in this weather pattern. I'm sure you've noticed that even forecasted rain doesn't really materialize. So the seven day QPF, like long-term aggregate modeled forecast is still for not much rain for the next week. So the weather pattern isn't looking like it's going to change. So it's certainly not conditions right now, definitely. And I don't think it's looking any better in the next couple of weeks. But what happens, Jen, if it stays like this for the next month or so? Yeah. I mean, that was my last question and my last email to Erin, which was like how late in the season and Fletcher you might know this better, but like is there, do we get to a too late for vernal pool surveys? I mean, we haven't not been in abnormally dry conditions this spring. So it's not like we like missed it. It's just that it hasn't been the right conditions. So I don't know. Yeah, mid-June is the latest you can do. Yeah. Things start to really green up. The water is going to get sucked out. Yeah. And now it's actually, we're not going to get the stream flow and like wetland water level response now that we have leaf out because less water is going to make it to water bodies now that things are green. Have you consulted with Art about it? Like, hey, should we push this or not push it? Well, Art has said that he's, and I think I included in the one drive correspondence. I mean, egg masses are in. You know, I'm seeing egg masses and everything's there. Even though it's low, but that water is going to go away pretty soon. And I mean, I'm seeing vernal pools out there. I mean, they're out there just not, I guess not as prevalent as they should be. We're getting three quarters of an inch in the next couple of days, that might help. Yeah. And he did say he could look at other indicators. Water stain. I'm sorry, you're cutting it in out again. You guys hear me now? All right. A little bit. I mean, what we were saying was that the last thing in the email from Art, right? Which was that they're the indicators, water stain leaves, watermarks and rocks, moss, trim lines, et cetera. But that really until June 21st is the best time to look. Is that right? Right. And waiting that long is not ideal. Like right now is ideal. Right. But I think we should- This is the only thing that's holding us up with this Tafino thing right now? Yeah. I think that we should either say to Art, use your judgment. And if you don't think that we're getting enough water, then we're going to have to wait or say, do it by such and such a date before the next meeting. And let's just move forward with it. Like kind of render a decision one way or the other. Will the result of this make any difference in terms of what they suggest as far as lots? Might they revise their boundaries? Right. Yeah. I mean, my experience with Art, he's pretty good. I don't know, Jenny, you got anything else you want to throw on it? It sucks, man, we need rain. I know, I can't believe we're setting up for this more drought. I mean, I'm checking just to see if the drought early warning system updated at all. Erin, can you remind me how long this is like, how long it's technically quote unquote good for? Like is there, could we set an order of conditions to recheck it? I mean, is that, that feels a little sketch? No, okay, thank you. That was all. No, and this is already as of October, this will be year number two. Yeah, I know, I know. It's ongoing open hearing. So this is exactly what we can control. This feels like we have to move forward one way or another at some point. I mean, I'm perfectly fine giving another sort of two weeks-ish. If somebody feels a little bit longer, but after that, we just, yeah, I mean, so there are other indicators we can use. So it's not that we don't have anything, they're just less than ideal. So that's my feeling on it. So basically continue, yeah, see what Art has to say. And yeah, maybe some miracle happens. And yeah, in two weeks, it looks like there is actually rain coming. We can always delay a little bit more, but otherwise. Kind of early for the hurricane season. Just a little. I'm gonna just share my screen again and I'm gonna turn off my video just so that you guys can see for the motion. Okay, is everybody comfortable with that? So I mean, we're basically punting and giving it back to Art with our sort of concerns, but at least we have a way forward. Yeah, I think that's a good plan. I definitely don't think now. It's good. Okay, so looking for a motion then. Well, should it be then or should it be further along? I mean, the motion is continuing to 512, but we give our investigator more time. It doesn't have to be 512 necessarily, does it? Could it be a week, two weeks after that? Yeah, I mean, it's really up to you. You guys could give them till the end of May. You could say you have till the end of May or you could say, if you're not comfortable doing it, then please let us know that it's really- That's a chance too to be able to wheel. Yeah, I'd like that idea Larry. So going for our second meeting in May, just give us a little more flexibility. But at that point, I think, yeah, before that meeting, I think he should probably do something one way or the other. Right, exactly, exactly. So should we just continue it to the next meeting so we can check in on it in the next meeting? Why not go to the full month? Well, so Ted Parker didn't actually submit the request for continuance. I told him that the peer review couldn't move forward. But it's, again, it's completely at your discretion if you want to push it to the 26th. I say the 26th. If you say, you can make a motion as such. All right, I move to continue the Patino and Associates period for lots number one, two, five, six, seven and eight to five- 28, 26. 26, 21 at 7.35 p.m. Okay, second. Okay, looking for a voice vote. Anna. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Thank you. Aye. Larry. Aye. Jen. Aye. Laura. Amen. And aye for me as well. So this is continued. Okay. So I have after, so we're good on time. So we can actually start our next one. And so this is a new one. So I need to formally open it. Okay. This public meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31, wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. This is a request for determination from Catherine Ellis, a request removal of 19 hazard trees in a 10 by 10 deck of existing home within a buffer zone to bordering vegetative wetlands at 392 West Street map 20C parcel five. If there are any applicants here who are associated with this, you can raise your hand and we can bring you into the meeting as a panelist. So I don't see Catherine on. And so if it's okay with you, Brett, I'm just gonna present what the application is just because I don't know maybe something happened and she couldn't be here. Okay, sounds good. And yeah, I was out there and yeah, part of it seems pretty straightforward and part of it not to me. Okay. So I'll start with photos. So this 392 West Street was a for sale last year and I got a lot of inquiries about it but everybody who wanted to buy it wanted to cut down these big trees that were around it. There's a lot of very large white pines, very large spruce, very large hemlock that are very close to the home. They are having a problem in the where the sewer line comes out of the home and goes out to the road with roots growing into the sewer line. So they are having a snake put in by, I guess a dare to see if which trees exactly are causing the backup of the sewer line into the house. They filed initially as an emergency certification to remove these trees because of the backup of the sewer into the