 I have not heard from Andre. I'm not sure. I think I came in at 7 o'clock. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, hello and welcome to the December 13th meeting of the conservation commission. Time is 7 07. We have members present. We have me, Michelle, Abby, Alex, or Jason Dornie. And we have Bruce Steadman, who I'm bringing in right now. absent our Laura and Andre. Okay, so first up chair report. I have nothing other than we have several continuances tonight. So I'll just announce that if anyone's here for any questions. I have a couple of quick updates. Valley CDC ball lane. Wetland. Wendell wetland services on Pomeroy or pierce guy on shoots very road and SWCA. On a lot at 13, those are all going to be continued. We will take public comment at the designated hearing time though. Thank you. I'm sure a couple of quick updates for the commission. Brad and Anthony are out there. You know, continuing to do some early successional mowing. They've done most of the work at Wentworth farm conservation area there. They're moving on to Mount Pollux. We're going to do some work off of station road some of these fields actually we haven't. We haven't brush hogged in three or four years so whether permitting they're going to keep going and see how far they can get. We saw months ago through the capital program we were able to purchase a skid steer. If you're familiar with what a skid steer is kind of a, you know, a little bigger than a mini excavator but it, it has a front mower which is very convenient it's challenging to mow a lot of our areas with a brush hog. So they're teaming up a great example of the use of the skid steer with the front mower is they can mow a lot of the invasives that have grown up around the apple trees at Mount Pollux and the old orchard. Very difficult to back in a brush hog to do that so it's a great application that skid steer can also help us in house work on ADA trails. Maintaining ADA trails and level and, and whatnot some of those crushed own gravel trails. What else is going on the Department of Conservation and Recreation and Mass just announced their trails grant program is open so Aaron and I are working with Brad to begin to kind of brainstorm a little bit about trails grants that we might submit or a trail grant that we might submit it's been a while since we've submitted to DCR. It's a rather onerous process. So if you go for money you should probably go for a fairly large amount of money. Keep it simple and keep it big because if you ask for 20,000 it's just as much work as if you get asked for 100,000 so we're kind of brainstorming on that if you have any ideas for trails and you'd like to shoot in my way, please do. There's plenty of work to be done out there on board walks and trails and ADA trails and the list goes on. We're doing, we're going to begin in January and February to do some kind of winter planning project planning for 24 what you know what what capacity do we have to get projects done in 24 what did we get done this year. We were pretty short staffed out in the field so our list from 23 a lot of those will carry over. A big project in 24 of course will be the trails at Hickory Ridge, although we won't be doing the work. There will be a lot of hands on project management to do for myself for Aaron and likely for Brad. So we will be bidding the loop trail, the ADA loop trail and the north south trail. And both of those should be done our goal and our grant goal our grant deadline is is the end of June. We're doing those trails through the design review board, the disability access advisory committee I just met with them yesterday have a good conversation. And then on 1220. Next week, we go before the planning board for site plan review, and all of those boards and committees are great for input on design on accessibility signage kiosks. We had a conversation with the DAC yesterday afternoon they're very pleased that we're thinking about accessibility. You know their focus was on parking on the width of the trail. How are we going to maintain it is it going to be open in the winter, things like that. The planning board, I'm sure we'll talk about there are many of the same things but also, you know, what kind of lighting are we going to have. And the answer there is pretty simple it's, it's going to be dawn to dusk we're going to have any lighting but is there going to be trash removal trash receptacles parking obviously and how do you get from one point to say, West street on our mapping so all of that is happening now and then we're hoping to bid out those two projects in January for as early as start as possible in the spring. We have some good contractors in town. You know this would be a public bid so you know likely, you know, probably a four to six week turnaround on the bids, and then we'd lock somebody in and see how the weather is in the spring. So that's the two trails at that hickory. And I don't want to steal thunder from Erin but she was going to give us a quick update on the America the beautiful grant and our role in that grant. That has to do with Hickory Ridge as well, and some of the ecological restoration we're hoping to do there along the Fort River. So that those are my quick updates. I know you have a full agenda. So, if anyone has any questions, let me know. Thanks, Dave. Aaron, did you want to comment on the America the beautiful. Congratulations on the grant. Yeah, it was a sort of a joint application it was actually submitted by mass division of fisheries and wildlife. But we did partner with them. They're working with a couple other cities and towns in Massachusetts. Looking to do some significant stream restoration work and Hickory Ridge was the focus of their stream restoration work for the America the beautiful grant and it's. I mean you guys have heard probably and read some about it already in the notice been 10 application and certainly the all of the work that will be done will be coming back before the commission as an amendment to the conditions once it's issued for Hickory Ridge, but it's looking at removing old fill material from the stream banks. The stream banks on the Fort River are really in size from all the artificial sort of maintenance over a long period of time. So like if you if you go to Hickory Ridge you can see that the banks the Fort River are really steep. And it sort of aims to do some floodplain restoration, taking down some of the banks to give the river a little bit more of a natural floodplain and allowing it to sort of meander more naturally. There's also removal of bridge, one of the bridges that's on the trail system. Placement of woody debris so like there's a lot of in most rivers you see like more woody debris versus in the Fort River there's not a whole lot so there's sort of a lot of restoration components that are associated with restoring the river. And Hickory Ridge will be the focus so it'll be exciting to see it come before us it's. It's a $3.5 million award to the state for the project so we're a piece of that and should come with some assistance in the form of staff as well so it'll be exciting. And could I could I just add one other element of that is the federal grant will pay for the removal of the building that is associated with the irrigation system on the irrigation system for the golf course irrigated the fall 150 acres and cause quite a bit of right area and damage along the Fort River Bank. So this grant will pay for that removal so that's a cost that the town will not have to pick up and they'll save us a considerable tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more actually in the long run so that's going to be a great addition in this grant. Excellent conservation work happening at Amherst thanks guys. Andre welcome just for Bruce I think you're taking minutes and thank you again. You got Andre on a little late. All right. So moving on we have review and approval of the 1129 2023 minutes. Alex had some comments I looked them over. I don't know did anyone else have a chance to do that there's, I think, mostly to do with Alex if you're there chime in. I'm just finding some acronyms and just kind of definitions or nothing huge but I'm comfortable with the changes just for their records. Any other comments from commissioners on that. Okay, well Bruce was author Alex is not with us anymore. So make sure that before we vote on them that everyone's had a chance to review Alex's comments just because I put in a read an original set, which folks may have had time to see and then I just uploaded Alex's comments late this morning. So, if folks haven't had time to review them I don't want to sort of rush folks to approve them to quickly. Okay, Andre had a chance. Yeah, just from my part I have not had a chance to review them and I would like a chance to do so. Okay. Jason saying. Okay, we have a bit of a backlog of minutes so maybe next time we could put a bunch on the queue and we could just go through them and approve some minutes. That sounds good to everybody so maybe just next time give it a give them some looks and we'll just get that done. All right, so we're going to table that the 1129 minutes till next time. Sound good. Okay. All right, not yet 730 so other items of goodness do you want to issue some orders of conditions while we're waiting for our 730. So I put in your packets. Draft orders of conditions for three different properties. 370 North Hampton Road 28 green leaves drive and then 191 West Pomeroy Lane which was the, the Hickory Ridge trail project. Bruce jumped up with a question. Yeah, just finished and then we'll. Yeah. So, each, each order of conditions is a little bit different sort of unique to the given project and so. I don't know if you want to go through them. If you want me to pull them up on the screen or how you sort of want to handle. Going over them, but they're, they're in the folder. Folks want to review them. Yeah. Do you want to just pull it up on the screen and maybe we can just start with the North Hampton Road. Good Bruce. Well, it seemed as though Alex was out of the, the whole thing when we decided to postpone the minutes that he commented on. So I just want to make sure he understood what the decision was. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. So, Alex, if you were gone, it seemed like you dropped off for a second. Not all of the commissioners had an opportunity to review your comments. So we decided to table it and do a big batch of minutes reviews next next meeting. Does that sound good? Okay. Thanks, Bruce. All right. So as far as North Hampton Road, do you want to bring that one up and we'll just start there. I had one comment on it, but maybe it's sort of at the end. So if anyone has sequential comments, we'll start there. Go ahead, Bruce. Okay, your hands down. All right. Any comments from commissioners on this? Okay, seeing none. Looks great, Erin. My only comment was in the perpetual conditions towards the end. I just was going to suggest that we, so there's a condition that no herbicides, except for organic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides be used. Subject commissioner review. So typically in restoration, the herbicides and pesticides, fungicides are not organic. They are deemed wetland safe solutions, but they're not organic. So I just thought maybe taking out that criteria and make it more in general in case there is a infestation later on down the road and leaving it up to commissioners discretion, what types of herbicides might be used. So I just want to, before we make this change, I just want to point out a couple of quick things. The first is, and I'm sorry I didn't mention this earlier today, Michelle, when we talked. The first is, so there's a couple different places where in an order of conditions, we might see herbicide applications. One might be if they have a invasive management plan that's associated with an order of conditions. I think that these conditions are more geared toward, for example, people not treating lawns for, you know, just in general, unless they specifically have a invasive species management plan. So I think that these, these boilerplate were set up basically as just a standard that unless you have an invasive species management plan that you shouldn't be applying any of these. But I'm completely fine. And I agree with your comment that we should take that out that it's and really what I'd like to do is just remove it holistically from our boilerplate because it doesn't really seem to make sense and I'm not sure why that was even in there to begin with. But just a general. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, assuming that there'll be some kind of lawn care, we want to leave open, you know, some kind of window for them to be doing that on our own without having to come to us. It almost seems like there should be another sentence that is about like domestic landscaping versus a actual treatment of some kind of invasive investigation. You know, I mean, off the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly how to word this but my concern is just I want to leave open the possibility for the commission to use herbicides or tools other than organic ones for treatments that are necessary just to protect the wetlands in general. Yeah, I mean, I think we just remove the word organic for these three orders. And then from there we can maybe word Smith, something for that specific perpetual boilerplate condition that tackles the issue at hand. Okay. Any comments on that. Okay. Hearing none. We need an order to approve. Motion. So I didn't actually, I didn't actually draft the motions for this. But really, all we would need is a motion to issue. The order of conditions for 370 North Hampton road, noting the DEP file number with the. Standard boilerplate for state and local and special conditions, but I'll, I'll try to draft up a motion right now because I see Alex as his hand up. Yep. Okay, go ahead, Alex. Alex, you have the floor, but I can't hear you. I'm wondering if he's having some technical difficulties. We can see you. You're on mute right now. Can't hear you. Not again. No. Okay, going to reboot. All right. All right, we'll see you in a sec. Okay. Do we actually need Alex on this vote for a quarter. Um, nice. Yes, I think we do because Andre wasn't here at the last meeting. Let me just, yeah, we he I've got to draft this language anyway, so I'll give him a second to get back on. Sure. And well, she does that for green leaves. I just had the exact same comment. So that would be all I have for that one. Do you want me to pull up green leaves while we're just waiting? Okay. Can you hear me now? We can. Yeah. Okay. So I rebooted my camera. My question when I had my hand up. I was back on the pesticide issue if the word systemic would work. I'm not sure I completely understand the difference between that and non systemic. You heard the word organic. And systemic, they go in if they go into the water. They're systemic if they go into the water. They're also broadcast sprays that are like more or less soluble in the water and more friendly to amphibians. I don't think that I completely understand pesticides enough to, to put a descriptor on that. And leave open, you know, innovation so that maybe just leaving it open without the word organic. Also kill bees. Well, I just want to leave it to the commission to maybe make the decision later on without tying us into. Is that okay with you, Alex? Sure. Okay. Right. With that, I guess we're looking for the motion. Yeah, sorry. I'm bouncing back and forth between screens bear with me. There we go. So we'll just start with 370 North Hampton road. This is just a general motion so you could just insert the address and the DEP file number for each of those, but we'll just start with 370 North Hampton road. Okay, I moved to issue an order of conditions for 370 North Hampton road DEP file number 089-0726 Hawkins Meadow. With the boilerplate state and local conditions and special conditions as noted. Andre on the motion. Alex on the second. Jason. Hi, Bruce. This is an I Alex. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay. Bear with me while I pull up. The 28. Leaves. So very similar. On green leaves, there was not the specific language about the wetland delineation and the reason for that is because the wetland delineation was originally tied to a 2004 order of conditions and we also had a DEP file number. I think it was a 711 that was issued immediately prior to this permit coming about. So I did make a note at the top of this. At the top of these conditions that basically note the connection between this order of conditions, order of conditions 402 and order of conditions 711 so that it was clear that they were all sort of tied together historically speaking. But other than that, it was just sort of our standard special conditions and boilerplate. Okay. Any comments? No. Okay. Same deal looking for a motion. And Michelle, you wanted to remove organic from this one as well. So that was just language that would change so slightly. Yeah. And maybe we can think a little more and talk a little more about what we want that boilerplate to look like but for now I just don't want to constrain any kind of future decision making based on that. I'll move the issue in order of conditions for 28 green leaves drive DEP number 089-0723 with the boilerplate state and local conditions and special conditions as noted. Second. Jason on the motion. Alex on the second. Jason. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Alex. Hi. Andre. Hi. Okay. Okay. If there's any public comment on this, please raise your hand and I'm going to not mind. Keep an eye on it. Okay. Do we want to just do West primary before we move in? Yeah. Sorry, I'm bouncing between two screens. That I'm on a remote computer so I'm. All right, so. This is the order of conditions for the Hickory Ridge trail project. So we've got the standard boilerplate. I also have the NHS P determination letter issued here so that it's rolled into the order of conditions. Yeah. And just some kind of site specific conditions that are a little different associated with this for. Stability to make sure the site stable to make sure there's inspections going on. So, they're kind of tailored to each each individual permit. Can you scroll down a little bit? Aaron, please. Of course. Yeah. I can zoom into a little. I don't know how far down you want me to go. I don't know. So do we have the native planting condition on this one? I just didn't see it. Should be. I can add that one in. I'm not sure why that one didn't make it on there. Jason, go ahead. I have a comment on special conditions. Number seven. Is that weekly inspections must be completed during construction phase of the work. Monthly monitoring reports to be submitted during the construction phase of the conservation commission inspections may be completed by contractor can be informal email. Are these meant to be the same inspections that are required by the construction general permit. That's a really great question and I'm so glad that you asked it, Jason. On this project, it's a little bit tricky because it's a town project and we don't have a separate wetland monitor, so to speak, who's out there doing the inspection reports. So for the sake of the town going out to bid on this project, I rolled in the construction monitoring so that the SWIP reports and the reports to the conservation commission can be rolled into one. However, you know, there's going to be a lot of staff visibility on this project. I'll be out there monitoring it. I'm sure Dave will be out there monitoring it and as well we have a. An engineer who's doing special projects in town who's also going to be monitoring the work. So there's going to be a number of staff that are going to be on site. Daily weekly as this work is going on. So that is a great question and it is a little bit different than how I would ordinarily condition a project because of the sort of staff oversight that's going to be happening from the town while this is going on. So, just for clarification, then those weekly SWIP required SWIP inspections will be the ones that are emailed to your informally emailed. Right. Okay, so then those those that person then who's doing those inspections needs to be qualified. Yes, under the construction general permit. Okay, I just want to make sure that this is not in any way stating that the inspections, the SWIP required inspections are informal when they require a person to be trained. Right. And just to also clarify, because this is something I didn't mention before when Jason was asking about this. The erosion control inspections are separate from the SWIP inspections. So I fully expect will be copied on the SWIP inspections. But the erosion control inspections for the conservation commission will be separate inspections where somebody is going around taking photos of the erosion controls and reporting any repairs that need to be made. But yes, the person who's doing the SWIP inspections and the erosion control inspections on our bid documents is going to have to be qualified to conduct those so they will have to be trained and qualified to conduct SWIP inspections. And the contractor that's selected is going to have to be qualified to carry the SWIP and do the SWIP inspections on the town's behalf. Right. I do have another question slash comment if any so. One of the things that I would like to see in here is the only the use of biodegradable erosion control blankets or any kind of blankets like that. With this sensitive nature and the habitat. I wouldn't want to see any kind of compost or any kind of erosion control blankets that have netting in them to snag wildlife. That's a big problem and especially in areas where they may go down and they may get forgotten and then they may never come up. So I would like to if we can state that no erosion control blank is containing netting can be used either temporarily or permanently. I'm all for permanently. That's a good point given that sensitive habitat and I've heard that snakes can get caught in those nettings. Birds. Yeah, that's terrible. So let's go for permanently. Yeah, I think that's a great, great addition. That would be a great addition to the boiler plates you actually. I would love to see that. Yeah, maybe. You know, you can't necessarily be everywhere all the time and sometimes they do get left behind. And if you've ever seen a DOT project with a large mower, grab an erosion control netting and rip it out. And from an erosion and sediment control standpoint, it's not a pretty thing. And from a vegetation standpoint, it's not a pretty thing either. So I would love to see that become. Absolutely. So we'll add in condition on native plantings and prohibition on. Erosion control blankets that contain netting and they're required to be biodegradable if they're used on site. So we're considering putting that in our general boiler plates. Yeah, great. Thanks Jason. Go ahead, Bruce. My concern is there's a lot of things here. And there's a June 30th deadline. And I just would like some reassurance that we can do all this and still be able to spend all the money. We're going to be going to bid very soon. And I think that the work is anticipated to take about a month and a half. So the portions of the work that need to get done for the grant, I think we're pretty confident we'll be able to get done. There are portions of work that are associated with this order of conditions that aren't associated with the grant. So for example, the Colvert removals where we're doing stream restoration, those are not tied to the time sensitive grant application. So there are bits and pieces of this that will be fast-tracked and bits and pieces that are going to take a little more time. Maybe that was what I was trying to figure out. So thank you. Okay, thanks Bruce. Anything else? Okay, seeing none, I guess we're looking for a motion with some of the set changes with all of the set changes. I'm going to make a motion. Go ahead. Yeah, before making a motion on, I'm just going to point out, from my opinion, Jason, your point that you made about the that madding is, is a really good point. And I would also like to see that on one boiler plates. So thank you, Jason. Thank you. I move to issue an order of conditions for 191 West Pomeroy Lane with DEP number 089-0721 with the boiler plates state and local conditions and special conditions as noted. Yeah. Do we need to state the insertion of the two conditions? I think we noted them on the record already. So I think we should be, we should be okay, but I'll make sure that the changes make it on to the formally issued order of conditions. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we had James Andre on the motion. Bruce on the second Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi. Bruce. Hi. And I'm an eye and Bruce, your hand is still up just in case that's intentional. Did you have something else to add? No, sorry. All right. All right. So let's move on to our hearings. Okay. So general procedures for fairness to all applicants, each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda. The hearing structure will be five minutes presentation by staff, five minute comments from applicant. Five minutes for public comment or two minutes per person, five minutes from the conservation commissioners or two minutes each. All revisions and materials are required by the Wednesday a week prior to our meetings by noon on that Wednesday. And for all presenters, please clearly state your name, address of the project and here representing as well as if you have any preferred. So this hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general bylaws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands. As most recently amended an article 3.31 wetlands protection of the town of Amherst bylaws. The address of intent for a horse Lee Witten group incorporated the Nisco design and Brown Sardina incorporated on behalf of the town of Amherst for the proposed reconstruction of the Fort River elementary school and associated infrastructure. Parking stormwater mitigation ball fields and landscaping and the demolition of existing school building removal of existing infrastructure pavement and mitigation measures at 70 Southeast Street map 15 a lot 47. Okay, and do you want to fill us in to start. Sure. So just a quick update. I did provide staff comments to the applicant on December 8. The applicant did respond. We received comments back actually today. I did take a look through the responses that we received. I realized the commission hasn't had really a chance to review those and they're like 230 some odd pages long. So if the commission wants to take time to review those responses, you're certainly more than welcome to I did sift through them today to try to just keep the ball rolling as quickly as possible. And I submitted in the a couple follow up comments questions to the applicants representative, which I put those documents in the folder if you want to sort of boil down to what my questions were. Otherwise, I'm going to yield the rest of my time to the applicant because this is a huge project and they're probably going to need a few more than five minutes. Okay, so I brought Amy and and I can Janet. If there's anybody else in the audience. Okay. Please raise your hand if you're part of this application. Welcome Amy welcome Janet evening. I see Rick. Okay, and I think we're both working right now is Tim Cooper part of this project also. Yes. That would also part of this project. Yes. Okay. Okay, I think you should all be here. Okay, welcome. Do you guys want to give us a presentation of this project. Yes, thank you. Good evening for the record. I'm Amy Baldwin was a wooden group. I'm the senior ecologist here I'm going to run a really quick slide deck for you. Erin said to keep it short and sweet. It'll be an overview and then the members of the project team who are here Janet Bernardo she's my design engineer. Tim Cooper Rick Rice from Janisco or the architects and Margaret Wood is the owners project managers that correct Margaret. Is it okay for me to share my screen. Just go ahead. Very briefly, this is the Fort River elementary schools is existing conditions here. And the proposed project is the redevelopment of the school as the public advertisement states. We have gone through an and that process about this time last year, and it was issued on the 14th this year. So we have a number of resource areas they're all associated with the Fort River and or the faring brook. Of the resource areas that are on on the larger school property. BVW areas such as storm flowage, boarding lands such as flooding and buffer zones are what be affected by the project. The prop proposed project is a complete redevelopment of the school with the important caveat that the school needs to remain in operational during the approximate two year construction period. So it will be a phase construction, really consisting of three phases, one being an early site preparation, and then a phase one and a phase two, the early site preparation will happen. Permits granted at the beginning of this next year with the taking the existing stormwater offline, putting it into a temporary system to manage stormwater during construction, a changing of the traffic patterns and preloading the soils for the existing school, adding a ram aggregate peers, and this is all providing structural support for the building which I'll let the architects talk about a little bit more. And then the phase one, which is focused in the more southern portion of the property is the actual construction of the building itself, the stormwater the new bus route and drop off area. All of the play areas and the infrastructure that goes along with that. Once phase one is complete and the school, the new school is online, then we will switch to phase two, which is the deconstruction of the existing school and ball fields. And at that point we will also provide some additional mitigation areas in terms of additional flood storage and restoration of a wetland area. The site drainage design, which I'll have Janet go into more detail on as necessary involves a number of different types of stormwater practices to address the various areas, including cash basins and area drains, sand filters a bio retention area and a rain garden stone infiltration trenches, but to filter strips and reading need to. There are two proprietary practices that we are also posing the rain guardian foxholes and the rain guardian turrets. In addition, we'll also have some permeable play services. I presented these images I think to the Commission back in about September mid September with sort of a pre permitting presentation and just wanted to call your attention to this is what a rain guardian turret is for the commission members who were not present at that time. But the sand filters that we have these are all examples are likely to be much more vegetated than these pictures indicate in the bioswail also either be more gravelly or will have some vegetation depending on where it is located. So far as resource area impacts and this is something that Aaron brought to her attention this afternoon that we didn't quite clarify it the way she anticipated. This is just directly from our project narrative. We have about 4445,000 square feet and cubic feet of boarding lands such to flooding impacts, but we will end up at the end of the day with a net gain of more than 19,000 cubic feet. In terms of BBW alterations, there are about 1800 square feet of BBW alteration that is in an existing degraded state and I'll show you a picture in a minute with an ultimate restoration area of about 4700 square feet. This is subject to storm flowage which is something that came up during the Android process that will be all the interest that are protected by that area will be incorporated within the design. And then as far as buffers own impacts are concerned, we have impacts within the zero to 50 foot buffer and within the 50 to 100 foot buffer of both the BBW and the BLSF. And this is more of a qualitative response, which is that among the alterations that are proposed in these areas, we will be providing compensatory flood storage as well as additional flood storage and the wetland restoration area. And then finally, we also have to stay listed species. And the alterations within the mapped habitat are about 800 square feet. I mentioned we have two additional restoration areas there along what we call wetland bee which is to the north and directly east of the school and then wetland areas say these two are actually part of the same born and vegetated wetland system. The wetland restoration area there were some photos in the report but this is different times of year but the swing set that currently exists in the north of the school property is being overtaken by some Fragmites and is which are maintained by the school so that the swing set remains operational and there are wood play chips that have been placed directly in the wetland. And we discovered that the wetland boundary actually encompasses most of that swing set. So the proposal there is to fill that fill there, remove additional fill about a foot and a half or so adjacent to the swing set area, removing the shed and all of this grass area and restoring this about 4700 square feet of BBW. And then for additional flood storage, that will occur along the area of wetland sea, which is this long linear finger of wetland. This will again resulted in that gain of about 1900 cubic feet of flood zone, and we'll be doing this by pulling the contours back and removing some of the these are existing gardens. All of the mitigation that were just discussed will need to happen during phase two because this is this would change the condition of an operational school. And then I mentioned again we have the rare species habitat we have not yet heard from natural heritage they've issued a tracking number. We understand that we will hear from them on the 22nd of December and so we've already mentioned to Aaron that we will need to request a continuance to your one of your January meetings in order to allow us to get feedback from natural heritage. And with that, I'm sure I've talked for much more than five minutes but I figured I'd turn it back to the Commission for questions and discussion. Thank you. Thanks Amy was there anyone else from the group that wanted to add anything before we move on. Okay I don't see anybody we're going to just go to public comment and going to be doing two minutes per person. Please raise your hand if you have anything you'd like to add at this time. Okay I'm seeing none I'll keep an eye on the room. Okay to commissioners commissioners comments questions. Okay, Aaron I see your hand it I'm just going to let you go first. Yeah I just need to ask a really important clarifying question before we get too deep in this and Amy forgive me because I think we're on the alteration verse mitigation numbers we might be crossing pads a little bit. Could you put the table back up for just a second that you were presenting your resource area impacts in your presentation. The reason that I'm, I'm queuing in on this is because I want to be extremely clear about something based on what you've said to me the buffer zone impacts quote unquote impacts that you're proposing here are actually mitigation in the buffer zone. So what they are and I will have to drill down to the numbers but I think about half of the buffer zone will also be sort of repurposed or reconfigured into new playing fields. And I think a portion of the access driveway goes into the 50 to 100 buffer. That is that is true and would like to try and you know get those numbers for you and okay but that is that is the just the existing condition of the buffer is really just all of the open playing fields. Got it. So if when you do your, when you do your your number accounting for us if you could just separate out the sort of buffer zone alterations that are going to be field or driveway or, you know, sort of the permanently maintained used areas, separate those out from the comp storage areas, the, you know, that are going to be like pollinator meadow or the flood storage areas, the wetland restoration areas. I just want to make sure that we're seeing actually apples to apples comparison and that you're not grouping the restoration mitigation work into the alteration category. I think what we did here. Okay, I just want to make sure that that's happening so that's that was my comment so thank you. Yeah, thanks Aaron I was also going to ask about that so I'm just going to jump ahead of the commissioners. Yeah just a table showing sort of the existing conditions the, the temporary and the permanent alterations and then the associated by category buffer zones. So I think that's a good indication just something we can go across the row and, you know, see a tabulation that is not just quite qualitative but also quantitative. Yes. Okay, thanks great. Okay, Jason, go ahead. We discussed a number of things at the site visit. Regarding erosion sediment control during construction. I think most of them were captured Aaron on the comments. The last thing that I wanted to ask is, it appears that DPW is not going to be doing the maintenance on the post construction BMPs and that that's going to be up to the school. I'm a little concerned with a number of different types of BMPs that are on the project and the potential complexity and some of them are likely going to include confined space entry. So in any way, or the school districts. It sounds like they're going to just have to put this out to bid for a contractor to do all this work is that I'm just a little concerned that one that's going to be prohibitively expensive I saw an estimate of about 12 $12,000 a year. How did you all arrive at that number and overall again my concern is that this is going to be very expensive for the school. I think you want me to answer that. Yes. For the record my name is Janet Bernardo I'm a professional civil engineer with the horsey written group. As far as how we came up with a number we tend to every kind of area is slightly different we have a general idea of how much it had cost to bring a back truck on site and clean out catch basins. And some contracts are different than others. So we, we kind of wait to figure out what the, what the product owners can come up with a lot of the work might be easy pruning of work that could end up being put out to a local garden club or a college school that is you know is interested in helping, but we try to kind of come up with a cost that if they put it out to bid that's what they might look at so the goal is to understand what the, what the intention is. We had not heard that the DPW was not going to get involved so you have more information maybe than we do. So we were waiting to hear from the DPW and understand what they were looking for. Rick, you have a. Yeah, I would. Rick Rice with the discord is designed routinely. I've been told that the school department maintains their sites and storm drainage systems, unless. Well, they have a problem that they need to reach out to DPW on. DPW was going to review and get back to us today as to how it might be broken down, but I didn't hear from them by the end of the day. So I suspect it will be a combination of school department DPW and and subcontracted labor in order to make the maintenance requirements happen. Thanks. So I'm hearing that we need to have some conversations with the school staff and DPW in the town. About this, just to determine the capacity of each of the departments to handle some of these specific stormwater. Criterias. And this is something that we can't answer