house and also stating that the trees are a hazard to the home. And I said we could approve the trees that were growing into the sewer line for an emergency cert but that the other ones needed a permit and so she decided to just file a permit for all of them so that she could get a tree company in there and do it all at once. Some of the trees are like this one here, this tree she wanted to take out it's just being killed by a bittersweet and just get a sense of the size and scale and also the proximity to the house of all these trees that she wants to remove. And then the other piece of this is a small deck that they wanted to put in a 10 by 10 foot deck at the corner. There's an existing corner of the house where there's a sliding glass door right up in that corner. They wanted to put a small deck. So that's what the permit application is for. And so Erin, do we know what the distances are for these trees and particularly the deck from protected areas? Ward Smith came out. We know that they're in the buffer zone. Ward Smith had submitted this, Ward Smith, the wetland scientist had submitted this originally as part of the emergency certification request. There was not a formal wetland delineation done but we know that Plum Brook is on the property immediately abutting this site. And so I would guess that a portion of this lot falls within the 200 foot riverfront area. And there's definitely BVW on either side of Plum Brook so I would, from visiting the site, a lot of these trees are definitely within 100 feet of the wetland. Okay, yeah. I mean, so definitely there are a lot of hazard trees out there. I mean, it's crazy how that, I don't think the pictures did a justice. I mean, it just kind of tucked into it and a lot of those trees are kind of scary in terms of damage and hazard. So I agree with that. But... What are the red dots that are on the map here? Are those indicate trees? Yes, yeah. And are those the ones they're interested in? They're the ones they wanna remove around the house. Yeah, and they're all marked out there. Those are the white marks on those. Yeah, right, I saw those. Yeah. But my question is the deck. And so I don't have an issue with the trees but it's more of the deck. And I mean, do we know if the deck is within, you know, is it outside 50 feet? I assume it is, but I'm not positive. It looks like the edge of the house is closer than the deck is. Yeah, from a visual standpoint, I do believe it's over 50 feet away but there was no formal wetland delineation done or measurement. So under Wetland Protection Act, if you are outside of 50 feet with a deck, you don't even need a permit under Wetland Protection. If you're within 50 feet, you do need a permit which we have here. And then under our local bylaw, it doesn't really matter anything as far as the structure would require a permit. So just to give the regulatory explanation on that, the decks. Yeah, so that's why it would have been nice to know if it was like inside or outside the 50. I mean, does it, it looks like that deck though, doesn't go beyond the current edge of the house, is that correct? That's what I said, it looks like. Right, and it also- It's within the house, that corner of the house, it's not protruding out from that south side there, or I'm sorry, north side. But it is adding impervious to, you know, to that area. You know, I'm looking at the aerial map of the site and it looks to me like the location for that deck, et cetera, is like 150 to 200 feet from the brook. Yeah, but there's BVW, Larry. Okay. Yeah, so they're, and they're also, Aaron, they're only proposing the, it looks like the red dots only go a couple like less than 25 feet from the house on the north side there. Yes, they're all sort of immediately surrounding the house. Yeah, I've seen it, I mean, I could, yeah, I went about the house. Yeah, they just put a new roof on the house because they have a problem with mold. Yeah, it's all spruce and havelock and pine. And do I remember correctly, Aaron, that they are just planning to remove the trees and they're going to leave the stumps? They're just, yeah, they're just grinding them down. They're planning to leave the stumps. And she is proposing replantings. She's proposing to replant 20 bushes and trees, combination of lilac, blueberry bushes, and Arba Vitey. And she indicated that they're not planning on touching, they have seven acres in the back. They're not planning on touching anything out behind the house at all. They like it natural, they just want to protect the house for safety reasons and make it so that nothing falls on the house. They just bought it six months ago? She, I'm not exactly sure when the closing was, but she's been, initially, when I spoke to her, she was not going to do anything about the trees, but then the issue with the sewer, the sewer started backing up in their basement and then they discovered the mold issue after they bought it. So they're feeling like, even though they didn't want to do anything about it, that they kind of have to. The deck also, there's an existing sliding glass door that has like a three-foot drop-off. So it's kind of like the door to nowhere. There's no stairs or anything there. I think there used to be a deck there. And so maybe Brett, with your concern about the impervious surface adding to that deck, we could, I don't know if we could ask them to do, this isn't like, I'm still proposing put the deck in, but you know what, Pete Westover uses those diamond piers to help put in footings for like bridgewalks. These you can use for posts for decking. You know what I'm talking about those diamond piers? And those that you don't have to dig, because otherwise you don't, otherwise you'd have to dig four feet down and put posts in, but these diamond piers have the pipes that you just, you drill, you bang in. They're a little bit better than putting in four-foot posts. Yeah, if that helps at all. A little bit, it's still adding some amount of impervious. I realize that underneath it's not cement, so it's better than that. Yeah, but still, and again, I mean, as long as it's outside 50, I'm okay. Once it gets within 50, I'm a little more dicey on it. So, and just would have been nice to know that it is outside 50. So I'm feeling like it probably is, so I'm okay. Yeah, okay. Steam heat, steam heat. So, the 1900 building from 1900. Yeah, so are there any other issues that anybody has with this? I mean, so obviously the trees need to go down unfortunately. You know, I assume that they're, it sounds like they're gonna do minimal impact, so the roots will stay there, so that's important. They have some level of a replanting plan, so that'll be good. Dex gonna be small. So again, I'm gonna say that it's outside 50. So apologies if I missed it, but just, is there a plan for the loggers when they take the trees down to make sure the trees aren't going towards the wetlands? Like, are we avoiding any kind of expansion of equipment or trees towards Plumbrook? Just because it can be really tricky to get tall trees. It's hard logistically to do that, and so I just don't want them to have a logging truck in between those trees and the wetlands. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, that's a great question. She was originally gonna have them chipped and the chips remain on site, but I had suggested that she find somebody to remove the trees on site so that they don't have an abundance of chips. Yeah, yeah. The other thing is just like, where are they staging? Like, are they doing this with a bucket truck? Where are they staging the truck? Cause those guys are pretty picky about, you know, making sure the truck is level, stuff like that. Yeah, I mean, these are gonna be close enough to the house. They're gonna have to be very careful. Exactly, yeah. Yeah, they're gonna put a crane up for us. Yeah, crane in the driveway. Yeah. And there's gonna be guys climbing those trees and delimiting them by like each little wind. They just did that at my house like two weeks ago and it was bananas, like literally five-foot chunks. But I think can we say like air away from the wetland as much as possible while being safe? Is that a... Flag out the 50. That sounds better than what I said. Drawing tool is not great. I'm trying to get an idea of where the 50-foot line is from that deck. My observation is, can you guys see this screen? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Can you see my cursor? Yeah. My observation is that the BBW is extending to approximately this line. You can kind of see it. It's like the deciduous line really. The satellite photo that I'm looking at has got a lot more greenery in it. More trees. Yeah, this is a leaf-off image. And so, Erin, that line that you drew, that's 50 feet? A prop, yeah. Yep. Okay, cool. Thank you. That's helpful for me. Okay. So, yeah, I definitely agree with that. Yeah, doing it safely, but yeah, minimizing damage. But I think they're going to... It's gonna be pricey, but... Oh, yeah. You know it. Yeah. Yeah. I can imagine trying to take down that many trees, but... Okay. Yeah, anybody see anything else that they want to address with this one? Okay. So, Erin has the motion on there. I think we just need to add a additional condition related to minimizing any impact to the wetland when the trees are being felled as much as is safely possible. All right, I'll make a motion to... I move for a negative determination of applicability at 392 West Street and a positive determination of applicability under the bylaw and with the condition that everything will be done to mitigate as safely as possible away from the wetland. Do we want to add flagging off the BBW? I would say, yeah. And flag out the BBW for the tree work guys to know where that limit of work was going to be as long as it's safe and within their purview to do so. I think I'm gonna let you. Okay, so voice vote, Laura. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Kletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. Jen. Aye. Anna. Aye. And Aye as well. So we are good with this one. Okay, so I'm gonna move on to our next one which is another request for determination. So I shall formally open it. This meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended an article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst and general bylaws. This is request for determination from Keith Morris for New England Central Railroad for determining whether the sensitive area boundaries to linear and submitted plan are accurate New England Central Railroad right of way. And so do we have anybody from the railroad here who would like to join us? Nope. Yeah, I'm not seeing Keith on the call. I actually mailed him earlier today and I didn't hear back. Okay, so Erin, are you comfortable presenting this then? I can give you guys an overview of the project or the application because it's not this. So the work is not to do any work. The work is to. Linear. Or the permit rather is to confirm the boundaries of sensitive areas where no spraying can take place and that this is done that the railroad submits in an annual five year that's required by state law for management of right of way. And so we had talked about this briefly at the last meeting as far as notification of butters. We've had kind of discussion about whether a butter should be notified for this and it was determined that we would not do that. So I did do a sensitive area desktop analysis of this just to compare the areas that they had shown as no spray compared to sensitive areas were shown on the GIS. And what's tricky is I know previously like Beth and Stephanie actually have written the line to see wetlands and it's great if you're looking for wetlands but of course we have natural heritage issues. We also have well head issues. So I just did this to kind of get a general sense of where there might be issues. So I'll just run through this really quickly. So the stretch from the Leverett line down looks good where they have the yellow line is no spray but once they get to Cushman Brook I have a little bit of concern about this. Like they have a no spray just going over the Brook right here if you can see that but there's actually a rather large natural heritage priority polygon that runs along the railroad line over Cushman Brook. So I feel like that area needs to be incorporated into the no spray zone. Then also with that Aaron shouldn't there be some doesn't look like a very large buffer on either side of Cushman. I'm not sure what the scale is. So on their map on the left-hand side it looks like just very small around Cushman. Around the Brook you mean the no spray? Correct. Yeah, so this, let me see if I can do a little annotate. I mean maybe that's larger than I'm seeing. So yeah. So this is the no spray right here this little tiny blob but let me just back out of this for a second. But I would think that they'd want at least 100 feet on either side of the Brook. Yeah, I completely agree with you that that's for the Cushman Brook that that's grossly inadequate for a no spray zone and the fact that there's a natural heritage polygon that extends on either side right along the rail line. It presents a problem for me. Also there is wetland that is, so see this area, let me get the annotate again. This area here is shown as a spray zone, the Pine Street Bridge Street intersection and there is actually a wetland right there. So that area I also have an issue with. So you can see that there. Mm-hmm. Looks like they captured the no spray for this zone but then as we move further south. So you can see right here is the intersection of Henry Street and the railroad and this is I guess a question I have. There's this big wetland complex that is right here. Kind of there's a, it passes under the railroad here and then back under again and that's all shown as a spray zone. Yeah, that's a big, there's a lot of white pine right in that area. So I could see how they can miss it but there's definitely, it's definitely wet there. Yeah. I walk through there occasionally. So there's certainly, I could see how they probably did like a desktop analysis themselves with some aerial photography or something. They probably definitely missed that. Mm-hmm. And the salamander crossing is pretty close to there, isn't it? The salamander crossing is north of there. So they have that area captured here, this zone here is that. But yeah, so and once you get, once you get a little further down, this looks okay. And then there is another issue here which is, so this is coming in from Belcher Town. This is Lawrence Swamp. And then, so they show no spray through Lawrence Swamp. Once you get up to Stanley Street by the intersection of Southeast Street, they show it as a spray zone again. But if you look at the, there's this cluster here of priority habitat and it's full of potential and certified rental pools. So they kind of missed this area here with their spray zone as well, which is kind of concerning to me. So I definitely have some issues with their boundaries that they've presented. And I did ask for some clarification on how they established these, but that was hopefully gonna be dealt with this evening. So I guess how we would deal with this is either deny their RDA and say you guys need to revise this and incorporate the additional no spray zones, or you could go back to them and ask them to revise this based on the areas that we've identified. The other thing is that we could potentially ask for a, for me to go out and do a field verification by driving down the line. I know that that's been done in the past. I'm not, certainly not unwilling to do that. If you guys want me to, I will. So that's also something that could be requested. Would, and I assume also a third party would be another option, Erin? Yeah, I mean, if you guys wanted to do a third party review of the sensitive areas, you could certainly request that. This is just an RDA. So, you know, what? I'm just worried about your time. So, yeah, yeah. But with that said, you are willing to do that? You can get a ride in the choo-choo. Well, I'm not sure with COVID how I feel about that, to be honest. I have a newborn at home and I'm a little nervous about being trapped. Hang on the outside. What's that? Give your own cart. My own cart? If they gave you your entire own train car. Yeah. Like an open one. Actually, can I go? If you guys want me to, I will be more than happy to do it. I just feel like that would be a lot easier. I don't know. I mean, asking for a third party review, unless Erin, if you're willing to actually do that, it looks like you've identified the areas. These are, I think we were all, probably agree with you about all these areas. So, trying to see, yeah, how... It looks like the... Well, Erin, I don't think Erin should have to do this if she doesn't want to. Yeah, I was just going to put Erin in a... No, newborn COVID, closed cart. That's what I was asking. Right. Yeah. This is a perennial problem. It's going to occur again. I think it's appropriate to identify the regions that are important and therefore it maybe makes sense to have a third party go through there and identify what the areas are for the continual use of that area. I think Dave is being very polite in putting his hand up, but it might have something to add. Dave, do you have some thoughts here? I don't know if I'm allowed to call on Dave, but you're being so good with your little hand. Well-handled on that. I was like, do we say something about it? I don't know. I'll just awkwardly throw it out there. Sorry. I can't remember who I agree with on this, but no, I think what Larry was saying is, I really don't think Erin has time to do this right now. I think the options are either you go with the areas that she's identified or you have a third party requirement for this. And my argument for that is it's a perennial problem. They do this every few years. Right. So it's a continual problem. Yeah. I mean, presumably once we did it once, then it's going to be good and we could just check it. Wetlands do change, et cetera, et cetera, but not technically, but yeah, I just think we are really running up against the wall here in terms of Erin's time. And I just don't think there is time in the week or the month to do this. And it's a very long property. I mean, it's not wide obviously, but if the alternative is for like a walk-in, I mean, that's a long process. It'd be nice, but so, and I mean, they were so far off on this. I'm a little nervous about not getting somebody out in the field. If they were closer, I'd be, oh, okay. But actually taking with an attitude that they know what they're doing and therefore they're going to do with that. I mean, they're using a scant search to make sure they've got the things right. I think they should do a little better job now. Yeah. Okay. So I'm hearing support for third party. I don't see any sort of downsides from our side. Anybody have any objections to that or additions? No. And we can ask for that. Sorry, guys, I had a little baby emergency. I missed a section. Oh, no sweat. We're putting you on top of the train. No, I'm just kidding. We're third party reviews, the direction I think that we're leaning. And can we ask for that? And can we? Yeah. Thank you, Fletcher. Yeah, I would say whatever you guys want to ask for, you should. And if you want to have them reevaluate it, you can do that too. Hearing objection, actually, to that idea. That seems good to me. I think a third party is the way to do it. Yeah. And so I think what we'd be doing is this would just be a continuation with the requirement that a third party is completed before we pick this back up. It's too bad that they're not here because then we can figure out what sort of timing we should do. They might be able to do it quickly. I don't know if they can do it by the 12th. That seems really tight to me, but, I mean, Aaron, do you have a feeling if we should go for the 12th or 26th? I would go for the 12th just so that we can speak to them and address it with them. Okay, that sounds good to me. Do you have a time on the 12th? I think we opened up our 735. Yes, yep. Okay. So looking for a motion for continuation with a request, demand for a third party review. Okay, I will pass a motion for a continuation to better delineate the wetlands along the railways, requesting a third party review and continuation for May 12th at 735. Second. Okay, LaRoy. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. Jen. Aye. Laura. Aye. And Anna. Aye. And I for me as well. Okay. So we are good with that and that is our last official hearing that we have at this point. And so my apologies. I forgot that we do have at least one person from the public here. Somebody who's going by Joshua. Joshua, I usually I'm a little bit better. I guess I'm a little off tonight. I do ask if there are public comments on things. So it's a little things have sort of moved on but if you do have any public comments at this point on anything we said if you want to raise your hand that are late than never. So about no, yeah. Okay. And so I just have to, oops. Erin, I don't have the ability to allow Joshua to speak. Okay. So Joshua, you'll be able to speak. Thank you. Sorry, my name is actually Amelia. This is my partner's Zoom. So I realized it'll say Joshua LaPierre. I work for the Hitchcock Center and it's been so interesting being here tonight. Actually, this has been really lovely to hear. I feel like I get a new perspective on everything that's going around in Amherst. Erin knows that I'm here because I contacted her really recently about something that I put a land use request in for but I know it was very, very recently. So I'm just not sure if that will get talked about tonight. And that's the only comment I have. Okay. Thank you. In which land use? We do have two, I think two weddings. Oh, oh, mine's from, mine is for Wildwood Conservation Area and Harkness Brook Conservation Area. Oh, oh, I'm right there. I'm so sorry, I didn't see that. I would have just not said anything. So nope, not a problem. So, okay. So thank you for hanging out, Amelia. We'll be, or actually, yeah. So, Erin, are we good to go with that one now or is there something else? Yes. So the, so we'll start, I guess, with Hitchcock Center since we have Amelia here. They have two requests and one is for the use of Harkness Conservation Area on May 1st from 10 to 11 and one on May 8th from one to two. And maybe Amelia would like to just talk about those or if you guys have questions about those. Sure. Can you still hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, wonderful. So yeah, the Hitchcock Center, myself and then a community member who I don't know if they're here at all, if you only saw one public person that they might have left. Their name is Natalie Elliott. They've been