tonight, but I think Erin you've already mentioned that you had some concerns about this and it's been discussed. So we'll, we'll get back to this one with some further information. Yeah. Okay. I'll move on to Alex. Go ahead, Alex. Yeah, just I have 2 things, but this. Subject with a school and DPW is covered in. Since December 8th, comment letter, point number 2, where she come, she, she brings up this whole subject. So that's it's been out there. Thanks, Alex. Yeah. Yep. I didn't know if Aaron was trying to say something. Anyways, I have one other item that is a. Nothing to do with the school is that I saw a comment. In the folder. Um, I think Aaron posted it on Monday. And I came in from, I think it was Mary, Maria. And I, she thought she would be on to bring up her points. She called in and I was kind of expected. I thought she would be. If she is absent. I wonder if Aaron could read those. Yeah. She's not absent. She's in there. And I think maybe I saw Dave hands go up in response. The DPW comments. So maybe we could just tie that one up. And I do want to get to that, Alex. So. Aaron, do you have anything else to add before we move on? Yeah, just. Just to my goodness. To tie up the, the, the annual maintenance of the, of the stormwater system. I just want to make sure, you know, just the message I think I'm hearing is to the Dinesco team. I just don't want Aaron to be saddled with getting the answer to that question. So it's really on the, on the team. You know, I'm, I'm happy to have those conversations with, with Paul Bachleman and Guilford mooring, but I think Aaron, you know, should, should take a little step back from that. And, and so just wanted to put that message out there that sure Dinesco can work with Guilford and the school department and figure out how that's all going to be divided. I heard what Rick said. Maybe it's a kind of a one third, one third, one third kind of thing. But let's, let's get that in writing and come back in January. We did, we did pose a question and forwarded the owner manual to both DPW and the school department on the eighth. And, you know, through the beginning of the week, they were still working on a response. I hope they have one by tonight, but we're, we came up short on that. Yeah, I see a lot of parallels, you know, when, when we're, when we're building a school that is this kind of forward looking and energy efficient, we're going to have very complex systems on the inside of the building and we're going to have pretty complex systems on the outside of the building, all of them to save energy and create a great work, a great learning environment inside for teachers and families and, and kids, but on the outside, it's a pretty complex system too. So I'm sure we'll get there. Thanks. Thanks, Dave. So hopefully we'll have some more details on that next in January. Okay. Moving on. We did have some public comments. So commissioners, this was in the packet. It's in relation to the board rubber. I guess foundation for the school playgrounds. And this is relevant to our jurisdiction because there is a stormwater drain from the playgrounds that empties into riverfront. Is that right, Erin? And definitely into resource. It empties into bordering land subject to flooding, but it's, it's very close to the riverfront area, which is a critical area of cold water fishery. Okay. So this type of material is known to have contaminants that aren't good for people or ecology. And that is the concern. So the letter was pretty good in outlining some alternatives and provided some basically a table of other alternatives. And I'm, my question to you all is how have those been considered and are there ways to get away from that board rubber base? I think Rick Rice is going to take this one. Yeah, we were made aware of a. Important place cork based product at the. School building committee meeting on Friday. Our OPM. Had done some research the last couple of days. And we're looking into it. Okay. You can talk about it. So you said that the Margrit you could talk about what you found was basically that as far as storm drainage goes it. It is at least as permeable. If not more than the poured in place. Uh, rubber that we've based the design on. And, uh, This is a very new product and we are the team is looking into I appreciate that Maria brought it to our attention. It's, if anybody's interested in looking it up, it's called Corkin, C-O-R-K-E, and I haven't seen what Maria sent in, but have a good website. It's a Portuguese product that is a sort of side, sideshow of the cork industry in Portugal. There is a company in Baton Rouge who installs sort of up and down the East Coast. I have been told, although they're the name of the project that it's been previously installed in a school in a northeast, eastern Massachusetts and that there's another project underway. So we're hoping to get a look at that. I've left message for the landscape architect who worked on that project and we're definitely in the throes of actively looking into it. Great, thank you. Let's get here. Commissioner, is there any other questions or comments? Okay, I'm still not seeing any public comments. So I think at this point, we have some items to get some more information back on and we're looking to continue this to January 10th. I see you Janet, go ahead. Yeah, just one thing to make sure the commission's aware of. During phase one, there will be where it is when we're building the school and building the playground and the pathways near it. We will have a small amount of filling within the bordering landscape to flooding that we will be compensating for at the time as part of the phase one project. So we have additional storage during phase two, but we will be providing compensatory flood storage during phase one. It's just a semantics thing. I just wanna make sure that you know that it's happening. Thanks. That reminds me, I don't think I mentioned this, but in the table one, when we talked about, you know, row by row type by type impacts, maybe it would be helpful to also see what the phasing schedule is for those things. So if it's impact in phase one, but it's gonna be mitigated in phase two or three, that might be just helpful for us to look at or the project scape. We can put that in writing, but just so the commission is aware overall, what we call the early site package, we anticipate being under contract in March and starting in April. That contract goes until August of 24, at which time the general construction project begins and then all of phase one, all the site development, the new building of site development, south of that line that divides the existing site and the new site would be occupied for the start of school in September of 26. And then the building comes down and the rest of the site is developed to the north. Okay. So that's a big picture. Okay, thank you. Okay, I see a public hand raised. Go ahead, Maria. Hi, thank you, Maria Kapicki, South Amherst. I just want to appreciate the concom for taking up this issue about trying to eliminate or severely restrict, hopefully eliminate the rubber port in place. And I want to appreciate Danisco looking into the cork based product, just for completeness sake, the other products that I hope would be considered in combination or so on would be possibly the bonded engineered wood fiber or just loose filled engineered wood fiber in other areas. I think it's really important that we have an exterior and a site that is as awesome as the net zero aspect of the school building itself is going to be. So I really appreciate any efforts to make that happen. So thank you very much to all of you. Thank you, Maria. Okay, when I was there, it used to be graveled and not do that anymore. It was a little unpleasant, but no, it was like a little piece. I remember getting hit in the eye. It's stuck in your shoes, hurts when you hit it, but it's permeable. Okay, all right. Thank you, everyone. Commissioners, we're looking for a motion to continue this to January 10th. Erin, do you have something you could put up for us? I will move to continue the public hearing for 70 South East Street Fort River School NOI to 735 PM on January 10th, 2024. Second. Okay, that was Jason on the motion. Was that Andre in the second? Okay, Andre? Aye. Jason? Aye. Alex? Aye. Bruce? He's an aye and I'm an aye. All right, thank you, everyone. Have a good night. Thank you, Maria. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, on to our notice of intent for Stonefield Engineering and Design, LLC on behalf of Valley Community Development for the construction of a 15 residential duplex structure and associated site work, including parking utilities, stormwater management and landscaping within the buffer zone, at 20 to 40 ball aim at 5A, lot 56. This is being continued, but if there's any public comment and it can be quick, we can take that, just raise your hand. Not seeing any. I'm looking for a motion to continue this, commissioners. I have a question. Go ahead. I hope this is permittable, even though we're continuing, it has to do with the name of the project and maybe Dave can shed some light on it. It's referred to as ball lane, which is a private road. And there are conditions on that that a person can only drive in as far as his residence. You can't go any further. And every time I've talked to people on the road and every time this thing hits the paper, people drive into ball lane and wanna go look at the project. Is the entrance to this, I didn't see an entrance this project on ball lane. I missed it. I thought the entrance was on Pulpah Hill Road. And Dave, maybe you can shed some light on why it's called ball lane instead of Pulpah Hill Road. And can we change the name to save the people who live on ball road, the annoyance of people driving in? Well, I think I earlier saw Laura Baker on the call. Laura represents Valley CDC. I don't know all the history. There was initially looking, there was a look at ball lane for an entrance. You're correct, Alex, that the entrance will be off of Pulpah Hill Road. But I would prefer if the applicant. I don't see that applicant here. I responded. I thought Laura was here earlier. Are they continuing tonight? Erin? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So they might have left, but I think it initially started out as ball lane and it probably just carried over. The property address is ball lane. So the previous, there was a previous business that operated on the site, which the driveway came off of ball lane, which was associated with the parcel as a whole. So in the assessor's property record, it's listed as 20 to 40 ball lane. They are proposing to eliminate the connection from ball lane to the project and have a separate driveway entrance. But until the site is reclassified with a different address by the building inspector and or the assessor's office, that's how it's classified in the town's property records. And I think the residents of ball lane are well aware that the permanent entrance to the new development won't be through ball lane. Some are not aware. Well, there's been many opportunities. They've had site visits out there that are open to the abutters, et cetera, et cetera. So I think Erin is spot on with why it's called that, but it's clear that from the plans that the entrance will be off of open hill. Well, maybe we'll just leave it at that, but maybe we could hasten the changing of the name. Well, I can add a note when I read the application next time. Yeah, please feel free to remind me on January 10th. Okay, Bruce, go ahead. I agree with Alex. I went on the site visit and I drove down the road because I didn't know where I was supposed to go. I drove in there and was told I shouldn't be there. Yeah, I mean, I think we should, as a given the amount of work that's going to go on there, I think we should do everything possible to make it a positive public engagement. I guess what I would say is I would leave it, I would leave these comments to the applicant when you see them at the next meeting. It's not really up to the mission to make that change. It's really up to the applicant. So I'm sure of what I would address it. Yeah, yeah, I understand that I just wanted to put forward and hopefully they'll come up again and thank you. Thanks, Alex, for thinking about those residents of all. Okay, looking for a motion. I moved to continue the public hearing for 20 through 40 ball lane NOI to 740 p.m. on 1, 10, 24. Hi, second. Alex on the motion, Bruce on the second. Andre. Hi. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. Bruce. Hi. And I'm gonna A. Scrape your hands up. You're smothering Tafkin, yeah. I'm gonna have to just use my own hands. That's fine. Okay, so next we have a notice of intent for Wendell wetland services on behalf of Eric Olson for proposed restoration of a 2,300 square foot manmade pond by dredging and replanting at 296 p.m. relay map 28 D lot six. So I think we're still waiting for some information from this applicant and we're moving to continue public hearing. If there's any questions, I'll have a comment here. Okay. I don't see any questions from commissioners or the public, so looking for a motion. I move to continue the public hearing. 