working with me after receiving an LCC grant from the Amherst Community Council. And the grant was for two like nature kind of family walks at these, at two nature conservation areas that are near housing, different houses or housing areas in Amherst. So one will be near Village Park and one would be near Rolling Green. And so that would be the Harkness Conservation Area and the Wildwood Conservation Area. And so my first request is just to be able to give these walks for a maximum of 18 people. At the moment, I only have 14 for the ones signed up at the Harkness Conservation Area. And so it would just be a family nature guided walk and we would go through on these trails and I would basically talk with the people there about the flora and fauna that is there and kind of just have that particular housing area interact more with the area that's around it. Though that's my first request, another part of this grant was to provide a online resource for people that visit those conservation areas. And we had projected an idea of creating basically a small sign with a QR code on it and then instructions on how to use it. And then that QR code would lead to a Hitchcock Center website and that would give more information about all the different things that are in those particular conservation areas. So the second request is to be able to install those sites or install those signs at the trail heads of both of those areas. Doing minimally invasive practices and just asking for that permission and if any of you have any guidance on where the sign should be put or if that is even a possibility. This is kind of a new program or I guess a new project that we're trying. So this would be our first request to do that. Interesting. Okay, thank you, Amelia. No problem. So why don't we deal with it as two separate pieces? And so the first one is related to the family visits and they seem to be fairly small and I assume that there's not going to be any impact. You're not going to be collecting anything. You're, it's going to leave no trace in all of that. That is correct. And there's not going to be any, you said that it's related to housing that's right there. So there's no parking issues? There's not. No, we've already spoken to the property managers at both the housing complexes, Village Park and Rolling Green and Rolling Green has provided us with some of their own parking. And then with Village Park, we're just going to leave it to bus routes and biking. Great. Yeah. So both of those seem fairly straightforward to me. Does anybody have any comments or questions about the site visits or the family visits? Okay. So why don't we deal with that one first? So we'd be looking for a motion to approve that land use application. I move that we approve the land use application for the Hitchcock Center on May 1st from 10 to 11 a.m on the, on the Harkness Conservation Area as well at, can I do both at once? Sure. As well as May 8th from one to 2 p.m. in the Wildwood Conservation Area. Second. Excellent. LaRoy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Ben. Hi. Laura. Hi. And then I for me as well. So Amelia, you're all set on that one. And so Karen will send you some additional information. Okay. So now you have the other proposal that's related to signage being added there. That one's a little more complicated, I think. So, I mean, in general, the only signage that we have out there is official sort of sign, a town signage. Obviously the Hitchcock does, Hitchcock Center does great work. So it's not like it's a commercial venture that you're trying to put out there. But, you know, we usually require, you know, approval of what the sign looks like, what it's going to be there, you know, what it's going to say on there. How it's made. Dave has something to say again. Just Dave alert. Thank you. Dave, you're going to start looking for those little hands. You're fine. It's all right. Oh, thank you. Yeah, thank you, Brett. And I do have to apologize. I'm having some battery issues with my surface here. So I'm hoping you don't lose me, but if you do, I may still listen on my phone. But yeah, my first thought, and this is kind of an organic thought here based on these, you know, the number of proposals we're getting now is kind of increasing. And I kind of see a trend here. And I think what Aaron and I are going to try to do in anticipation of upcoming requests, whether they be for weddings or baptisms or duck races or whatever, we get them all, is that Aaron and I will talk about the proposals before your meeting. I'd like to have a staff recommendation come with each of these, you know, in advance. Because sometimes we make a recommendation. Sometimes we don't. I think we should have some consistent, you know, recommendation, you know, thumbs up, thumbs down, caution maybe, and maybe some conditions under which staff would recommend or not. So anyway, I'll just put that out there. Yeah, so the sign proposal is a little more, a little more challenging for me. And this is related to the number of requests we're getting these days. And as I think of all the signs we have out there, in fact, I talked to Aaron about this earlier, I'm a little, I'm a little troubled. We have kind of a branding challenge, I think, for conservation lands. We have, you know, the signs that were developed by Carol Gray for the Bluebird Meadow. We have the story walk up in North Amherst. We have the poetry walk on the Emily Dickinson Trail. The Kestrel Land Trust would very much like us to come up with a trail signage system around their new office on Bay Road, as well as Podick and Catherine Cole. So I'm feeling a little bit like we need, we, the town working with the commission, need to get a consistent kind of branding and, yeah, just something that is more standardized that I've had even confusion that people are representing that the trails, who owns the trails? Who owns the conservation lands? So while I like the proposal, I guess my only thought would be, could, you know, I would not wanna have these up permanently. They might be there for a period of time with a clear beginning, middle and end, but I would not be supportive of having these QR code signs up there permanently. I think it just creates confusion for the public as to who owns the land, what the rules and regulations are, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm supportive of the educational work that the Hitchcock Center does, but perhaps you could put a sunset clause on the signs going up and they're up there for, you know, a month or two, but I don't, I would not recommend these be permanent at this time. And I wondered, Dave, if there's some way to, I like what you're saying and I agree with what you're saying that we need to figure out sort of a long-term solution. You know, one of the things that came to my mind, Dave, is just maintenance of the signs. And I think you've dealt with that with the sunset. Without that, that would be, you know, everything is gonna fall apart at some point. And I wonder if there's some way, like, you know, in the future, if we can think about it a little bit more, a way to integrate it. And so, you know, have an official town sign, if appropriate, yeah, add a QR code that could go, but, you know, it would be sort of a town sign that that would go on. And, you know, there could be a town website that relates to all of these so that when you go to the site, there's an indication there that the website is available. You can look at your phone and go ahead to that website and find out more information. Yeah. And again, maybe this is a wonderful program and it's, I will say it sounds terrific because it's reaching out to underserved families and children in our town. So maybe the idea would be to do kind of a, a, you know, beginning, middle, and end to the signs being up and then we could revisit the QR code. And of course, you know, we've partnered with the Hitchcock Center for, you know, 40, 50 years in town. So maybe that we look at this as a pilot, see how it goes, see what kind of response the Hitchcock Center gets. I saw a draft of the sign, which clearly noted the, you know, partnership with the conservation commission in the town. So that's my only recommendation is that we try it perhaps as a pilot. I will say that this is a very timely conversation because on Monday, Aaron and I are actually meeting with a local graphic artist to talk about coming, developing something that we could present to the commission for a sign program, a family of signs for our conservation land. So perhaps the solution here is to make it a short-term installation, not unlike what you did up at Mill River with the story walk. The story walk is not permanent. It is there for a period of time and may come down, you know, at some point in the future. Yeah, I mean, I was going to just say that for me, the sunset clause feels solid on this one to add that in. I really love this project. I would also, you know, I think, Dave, you kind of read my mind in terms of it'd be great if we could have some imagery. I know not the town seal maybe, but so I was excited to hear you thinking about some sort of graphic representation to demonstrate that, that also as signs need to be replaced in other conservation areas could include that so that people start to recognize what conservation area or what conservation land is and how it exists here. So I, both of those things seem really good. And if you need any help, I'm happy that that's a super interesting project. So I'm into it. Let me know. Again, I was going to suggest following up on this that the QR code can come back to the town rather than to some other sites. So there's a coordination here on this project. Well, but Larry, I mean, Larry, I guess to kind of push back on that a little, if they're going to do the work on the more information about it and build their website and then they can link back to ours. I don't think that, I mean, I'm not sure we have the bandwidth to create a whole new website around everything that they're saying that they're going to do on their site. So I think as long as they link back to the conservation site at some point, wouldn't that be maybe going to be beneficial? My point is not necessarily based around ours, but the QR is ours, not theirs. So it goes through us to them. Can I use still here? So we're still controlling the QR. Okay, sorry. But Larry, that would still take some, a lot of work on our part to update our website to make sure that that's always linking to theirs. I don't know. I'm not sold on that part and I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not sold on that. Okay. I think that we have a couple of things going on, but yeah, why don't we throw back to Amelia and see what your reactions are to the conversation so far? No, I really like this. I really appreciate, I mean this, it's been kind of in the works for a couple months. And so I'm so happy that I'm actually getting to talk to you all about it. I really liked the idea of putting it out as a pilot program. We had already planned all the content that we've created which is in English and Spanish on our website is only around the summer season, really the spring and summer season. So we had really not planned it into the fall. And I think that we're able to keep track of site hits on our website and it'd be really interesting to see if this is effective method, I don't know if it is or not yet, it's just an idea. I don't use QR codes myself ever, but I know a lot of people in their 20s that do. So, I would really like to see if this is viable and I'm very much in support of this being a temporary signage. I do, we do have a draft already and it's pretty simplistic, but we would be happy to put that up for a short period of time and then partner with you if we found that this was a good project that sounds very reasonable to me. Okay, and I apologize. Did you already submit a draft of what it looks like? I vaguely remember something. I just sent it to Aaron and I sent it to Dave. So they shared it with us. It's in the book. Okay, yeah. Great. And there's also a plan proposal that I've sent with them that kind of details this entire project. So, there's that too. Yeah, the thing with the QR code and like what all this is linking to, we'd wanna make sure that it, not that Hitchcock's gonna do something weird, but we wanna make sure that it goes to a legitimate place and that who knows where it can go. So, Aaron, I don't know if you are with us right now but hey, thank you. You read my mind. I'm here. Yeah, I remember that now. Yeah, I particularly like that last little piece, acknowledging who's the indigenous land. And Amelia, I apologize. Maybe this is in there somewhere, but what sort of material and how is this gonna be physically installed? Sure, so we are going to get it printed through Amherst Signwork. So it would be a metal sign and nine by 12 metal sign. And this can all change if you have recommendations otherwise. And then I was going to look into as far as the post to put it on, there's two options that we use at the Hitchcock Center. One is pressure treated wood and then another would be black locust. And we do have some funds to, I think to buy two sign posts that we think wouldn't deteriorate over a period of time. If we were only going to put this up for a couple of months, I would be open to any suggestions on how to make this a more temporary piece. We've considered a couple of things. So yeah, go ahead. I was just gonna suggest that maybe we offline with Dave and I review the materials and where they would go. If the board is in favor of the signs being put up on a temporary basis, then we could sort out with Amelia offline kind of the best approach for that. I just think that those are things, details that we could hash out and that might be better done outside of the meeting. Okay, so because other pieces, the location, but I think that's what you're talking about there, Erin. Yeah, location, materials, posts, stuff like that because I mean, this comes back to if it's going on conservation land, how's it going to be installed is, is it going to be installed by Brad, and or are we going to put it on an existing post where we have an existing sign, things like that. And I think those details can only really be worked out once we figure out exactly where they're going to be placed and then determine the materials and how they'll be hung and all that kind of stuff. And then are you proposing to bring that back in front of the commission, Erin, or just kind of move forward at that point? And I think either are viable. I mean, maybe we could just, if necessary, if you guys want us to just give you an update on where things stand with it. But I don't, I think it is something that we could, we could handle completely offline as long as we have a sense that the commission is okay with these being hung up temporarily. If I could add Brad, I mean, that's really what we did with the storybook. I mean, we didn't go into detail with the commission on every post Doug, and these are really only a couple of signs. So I think we could report back to the commission. The one thing, and again, we can talk to Amelia and Erin offline on