745 p.m. on 1, 10, 24. I'll second that. Alex on the motion, Jason on the second. Andre. Andre, I'm muted, I'll come back to you. Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. I'm an eye. I still don't see Andre. Do we need? I'm an eye. Okay, thanks Andre. Okay, next up abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for Pierce cry development incorporated on behalf of WD coals incorporated represented by Goddard consulting for the confirmation of resource area boundaries on site limited to areas that fall within the hundred foot of the proposed solar installation at Sheetsbury road map 90 lots 11 and 12 and map 90 lots 27. Again, this is going to be continued as your hand up. Go ahead, Erin. Just to give a very quick update to anybody who might be on related to this one. The peer reviewer did visit the site on Tuesday, I believe. And yeah, yesterday and completed a full day of site work on the property. And we're basically going to be sort of regrouping and meeting with the applicant in the near future. But until there's information to share with the conservation commission, we'll need a continuation. So the applicant did submit that request. Thanks, Erin. Okay, if there's any public comment, please raise your hand. I see Alex has hand up. So I'll go to you, Alex. Erin, I was just curious if that was sort of a closed site visit or would it have been possible for some of us to go there? I know there was already a site visit. Some of us missed it. And if there was a private site visit for the peer reviewer, so that they're not influenced by anything, will there be an additional opportunity to visit the site? Yeah, that's a really good question. We can certainly have a conversation on it. So we have a quote from Emily to do sort of her standard. Emily Stockman, a Stockman Associates has been our peer reviewer since I've been working with the town. She's excellent. And ordinarily when we do a peer review, what happens is they give us a quote for conducting the peer review. And they do it sort of in an independent manner. So in this case, the applicant actually gave Emily permission to visit the site on her own. So she was on site completely on her own yesterday for a full day of site investigation. The idea being to kind of give her some freedom to explore the site and kind of form her own judgments on where the wetlands are located. Typically what would happen once she's done an initial investigation and sort of determined where she thinks there might need to be changes or adjustments, she would then meet with the applicants, wetland scientists, and they would meet on site to basically review her findings and it would essentially result in, if there are changes to the delineation at that point, that's when the changes would be made. Theoretically made or not made depending on if they can agree on the changes. Ordinarily the commission is not involved unless or until there's a dispute. So for example, if Emily was to find something and say, I think this is a wetland and then the applicant's representative were to say, I don't think this is a wetland, then there could theoretically be an opportunity for the commission to come and view it and render their own decision based on the documentation that's provided to them. But on a typical basis, there wouldn't be sort of the site investigation wouldn't happen with the commission present. So that's sort of just the standard way of doing it, but I think we're gonna just take this one step at a time and if there is a need for the commission to get out there on site with Emily, absolutely we'll make it happen. Just sort of will depend on the cooperative nature of the review process in general, I think. Thanks, Erin. Anything else? I don't see any public comment. I keep doing that. All right, looking for a motion to continue. I move to continue the public hearing for Shrewd-Spray Road in A-N-R-A-D to 7.50 p.m. on 1.10.24. I'll second that. Alex on the motion, Jason on the second. Andre? Aye. Bruce? Aye. Jason? Aye. Alex? Aye. And I'm an aye. Aye. Last step, I know why. Okay, so we have tetra-tech on behalf of Fort River Solar-2 LLC for construction of an operation of a 6.3 megawatt direct current ground-multed photovoltaic solar facility and average tenant components at 191 West Pomeray Lane at 19D Lot 10. And who do we have here? Erin, are you bringing? I'm sorry. So we had an SWCA continuation that fell before this one, but we can come back to that after this. That's not, that's totally fine. Sean Foster and I think Matt Moyan, I'm gonna pull in. If there's anybody else that I missed, feel free to raise your hand. Let's not forget to extend that SWCA. I'll bring, yeah. Oh yeah. Good evening, everyone. Hello. Is everybody in? Laurence is not yet. Okay, we have Matt, Sean and Laurence, welcome. All right, Erin, would you like to give us an update? Yes, a quick update. So just to give a little background snapshot of where the review process thus far, I issued staff comments to the applicant on November 8th. The applicant may have been a little before then so that they could respond. The applicant did respond to provide comments back immediately after that. I had some follow-up comments on December 5th and the applicant responded to those comments as well. And where I think at the point now where we're getting very close, I feel like it's sort of the home stretch on this one to I'm starting to formulate conditions. There are a couple sort of outstanding questions which I've noted on the slide, which I'll pull up. But there's, I think we're just getting sort of the final pieces in place and the final really the fire department is kind of who I'm waiting to hear from at this point. I think that there's now agreement between the DPW and the applicant on the access over the sewer line. So I think we're sort of closing in on being ready to close, but I wanna give the applicant an opportunity to address any of the final comments or questions and we can sort of figure out where to go from here. You're muted, Michelle. Thanks. All right, go ahead, Tedra Tech, would you like to respond, present, give us an update? Yeah, I spoke with Erin earlier. We replied to think all of her direct comments as under the Wetland Protection Act. We have been in touch with the fire department who've indicated that. And I think we're gonna request that we could just condition any coordination with them for separate permits for some of the equipment on site that needs permits through the fire department. That way, we wouldn't potentially continue this hearing again with the fire department having their own separate process to review that material. But I think all the questions under the Wetland Protection Act, I believe have been answered, and including we did get knee-shap response indicating they approve our revised plan set and the conditions are made the same and we got a permit extension to 2030 to complete all the mitigation that were required to complete. So I think that's a big piece of the puzzle that was kind of outstanding last time we spoke. So I think we're just asking if the fire department work could be conditioned with the understanding that we have been, per sky has been in touch with them and then coordinating with them on several items that we don't anticipate to impact any of the scope under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Protection Act or under this kind of public hearing process. Thanks, Sean, go ahead, Lawrence. Thank you, yeah, just to add some color to that. I spoke with Captain Baskham earlier today and explained to him the questions that had come up from that. As you're aware, there was an incident with a fire at a power-in location in New York. We can't discuss openly the RCA on that. It'll be a subject to an NDA that will be coming in the fullness of time. I spoke to Captain Baskham and he sort of indicated that we've got to get a permit from the fire department anyway to be able to install the batteries separate to the concom, separate to the zoning, separate to the building and electrical permits. It's a fire department permit and he would not be issuing a permit if we haven't been able to provide him the information that he needs to say that it's safe from a fire safety point of view. So we're asking that we just formalize that in the condition to say that the applicant will be required to go through the Amherst FD permitting process for the battery storage. Okay, thanks. Any public comment? Please raise your hand. Okay, I'm not seeing any yet. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, I'm not sure that... I've heard the point addressed if you can put that power point back up briefly. The second to last point about the town engineer having agreed to a grass-paved product to be used on the sewer line access through the array that the changes need to be incorporated on the plan and essentially any changes like that. Would you folks mind addressing that question? Yeah, so the town engineer, I think gave a little bit background to the how we got here is previously that there were panels that were some of the panels and associated racking was over the easement and discussions between Piers Guy and the town engineer was to remove all like structures associated with the project outside the easement so they could access it. But what they were also looking for is if they ever needed to access that section of the easement, say in an emergency situation, they wouldn't sink down into the ground and be stuck in the mud and kind of just destroy it. So what we came up with as a kind of an agreement was to do some sort of grass reinforcing. That usually it can be a proprietary system or it can just be some engineered solution where you put like a geogrid beneath the ground that kind of gives it a little bit more stability that you can drive lighter vehicles on top of it. But the maintenance of the grass would still be the same as the rest of it would be the same seed mix, same topsoil thickness and kind of same, I think there were some conditions related to how tall the grass would go. So that would still be maintained but if they ever needed to get to that area, it would have a little bit more stability to hold up kind of lighter trucks and smaller pieces of like a backhoe or something if they needed to get in there. And that's what the concern from the town engineer was just making sure that once they got off the access road, the kind of the stabilized access road, it wouldn't just, their trucks wouldn't get stuck like in the muck and kind of just, you know, have to have to build a road in there per se. We found this, I've used this product in other places and it's a little bit more effective because it makes it, I find it looks like kind of the rest of the area once it grows in as opposed to like, sometimes you see like pavers or pavers with holes in them, you can still see it when the grass grows in. This allows the, you know, it's not gonna look, you know, it in theory, it should look the same as everywhere else on the site. It's just that if you drove a vehicle on it, it'd have a little bit more stability. It makes sense, Sean. What I guess my concern is that it should be in the, incorporated in the plan. Yeah, so we committed to putting a note in a detail into the plan set. I think this, I think we provided the revised plans last week and since then we've talked to Aaron about just, you know, we were committed to putting that in the compiled, you know, the compiled permits that, you know, at any, when requested or whatnot, but it wasn't an oversight. I think just the timing of the exact detail and sign off on the town engineer was, wanna make sure we had that all before we put what we're gonna put on the plans. But yeah, we're committed to, I think I put in an email to Aaron that, you know, we're committed to doing that. What's gonna be on the plans. So we're not trying to get out of it by any means. So, thank you, Sean. I appreciate it. And also just to provide some additional color, obviously there's nothing there at the moment. So if the town does need to access it to dig it out, then this is an improvement. And it was a miscommunication, which is why it was an oversight when we discussed with the town, it was just to leave that area clear so they could access it to be able to get the equipment in based on what it currently is. I believe that putting a road or something in there would make it harder for them to dig down to access it. So we're just gonna make sure that the manholes are kept open for them and the rest of the area will be reinforced with this grass pave. Thanks. Thank you. Go ahead, Dave. Yeah, quick question for Sean. Sean, I might have misheard you earlier, but did you make a comment or reference to, was it the CMP and getting an extension from natural heritage on the implementation of the mitigation plan to 2030? Or did it mean? Yeah, correct. So our current permit, I believe expires in fall of next year. So two things we need to do, first get an extension of that permit till 2030 and this is outlined in the notes sheet about the phasing. There's several years of mitigation that need to get done. So that was part one, but we also at the same time provided them at the initial plan set that we produced. We gave that to them and informed them of the changes and we discussed it with them and they concurred that the changes were in general conformance with the previous CMP and they provided an extension. And I believe they also provided a letter directly to Aaron and members of the board just kind of outlining and informing them of that decision. It is included those correspondence with Nishamp are included in the attachments to the response to comments we provided. Could you or Lawrence comment on, I'm a little fuzzy on your commitment in the mitigation area to the, how long are you responsible for the success of the plantings in the 17 acre mitigation area? You're putting me on the spot a little bit there, Dave. But I think it's, I think we're two years. It's the establishment phase, which I believe is either two or three years. Oh yeah, it might be three years. Okay, it didn't mean to put you on the spot. I was just trying to make the connection but your intention is to get the mitigation area, you know, established as soon as possible. Yeah, gotcha, thank you. Yeah, so sorry for clarification, is that the mass heritage, well heritage CMP criteria or is that the town's criteria or that three year performance? I believe that was the state. So it's called the Habitat Management Plan as far as the CMP. All right, so we have no jurisdiction over that monitoring period then. That's all state permitting, okay. Oh, we will, I mean, we're party to the CMP. So we will definitely be working with Pure Sky and Tetra Tech and, you know, we will be keeping a close eye on that area. After those years, then, you know, that becomes a permanent feature of the 150 acres that 17 acres north of the Fort River is really that mitigation area. So it's an important area for sure. I was just thinking about, you know, being clear about successors and assigns over that three year period, given that, you know, there's turnover. I believe it's laid out in the CMP responsibility and then the town takes over from there. Okay, thanks. Go ahead, Alex. Sorry, I keep you waiting. Now, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, so I have sort of two points on the same, in the same subject matter as the do of the fire department. And I hope I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought what you said was you wanted to disconnect your proceeding with the Conservation Commission from your communications and need for a permit from the fire department, such that we would be not privy to the fire department. And did I get that wrong? You did to a certain extent, yes. So the safety and security of the fire, of the battery storage itself is a fire department consideration rather than a concom one and would be done through the permitting. It would be up to Captain Baskham as the permitting issue if he wanted to consult with the concom or any other town departments in terms of the containment and protection of resource areas. That is most definitely under the concom purview and has been addressed in our submissions. Yeah, okay. So the sensitivity for me was that we have been very much interested in a fire-related subject matter having to do with batteries. And I was going to ask Erin if she could just remind me how we handled this situation when we were working with the battery storage out there in Sunderland. And we were concerned about fire and we were concerned about containment of materials used to put out fire and that kind of stuff. We were in communication or knew what the fire department interests were. And I don't remember us necessarily becoming divorced from the fire department in the process. Yeah, no, I appreciate everybody's comments. I mean, I think what's difficult for us is while the fire department's ultimate approval of what the battery system setup is is at the discretion of the fire department to make those decisions where it results in a potential change to our plans is where it kind of becomes our issue. I know we have a couple plan adjustments that we had talked about earlier today for example, the dimensions of the equipment pads were missing. We talked about what was gonna be done underneath the new construction trailer location. We have that grass pave issue with where the actual grass pavers are gonna be located in the Eastern Array. The potential for what's gonna happen with the equipment pads and sort of the layout of everything. And as it pertains to our permit what happens when we issue an order of conditions is we reference the plan set that we have that is the most up to date from our permit application. And so if there are changes to the plan set after our permit is issued then what that means is that they would have to potentially come back to us with an update and amendments to the plan to get approvals for changes. And so that's where it's tough because I mean we went, several commissioners probably remember us going through six iterations of administrative changes to the previous order of conditions and it's very challenging to go through that process because we basically have to rehash everything every time there's an amendment. And certainly the preference from a staff standpoint would be for us to have finalized plans that all departments are on board with and sign off on and we issue the order of conditions and it's like a clean order of conditions and there's no changes or adjustments. And granted there may be that are out of our control for example like we talked a little bit offline about this, but for example the... Come again? Concrete foundations. Well, you know that's something that I think... So yeah, just I was gonna mention the interconnect the utility interconnects because there might be some polls that Eversource requires for the interconnect that we can't really, we can't say definitively are gonna be required now or not. It's up to Eversource, right? But so, but since that issue was brought up I just wanna mention a couple things which are I have been talking offline with Sean about conditions and that those conditions do potentially adds medicinal management to the plans as they're currently proposed. And I can give you some examples of that. Lawrence just brought one up. So some of the questions that I asked to Sean offline today were about the number of pilings. So essentially the supports for the solar panels themselves. So the number of pilings, the number of panels and the number of pilings per panel. And the reason for those questions were because I was talking internally to our, we have an engineer on staff who answers a lot of stormwater questions for me. And it's been really valuable. And actually to the applicants benefit quite frankly because when I have questions about the stormwater management plan I have somebody to go to who really knows the answers. And so it makes it so it's a lot more seamless for me when I'm reviewing things. But you guys may recall the members who were here for previous minor administrative changes that one of the changes was that there was a potential need for modifications if there was a pile. So they're hoping to use driven piles for the supports on the solar panels. But there may be instances when they're installing the piles for those panels that they hit resistance and they have to put in a more substantial footing. And so in some cases requires sheeting on either side of the piling in some cases requiring concrete. And so one of the things that I was requesting in the details and in my comments was a spec for what those foundations would look like which they've provided to me, which is wonderful. And so now the question becomes so we know that they're hoping to use the piling but there may be need for them to use a couple of the foundations if they hit resistance, if they hit ledge or something like that. And so part of what I was hoping to build into the order of conditions is something to the effective. And this is just me sort of spitballing but I'm just throwing this out there for the sake of discussion. Like they could potentially use the concrete foundations for say 20% of the overall pilings but once they exceed that 20% they'd have to come back to the commission. And the reason for that is because those concrete foundations weren't accounted for in the stormwater plans. Now speaking with our internal engineer it really probably won't impact the stormwater that much but it's, as we discussed when we talked about those, when you're installing a pile driven support you're using pressure to drive it into the ground. There's really not a whole lot of material that's coming out of the hole. When you're putting in a dug foundation you have a lot of material that's coming out. And so where is that material going? Is it being stockpiled? Is it being taken off site? Is it being dewatered, right? We have high groundwater on the site when those materials are dug does that mean that that material needs to be dewatered? And so there's like all these sort of ripple effects that happen when there's a need for those types of structures to be installed which we have to manage and come up with a plan for that. So it provides them conditioning it on some level provides them some flexibility. So if they need to install a couple of them they have the flexibility to do it but it doesn't mean that like let's say there's 500 pilings on the site they couldn't do 500 of them, right? Without coming back to us and letting us know. Similarly, one of the things that was really a concern to me when I was reviewing this was we have two arrays on this site. The Eastern Array and the Western Array. This is ballpark but the Eastern Array is approximately eight acres the Western Array is approximately 12 acres. They basically wanted permission to just install both arrays at the same time. And my concern with that was these are very large footprints and we're talking people getting in there with equipment putting in trenching. There's a lot of vehicles traveling in and out of the site. There's excavation that's happening there's a heavy equipment that's tracking over this and so it introduces a lot of disturbance. Now as part of their SWIP they're only allowed to disturb up to five acres at a time. So having access to install on almost 20 acres is a pretty substantial amount of disturbance in my opinion. So another condition that we had discussed offline was since we were sort of having I don't want to say a disagreement but the applicant felt like we should be able to install these at the same time and for financial reasons we need to install them at the same time. And from my perspective I'm saying we need to protect the resources and we can't have this entire site opened up. So the compromise that we arrived at which I put a lot of thought into and came up with this suggestion was on the Eastern Array which is approximately eight acres. In order that would basically be phase one of the array installation. In order for them to move on from the Eastern Array to the Western Array they would have to have stabilized three acres of the Eastern Array before moving on to the Western Array. So they could still be working on the Eastern Array but start working on the Western Array. But they would only have permission to begin on half of the Western Array the first half of the Western Array. And once they have stabilized the entire Eastern Array they can move on to the second half of the Western Array. So you see I'm trying to sort of do this piecemeal so that we're getting some stabilization as they're moving through the site and not just both the sites opened up. But these are some of the conditions that we've been talking about offline. And again, it's very fast and furious because we're trying to sort this out quickly as we go back and forth with our comments. And there's a couple other conditions that would be associated with some of the back and forth with our comments that we've already discussed. Like for example, if poles are added for an interconnect they'd have to come back for an amendment from the commission. The construction sequences would essentially be considered phasing. They'd have to report to me as those phases are being completed. We'd have to have some open dialogue. This phase is being wrapped up. This phase is looking to begin so that I can be on board with how that's working. This is a very large site. So I wanna make sure that we are in the know with how the process is moving forward. And then- I do think we need to go through all of these right now. I'm just trying to keep an eye on the time. And I mean, that was a lot. And I think giving it in like a, once you and Sean have had some more back and forth having it like for us to review would be super helpful. But it was really good background. And I'm hearing building contingency into the plan set. So we don't have to go back for all the amendments. I think we learned a lot from all of those amendments. I don't know how many commissioners were there for all of them, but there's a lot of things that we can just go ahead and get into the plan sets on the get go. And Erin has a lot of foresight on that now. I'm certainly supportive of the phasing that she recommended. And I think probably now you know where staff stands on that. So unless I don't see any public comment, please raise your hand if you have anything over there. I just want to circle back to the