this is going back to the branding piece, I do feel this push that we do have something more than just the town noted or as a collaborator at the bottom. I just feel like almost anything that goes up on town land should have the town seal on it. So maybe there's a way we can figure out how to get that on this sign because that really identifies it as something that the town has sanctioned. And so I think we can work on that offline. And Dave, just to follow up on that, so I agree on the sign, but also we might wanna have something on the home page for the web, so for the QR code. So when it goes there, it might be nice that the town is, yeah, I don't know if acknowledge is the right word, but so it's reiterated that this is town land as well. Sure, well, why don't we work on that, yeah, between meetings and we can report back on this, where the locations are and how we link to the MRS website. Okay, that sounds good to me. And I have full faith in town staff or they'll do it very well, so no issues. So anybody else have any other sort of comments or thoughts on this? So basically we're gonna ask that town staff deal with or interact with the Hitchcock Center. It sounds like overall we are comfortable with it. And so yeah, I don't see any reason why we don't move, make a motion tonight and finish this up with the caveat that town staff will work with Hitchcock to make this happen. It will just get a report back, I think would be nice to the commission, but no more than that. I don't feel compelled for anymore. And then part B that's not necessarily related to this motion is just continued work on standardizing our processes around signage. Does that seem true, Erin? Okay. Yeah. I mean, I know it's not this motion, I just, in my brain, thank you. Yeah, I think those are, that we could just report back in general on this application specifically at the next meeting. Yeah, that'd be great. Okay, and I just wanna double check with Amelia before we finish this up. Amelia, does that all still make sense to you? No, that's so wonderful. Thank you all so much for your time. Okay, cool. So why don't we go ahead and I am looking for a motion. And this is just a motion to approve the signage and input, right? All right, then I move to approve the Hitchcock Center for Land Use of Hardness and Wildwood Conservationaries for Application of Temporary Signs for Spring and Summer. With coordination with the office. Second. Okay, so voice vote, LaRoy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Lana. Hi. Letcher. Hi. Jen. Hi. Laura. Laura sounds like jazz. Okay. Did you hear me? I said hi. That's not me. I like it. Okay, so I from Laura and an I from me as well. So Amelia, I'm sure that you will be in touch with town staff, with Erin, and yeah, look forward to seeing what this looks like. Thank you. Are you going to mute me now? I would love to keep listening, but I know that there's going to be a lot of loud noises in my house. I'll disable you so that we can't hear you talking anymore. Okay, thank you. But if you do want to talk again, you can always raise your hand. Okay, so Erin, should we move on to the other two land use applications since we're here? Yes. So one of the requests is to do stargazing at Mount Pollux. And they're just requesting the ability to do this at night with four people, some tables and chairs and two cars on random nights that they can get out there to do stargazing at Mount Pollux. One question I had, I guess, more for Dave is, what is the general policy for conservation land being closed after dark? Yeah, that's a great question, Brett. Generally, we have said the rules and regulations through the years have been conservation areas and trails opened on to dusk. So stargazing, there's a long history of stargazing and similar activities at Mount Pollux, I must admit. But yeah, that's an interesting one. I can't recall, Erin, was this open-ended or just on, I think it was like four dates or no? How many dates was the person looking for? And there was a very small number of people, if I remember correctly as well. Four people, maybe, maybe that's where I got the number four. Yeah, four participants, two parking spaces. It was pretty open-ended that they were gonna use folding table and chairs, telescope, laptop. I see, again, I would rather have there be specific dates or an end point to this because one of the things we always think about is how does this cascade to other departments? So if somebody calls and says, oh, there's people up on Mount Pollux, it's 11 o'clock at night. Does the Amherst Police Department then need to go check that out? And have we made them now do a run that was unnecessary? So I'm really uncomfortable kind of saying, you know, just without an end date to this, saying if they did it on so many nights, you know, that'd be fine, but I don't wanna just leave it open-ended like that. Okay, well, I can kick it back to him and say, you know, we need kind of a start and end or specific dates on when this is gonna happen. He was going to attend tonight, but he didn't, so. Does that make sense to everybody? I just think we need a little bit more information here. It seems like it approval. Yep, I agree. And it's particularly that police component that has me most like not even concerned is the right word, because it's important to coordinate. Yeah, absolutely. And if you do grant that, we would then let the Amherst Police Department know that on such and such and so many nights, there may be somebody up there, you may see flashlights, you know, et cetera. So that if they get the call at dispatch, they can go, oh, there's a start-gazing group up there. Yep, that sounds good to me. So I don't think that we need to do anything on this one, Erin, so you'll get back to the applicant. Okay. So then the other one is a request for a wedding on August 14th, two parking spaces, 10 participants, musical instruments, small table, several chairs. I asked them if they would have liability insurance, they said if they needed to get a one-day policy, they would, no vegetation removal is planned. They don't need any special accommodations of any kind from the town. Do they have a rain date? I hope it doesn't rain, but no. They didn't propose anything, this is just what they gave me. And they couldn't attend tonight, but they said if there's any questions, they could get back to us. Says there's tents there, Brett, so. Oh, it does have tents on there. No, that's not, that's the example. Yeah, they don't actually, they're not proposing that. They said musical instruments. Oh, okay, yeah, I can read now, I got it. Gosh, wait, I have a question in general about weddings on Mount Pollux or anywhere. They do not have permission to close off the site, correct? I told them it was open to the public, everybody could use it while this was going on. So this generally fits under the practices that we've been doing for a number of years. When I first started working for the town, we had many, many more weddings up on Mount Pollux, more complex weddings, 100 people, 200 people. And I really tried to scale that back to be more realistic. We just as a department don't have the staffing, we were getting requests on the morning of, could they mow before the one o'clock wedding or can they get help, can they bring, can they bring people up to this summit? We need to get 15 people up to the summit, can we drive up, et cetera, et cetera. So I think this really fits on the size and scale of what is reasonable at Mount Pollux. In the past there, and we've never required liability insurance for weddings. So I'm not overly concerned about that. I mean, I think if we have people doing more activity, for that matter, the proposal we just had before that, if somebody trips up there going to a stargazing event, we're as exposed as at this date, daytime wedding. So I'm not overly concerned about that. Can't we say use at your own risk? I mean, because of the liability thing? Yeah, we can, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I don't, I mean, that seems like a great proposal. Mine was more of a general curiosity question about, do we clarify to them that the area is still open? And Erin can do that, absolutely. It's just like we have events at Buffers Pond, we've had weddings at Buffers Pond, and they can't close off the area and anyone has the right to walk through and photobomb their wedding, whatever. Well, now I know what I'm doing August 14th. So does anyone want to make a motion to approve that wedding? I can do it. I'm sorry, just one other piece for, I guess two things related to that. One is just to make sure that they are just using two cars, granted you can fit 10 people between two cars, but most people don't do that nowadays. Granted they live right across the street. So they are very close to it. So that might make a little bit more sense. And then, oh well, okay, there was something else. I'm good. All right, so I move we approve the land use application for Mount Pollux on August 14th, 2021 at 2 p.m. Provided that they understand the space is to remain open and that it is limited to two cars as stated in the application. Okay. Okay, so Fletcher. Hi. Ben. Hi. Laura. Hi. Roy. Hi. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. Okay, so the other thing that I spaced on a second was just rain date. So you might want to let them know that if they do want to add a rain date, they should just kind of let us know what that is. Not a problem. Have a happy wedding. So, okay. So what's up next, Erin? So the last thing is the poetry box, which I think we kind of, just to give you guys a little update, you guys had approved a poetry box to be placed at Roth Park and the woman came back, she wanted to add a poem on carved onto the poetry box, which I think we've agreed on something with Dave. But she then wanted to move it to the Amherst College end of the Emily Dickinson Trail, which I don't think we really have the authority to place it on another landowner's property. So I'm not sure that there's really anything that we can do about that, but I did say that I would discuss it tonight. But I don't, I mean, I don't know if Dave has additional insights, but I don't think we have any authority to place it on the Amherst College land. And quite frankly, I think that maybe in the future, with a request like this, we should be really clear that things changes can't be made after they're approved. Or I mean that these things, it's becoming a real like lots of emails being sent, lots of phone calls about it. And it's taking a lot of staff time to facilitate. And I think that it's a wonderful thing just that you gotta be careful with these things, so. Yeah, if I could, Brett, real quickly, I agree with everything Erin just said. She and I have talked about this proposal and proposals in general. But yeah, we, as I stated earlier, we are getting inundated with the number of requests. And it's really, again, back to kind of a real hodgepodge of things out on trails. And I can't recall the specific proposal the night that it was presented, but I wanna make it clear to the applicant that this isn't a permanent installation. Again, these things to put in permanent, as I recall, this may be somewhat in memory of someone, a family member. But again, it gets to be a little bit of a slippery slope when applicants think that some things might be permanent and I really just use caution when we think about how long things will be on public land. So I am very much in favor of doing this. Erin and I would be happy to get back to her and say the location we chose is at the Gough Park end of the Emily Dickinson Trail. And that is the, it's actually not under the care and control of the conservation commission. It's really under the care and control of the town manager and I took a little bit of a leap of faith to say there was a box there and we could with some other trail information years ago and it is now eroded away, but rotted away. But so I think that is the location. I have no intention of approaching Amherst College about this at this time. I'm gonna, oh, sorry. I'm gonna stay out of the Amherst College part of it because I work there, but there was a mention in the email that Dave to kind of add on to what you were saying about just a level of concern. There was mention in the email about a bench or a rock to sit on and I just, I think it needs to be made very clear that this is temporary and that while it's a really nice memorial, it's not permanent. And so benches and rocks feel a lot more permanent. And so I think that that for me leads to maybe there was a misunderstanding about the time that this would be there for. So I just, I'm wondering how we can make sure that that's very, very clear that we're not adding big rocks to sit on necessarily even though that would be really nice as well. Yeah, and why don't I, I will talk with Erin but I'm happy to call her back and walk through some of this with her. Again, I'm very supportive of having this be at the at the Gough Park end, but I don't, I think that's a great location for it at this time. And if they're interested in the Amherst College end, they're more than happy to contact Amherst College and figure out what to do there. But yeah, that's completely out of jurisdiction for us. They certainly are, but I will just say that I really want to avoid the appearance or anything having to do with Ben Amherst College then coming to me and asking, this is what Erin, it's a very slippery slope. These things begin to really take up a lot of time. And it was already approved in the location that we had a couple of months ago. And I think we just stay with that. And if the applicant wants to approach Amherst College then I think I and Erin and the commission can just stay out of it and, and let that go in a different direction. Yeah, I think also just to add to what Dave said, I think we need to have a policy on these issues in general because I think this is, you know, to these discussions going on on a signage, you know, outside entities putting signage on town of Amherst land and then private citizens putting signage or boxes or benches or anything on town of Amherst land, whether it be concom land or recreation land or anything like that, we should, but tonight's not the night to do it, but that we need to have a policy for it so that we can direct people like, you know, we can't, as much as it would be wonderful if we could do memorials for people that maybe that's not the appropriate place to do it or something, I don't know. And for any of us who remember going through the whole bluebird meadow thing, so we'll be very sympathetic for coming up with a standard approach. Be very helpful. Thank you. I believe that's everything I had on the agenda this evening. Fantastic. So thank you as always for shepherding us through very quickly and efficiently. Before nine o'clock. Almost time for dinner. So, okay. So looking for a motion to adjourn. The move we adjourned this evening. Second. Okay, so Anna. Aye. Harry. Aye. Jen. Aye. Letcher. Aye. Roy. Aye. Laura. Aye. Aye as well. We are officially adjourned. Thank you everyone. Bye everyone. Thank you. See you guys. It is raining out. It is raining out.