fire department and DPW like those conversations might end up having some implications for our jurisdiction. So I think it would be prudent for us to wait to hear what they want and then make sure that's in the plan set. And I just want to prevent this, the multitudes of revisions and amendments that we went through last time because I think we've learned a lot in the past couple of years from doing that. Any last comments from anybody, questions? Anything from the applicants about what you need to correspond with us or Erin? Okay, I see a, I'm sorry, I heard, go ahead, John. I was just, I said I think we're all set. Great. I do see a public comment. So I'm going to allow Matthew to talk. Welcome Matthew. Sorry about that. So Matt more attached to our team. I got, I got booted out a little while ago and have just been listening in as attendee. Just real quickly as I relate to the DPW and the fire department, I think we've gotten the closure we needed from DPW in writing as to what their expectations are. And as Sean indicated before, we plan to include that information on the final compiled plan set. The fire department probably more concerning to me that the commission's considering extending this process contingent upon however long the fire chief needs to complete his process and his review. It sounds like we all understand that if there are changes to the plans resulting from the fire chief's review and his permit process, we would have to come back. And in a perfect world, we ask we would have that all wrapped up on this final set of plans. But what I don't want to see happen is that review take months and have, you know it's outside the purview of the commission have that hold up, closing the public hearing and issuing an order of conditions when there's a separate process that we should be respecting that the fire chief has in place. And also just to throw in some color and context around that the batteries are the last thing to go on site. We need site power to be able to operate the HVAC and life support systems for them. So the site goes live with the witness test for the PV and then we install the batteries. At the moment, Eversource is telling us that it's a late September is when they would be able to provide us with a utility interconnection. So the batteries aren't going to go on for probably nine, 10 months from now. So we do have plenty of time for the fire department and if necessary for us to come back to you with any to incorporate any minor amendments with anything that he may wish to see as part of that permitting process. So it's not like we're looking to get on and install a battery next week and the fire department aren't gonna have any time. That's certainly not the intention. We're gonna have a long and detailed chat with all the departments to be able to make sure everybody's happy with everything that's there. Okay, fair enough. I guess I'm nervous that we have no ballpark about what that might look like. So if there are early updates that you can give us that would be helpful. Aaron, did you want to respond to that? I see your hand, Andre. Yeah, I mean, I don't, I agree with the applicant on some level about getting fire department sign off and I'm definitely sympathetic to that concern. I guess where my concern does fall well. So there's two issues with the fire department. Number one is the battery and the battery storage and the cabinets that are associated with that. So that's sort of number one and number two is confirmation of the access roads. So the access roads, this is what I understand from speaking with Mr. Baskam is that, and I'm sorry, I don't know what his official title is so I'm doing my best, but he said that ordinarily the access roads would have to be 20 feet wide. But in this case, there was a provision granted for them to have a 15 foot wide access road, which is essentially like a variance from the 20 foot wide access road requirements, but that they had to have additional turning radii that were added in order to accommodate them pulling in and turning around. So I have a call into them, but I'm just, I'm between a rock and a hard place, I guess, because I don't know if the access roads are gonna change. And so I think it would be good for us to get some confirmation on the access roads and also it would be good to get some feedback on the battery storage. It doesn't necessarily mean that the fire department has issued their permit, it doesn't mean that they've approved everything that's being installed per se, but just to say we've reviewed the plan and we don't think that there's gonna be any substantive changes to the conservation permit as a result of anything we may require. I think that's the sort of confirmation that I'd be looking for. And part of this, so for context, we had another battery storage site in the town of Amherst where they were proposing similar battery storage cabinets and they worked with the DPW to have a roof system put over the top. And the purpose of the roof system is basically to provide number one containment that doesn't get stormwater influence and two to protect the batteries from rainwater so that they're not damaged. So if there's a roof structure that's added over the top of this, that changes the plan to some degree as well. So if the fire department was to require some sort of a cover over the top of the equipment pad, then that would also trigger a change to our permit. So I see it from both sides and I'm understanding and I certainly don't wanna be unreasonable. It's just that I think it's gonna get, we don't wanna go through multiple administrative changes and I think that that's where I'm concerned to try to limit that to the degree that we possibly can. So I was just gonna say, I understand that entirely but the reality is that if the fire department is a permit because we haven't been able to satisfy and we don't install batteries at all on the site. So it's, they are more the gatekeeper in terms of us, the ability for us to put it on there. If we put a roof structure over, which as you would know from conversations that we've had, it is unnecessary due to the design of these cabinets. I don't know the design of the other ones but the way that these are done, it's relatively unnecessary. But we'd also need to, I would have thought, go through a zoning variance as well on the special planning site plan because that's a structure that they'd need to consider as well. So I'm reluctant to go through the kind of, the what-ifs of this stage if it's unnecessary. Yeah, I just wanna piggyback on that real quick, Aaron, if you don't mind. I certainly understand exactly the way you're coming from here and fortunately this process includes opportunities for administrative changes to address all these what-ifs. And the project's at a point now, it's a little unique where we're filing a notice of intent after we've already received the building permit. So presumably the fire chief has reviewed the access roads which were constructed under the prior order and are not part of this filing. The access roads are in existing condition in this filing. So I get your concern, it's not something that's part of this notice of intent filing. And ultimately there are processes in place that address these what-ifs. And we're just looking for the commission to respect those other processes and ideally focus primarily on the jurisdiction that you guys have reviewed over. Okay, so I'm a little bit concerned about what you're talking about there, Matthew, and a little bit about where this part of the conversation is going here. We do have, our concern is like you were saying before Lawrence is with containment. Now, depending on what goes on between you and the fire department, they may ask you to do something that may change the containment aspect or how much you can contain. We're concerned about what might flow out of that, what might flow out of the battery area. So we do have, I can tell you, I have some concerns about that. So let's, I think everybody's gonna be reasonable here but I do want you to know that I'm concerned and I think we've heard some concern from some of the other, from at least one of the other commissioners. Yes, Andre, Dave, you wanna jump in? Go ahead, Dave, you wanted to jump in. Yeah, I was just gonna maybe offer some guidance here, all along, conservation staff, zoning staff, planning staff and the fire department have worked side by side to work with Peer Sky and their consultants moving this project forward through the permitting process. So I was gonna step in or jump in a few minutes ago when Alex asked a couple of questions about kind of parallel pathways of communication, all along there's been good interdepartmental communication and this seems like a point where that would be very beneficial. And I'm happy to work with Erin to get the fire department, make sure that the zoning folks are with us as well, with Matthew, with the team from Tetra Tech and Peer Sky and get in a room and see if we can get to some resolution on these and bring them back to the commission. Having said that, I am sensitive to the length of time that some of these things may, the fire department may not make a decision and give an okay on the kind of batteries that they are going to approve for that site for some time. So I am a little sensitive to the applicant about about holding this matter that long when there are opportunities, but I get it, you don't want the applicant coming back for small changes amendments along the way, but as Lauren said, it could be 10 months or more before installation even takes place. So, but I'm happy to pull that group together with Tetra Tech, with Peer Sky and have that conversation and see if we can bring something back to you at your next meeting, if that would be helpful. And I'm curious. If Erin would be supportive of that as well. I mean, I would like to see some way in from the fire department. I don't think like everyone's been saying we need to sign off on a permit necessarily, but just some kind of review and initial input on whether or not we're gonna be moving roads or putting anything significant in that we should be considering that is under our jurisdiction. Okay, lots of hands up. I'm gonna go to Jason, go ahead. Yeah, sorry, I just am wanting some clarification as far as the relationship here between what the fire department needs to do and what we are looking to do and what the applicant is worried about. I understand that the fire department can potentially take months to make some decision. What is it exactly that they are asking of us? And just can somebody clarify that for me? Obviously, I'm somewhat new to the board here and I just wanna make sure that I am clear on what's being asked of us. And I understand the objections to fire department's input potentially changing plans, changing impervious surface, things like that, as well as I am also concerned if there's fire and it has to be put out what is going to be running off of the site, what is going to be running out of those batteries. So I'm just looking for some clarification as far as what is being asked of us tonight. I think we're trying to give the applicant some guidance on what we'd like to see in the plan set before we close the hearing on this and the detail which we do it and how much of that should be nailed down from input from the fire department in TPW. But if there's anything else there and you wanna add? Yeah, I mean, just ordinarily we would have the plan design sort of solidified and finalized before we close the public hearing. And so if they're still outstanding design details that aren't shown on the plans, it's somewhat risky to close the public hearing because once we close the public hearing we have 21 days to issue the order. In this case, our next meeting is January 10th. So it's basically, I'm not even sure we may even put us over 21 days if we were to close the hearing tonight. But if we're basically, we're closing the public hearing not seeing the final plan set. And so that's the risk that we take. Usually you wanna see that plan set, you wanna verify, okay, all updates have been made, all final changes are included in there. There are, like I noted, a couple additional things like the dimensions on the equipment pads, the area under the trailer, whether it's gonna have hardening or not, the grass pave, final approval of the access roads, the equipment pads. So like those types of details like like to have those all settled out and a final plan and we issue the approval and then we have a final plan set to reference in order of conditions. But it's my understanding we're not going to be closing the public hearing tonight. There's a continuance on the. Yeah, but we'd like to move forward in that regard and hopefully do it to the next one. So we're trying to give as much as possible in terms of guidance the applicant so that the next meeting we could hopefully get somewhere with that. Okay, I see all applicant hands up. I'm just gonna go in order on my screen, Laurence. Go ahead. Yeah, just putting it out there that there is a containment measure that was that is shown on the plans that was reviewed and approved by Erin last year. And we've maintained that within this plan set. The reason and just to explain some context about why it's probably gonna take some time with the fire department. So obviously it pairs back to the fact that the company that we've selected that is gonna provide the batteries power and had a fire at a site in Warwick in New York. They carried out a root cause analysis that determined the cause of it. But at the moment we're covered under an NDA. So it's not something that we can publicly talk about until we get the authorization from them to discuss the RCA. They are getting close to that point but it may be January or February before we can have those three conversations with the fire department, which I would expect them to want and we're more than happy to have. But there's no point me having the conversation with the fire department in January just talking generally about things when there would be specific questions and things that would come out over what that cause was, what's been done to address it and anything that needs to be incorporated on this if that makes sense. So it was really just to, and I understand what I was saying about having the final plan and that kind of stuff, but it was really just to deal with the fire department permission as a condition, one of the order of conditions that we will need to do that before any batteries are installed rather than us having to go through that approval process now to get the order of conditions issued. Okay. Thanks, Florence. Sean, go ahead. Yeah, I was going to just reiterate what Lawrence said is that we do have a secondary containment system for the batteries. They're kind of odd because they don't have a lot of fluids in them, right? I think there has been some discussion on the call like the cabinets are watertight. I can't speak to that other project in town why they put a roof on it. That's not typical design. So, but I will say they're designed as watertight systems. Regardless, there is a secondary containment system for anything that could get out that we wouldn't be, shouldn't be getting out. And I think there was just some confusion on what maybe Matt was saying and maybe one of Aaron's comments too that I just want to make sure it's clear. I think our understanding, right, was that the roadway work was considered in an existing condition, right? That roadway work was done, improved previously and it's completed. And part of that process was the approval of the width of the road. And during that process with the fire department, the radii of the turning radius where they turn around was enlarged. So on the plan, you do see these what we call hammerheads and turnarounds. Those are solely for fire department access. That's not for maintenance equipment at all. That's for the larger vehicles, you know, to come in and out of the site. So I know there's a long history to this project. I'm not necessarily knowledgeable of all of it. Most of the people on the call probably aren't, right? But there was conversations in coordination with the fire department to get us to that previous approval and get that built. So I just want to put that out there for that understanding that it's not like we've never coordinated with the fire department and we've just gotten here without their sign off to that there was coordination with them historically on specifically the radii's of where they would turn because that's their number one concern. And I'm not even sure if the same people at the fire department were part of that are still there as part of that conversation. That those pieces that I'm not sure of, right? Because I think the project's gone so long. I think we've just brought in new people but I just want to set the stage for that. I think it's important because I don't want this to sound like we're doing this in a bubble. There has been a process to get us where we are, right? And maybe that maybe some of that's gotten lost in translation a little bit. Okay, understood. Thank you, Sean. Lawrence, I see your hand up. I'm really trying to move on at this point. So do you have something quickly to add? Okay. I'm absolutely nothing to add. It was raised in error. I apologize. No problem. All right. We do have one public comment. Mike Lepinsky, I'm allowing you to talk please if you may just keep it to two minutes. Yes, I'd just like to fill in a few facts that are missing in the discussion tonight that the conservation committee should be aware of. Mr. Cook has referred to one fire involving these polling batteries. And there's been at least another one in October of 2023. Sorry, yeah, October 4th actually. And that involved the same either the exact same battery they're trying to use or a similar one where nine individual cabinets caught on fire. So it's a big problem for polling. And it seems to be a big problem this particular company, Pure Sky, because even though it's been proven that these things have some fault that has caused them to catch on fire rather than abandoned this particular battery and substitute any other batteries that are out there which would move the process along really quickly. They want to stick with this for whatever reason. Perhaps they've already purchased them. It's really not clear because they're kind of tight zipped about it. But the thing is, you guys shouldn't take this as it's your fault that you're slowing down the process. At any point in time, they could switch to a battery that wouldn't have any controversy that the fire department would look at and say, no problem, let's go. But they're sticking with a battery company and a particular model of battery that is still not clear why they're catching on fire. And even if they do issue a report that says, everything's okay, we're ready to go, you have to understand that where the beta testing for that is going to take place is going to be at Hickory Ridge because they won't have those batteries out in the field whatever caused the original fire and the batteries that they put out in the field in New York and in Idaho, they won't have tested for that. And so this new improved fixed battery system is now going to be installed in Hickory Ridge and it's a town of Amherst that'll be doing the testing. They could solve this problem really easily, switch to a different battery, a safe battery with a long history of being safe and the process could continue very quickly. The only reason why it's being dragged out at least as far as the batteries go is because they're hanging onto this poem, Centipede 750 System, which so far has a really bad track record as far as fires go. And you should be aware of that and do your own research on it and see what some of those fires look like. Okay, thank you, Mike. I'm just gonna take, sorry, Mike, we're just trying to get this going at it fairly. Thanks for your public comment. Commissures, I just wanna take a quick poll. I see Lawrence's hand is up about who is in favor of continuing this right now or if we want to continue the conversation. Okay, so in favor of continuing, hand up. Continuing now as in closing. Did you just clarify what you mean by continuing? Yeah, I'm sorry. In favor of motioning to continue now and closing this hearing, not the public hearing, raise your hand. Okay, all right. Okay, I'm sorry, Lawrence, we'll be back, obviously, but I think that we've sort of reached our max on this hearing for tonight. So, Jason, go ahead. Nope, hands up, okay. All right, with that, I'm gonna make, look for a motion to continue this hearing to January 10th. Alex, I see your hand up. I have one quick comment, Michelle. Go ahead. I just wanna say that as a commissioner, I'm not particularly interested in working on a project which may be segmented. I would rather work with the whole project than segments of a project. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. I move to... I move to... What's that? I move to continue the public hearings for 191. West Pomeroy, Fort River Solar LLC, notice intent to 1, 10, 24 at EPM. I'll second that. Right, Jason on the motion. Andre on the second. Alex. Aye. Jason. Aye. Bruce. Aye. Andre. Aye. Anam and I. Right, thank you, everyone. Have a good night. Yep, thank you. Okay, back to SWCA, not forgotten. Okay, so this is a notice of intent for SWCA on behalf of the University of Massachusetts for the construction of a gravel parking lot and associated storm water structures in the 100-foot buffer zone to bordering vegetation, vegetated wetland at Lot 13 Olympia Drive at 8D, Lot 15, 16, and 3. So we are still waiting on some input from this one, unless there's any comments and looking for a motion to continue. I move to continue the public hearing for Lot 13 Olympia Drive, notice of intent to 155. EPM on 1, 10, 24. I think we have a... Yeah, I think... Okay, got it. Got that motion. Okay, is that Andre in the motion? Alex on the second. Alex. Aye. Jason. Aye. Bruce. Aye. Andre. Aye. Anam and I. Okay, I think we have one more up. That is 30 Kestrel Lane, DEP. Do we have anyone? Yeah, so I had a little communication with the owner at 30 Kestrel, kind of late this afternoon. They did send me a PowerPoint presentation that has some photos. If the commission would like, I can share those with you now. It's kind of at your discretion, but I'll let you know what... I guess the situation is. So the owners of 30 Kestrel came before the conservation commission with a notice of intent application probably about a year ago for the construction of a sort of a lean to storage structure on their property for the storage of a boat. And so they went through the permitting process for that and they were issued in order of conditions. The owner reached out to me a couple of weeks ago that they were building a shed slash play structure in their backyard and their neighbor stopped them and said, hey, I think you need a permit from the conservation commission. So he reached out to me and said, I'm building this structure and my neighbor alerted me that I need a permit from the conservation commission. So I said to him, you can try to amend your order of conditions to include the structure and or you could file a request for determination. Based on what he told me, the play structure slash shed is located within the 50 foot no touch buffer to a wetland on the site. So he opted to file an amendment to the order of conditions, which is why this is on the agenda. I'm having trouble downloading. I had requested site visit photos. I know Bruce went out and took a ride by and he said it looked like it was either fully constructed or partially constructed. Partially. Partially, okay. It's just a frame. Okay. It was a little unclear the materials that were submitted to us because so the original plan showed a wetland delineation line, but it didn't extend to the back of the property where this structure is being requested to be placed. What the request included was a GIS map that showed the DEP wetland layer and there was a line drawn to the wetland layer. So I reached back out to the owner and said, we can't use the DEP wetland layer. We really have to rely on a wetland delineation. And he said that there was still flags from when Ward had done the original delineation. They just weren't picked up by survey in the back of the lot. So that was kind of a new piece of information for me. And I said, okay, well, you can still present tonight. And he said, here's my PowerPoint. I'm not going to be there. So for whatever reason, it's not allowing me to download the PowerPoint at this point. I just tried to download it. He only sent it to me at like seven o'clock tonight. So I can't share it with you. So I think we're kind of at a point where we can't really approve it tonight, but the concept of having a site visit might not be a bad idea just so that everyone can sort of see what's going on out there before the next meeting. Thanks, Erin. Raise your hand if you're in favor of a site visit or be interested in it. Okay, that's it. Longest Friday. Sorry, say again. Longest it's not this Friday. Okay. I think we can make that happen. Okay, so we'll table that to the next meeting. That's no problem. And sorry for the long-winded explanation. Thank you for the background. Okay. I think we've gotten through all of our items. So I'm going to just take one last public comment call. Give a couple of seconds. Seeing none. I'm looking for a motion to close. I would hear your motion. To adjourn. I don't know. I think Andre got that one. I'll second it. Andre on the motion. Jason on the second. Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Bruce. Hi. And I'm an I. Right. Good work, everyone. Thank you for staying up late. That's all I need, Bruce. Good night, all. Thanks, everyone. And I'll have you on the day as I see all the time. Oh, yeah. Erin. See you next year. I have a question for Erin before she leaves the arena. Okay. Okay, I think we can all leave and they can hang out. I just want to ask a question about the notes. Sure. All right. Happy to hear, everyone. Right. You too. Bye-bye. Go ahead, Bruce. Just I have some questions. What time will you be around tomorrow? I believe I have I will be tied up from about 10 to noon. Other than that, I think I am around. Okay. Just send me the tape and I can ask my questions in the afternoon. Okay. That sounds good. Have you stopped recording? No, I have not.