 Okay. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the June 8th, 2022 conservation commission meeting from the town of Amherst. The first item on our agenda is comments from the chair. That's me. I usually just like to go over the agenda. We have two hearings on the agenda, but one of them will be a continuance to the June 22nd meeting. So hopefully aside from a few other business, excuse me, updates from Aaron, we can spend the bulk of this meeting focused on continued review of the proposed amendments to the bylaw. And the other head. We have five new hearings in coming for the next meeting. So we're really trying to get through the bulk of the discussion of the bylaws and public comments on bylaws tonight so that hopefully we can have the bulk of that through so we can deal with these upcoming hearings starting at the end of this month. The other small update, and I think we can discuss this leader is that we might want to consider another special meeting for either the week of the 15th of June or the week of the 27th of June, just because we have so much on the agenda. And there are a few things that we need to keep moving. So we'll come back to it at some point. I know Aaron added it to the slides. So we'll come back to it as a discussion point later in the meeting, but just something to think about as we realize how many different things we have going on. Aside from that, I don't think I have any pressing updates. You don't see Dave. I thought he was going to join us. He is having trouble getting in. He's having trouble getting on. Yeah. Okay. I don't see him. We have 10 people in attendance, but I don't see any days. Yeah. He's, he's definitely having issues. And I know he's had issues in the past too. Okay. Well, maybe what we should do is go to the Mount Pollux land use application. Quickly. Can get through that. That's something to do. Good idea. Yes. And the applicant was going to be here. I don't see her on the attendee list. If anybody is in attendees for the land use application, please raise your hand. But. If she doesn't show up. I just to let you guys know, I did have a conversation with her about some elements of the application. And I am more than happy to. Just give you guys a quick briefing on that. Which is, I basically informed her that. We don't. You know, that it's always open to the public. That. Sorry. For some reason I'm getting some weird error messages. That it's always open to the public that, you know, we can't reserve parking for the event and that we don't do any sort of site preparation for the event either. And she was fine with everything. She was just planning a very low key 10 minute ceremony on the top of. Mount Pollux. And I did recommend that they make arrangements for like a shuttle for transportation, just in case there's cars already up there. But I'll open it up here in the. Share screen for you guys. And for some reason I can't seem to find it on the one drive folder, but I'm sure that's operator error. Yeah. So it's a. A wedding proposed on Mount Pollux at 630. On September 15th, 12 participants, five parking spots, no signage. Nothing really special proposed. They're just kind of gathering and having a. 15, 20 minute ceremony. Dave didn't have any concerns about it. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I. Shared the application with him as well. I think you hit on the, the usual sticking points. I don't see any problems with that. Commissioners. No, actually, my only question I have act is I have. How has events been going up there? We get a lot of these, like a lot of people like to get married up there. And I just never hear about. So I'm assuming that's a good thing. So do you have any. I mean, I mean, I think that's a good thing. I mean, I think that's a good thing. These, like small events and like, or even on other conservation areas, I'm assuming everything's going fine since we're not hearing about it. Is that. Yeah. I mean, I do periodically get feedback from people who do events that just say, this is how it was. Like if they're doing something that's like a. A sign up event or a publicly attended event where they respond back and say, we had X number of participants and. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the whole. I don't usually hear back from people after events. So. Yeah. I'm not really sure to answer your question. Other than the ones I've heard back from have not expressed any issues. And I assume that by the fact that people continue to. Apply for things like weddings on Mount Pollock's that. You know, A lot of it is word of mouth, probably. Okay. Yeah, that would be great. I'll make a motion to approve the, um, little ceremony on, say, uh, September 15th. 630 at Mount Pollock's. Second. Andre on the second voice vote Fletcher. Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hey. Andre. Hi. Laura. And I'm an eye. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to update you guys on the land use policy to give a little land use policy update. And I also talked with Dave about this. I know. Jen brought this up sort of at the, at the get go of the meeting, but our, our next meeting on June 22nd is. A very business intense meeting. So we were thinking about possibly thinking about early July. Now, again, it. It really depends on the business because like in the last week, we've gotten five applications. So it could be that July is going to be equally busy. Um, We had talked about scheduling a special meeting to deal with, with one particular situation, but when I talked to Dave about it, he said, we may want to consider a special meeting just to handle some of sort of our other business items that we can't handle during a regular meeting just so that we're not going. Extremely late during a regular concom meeting. Balance out the load a little bit. So we can talk about that more as the night goes on, but I was hoping tonight to have some revisions to share with you. Again, it was a really good meeting. I was hoping tonight to have some revisions to share with you. Again, it was, it's been a busy week. So I wasn't able to do that, but we'll kick that can down the road a little bit, but we should definitely think longterm about. How we want to handle that. Yeah. So that's one of the reasons we have a special meeting. Yeah. So what time is our first hearing seven 30. So we have 13 minutes, Aaron. Do you want, should we just quickly cover enforcements? Yeah. Sure. So we were able to get a restoration plan submitted for zero Tuckerman, which is great news. And very, I'm extremely relieved that that happened. And Jen and I had a conversation earlier today. How do we, you know, do we want to discuss it tonight? Because. Since our first hearing is being continued and we're going to be primarily talking about the bylaw regulations tonight. We thought maybe we could handle it tonight, but we didn't think it was giving adequate time for folks to be prepared to come to the meeting tonight, particularly the applicant, the owner, owner's representative of butters and so forth. So the thought was. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. And I think that we may want to handle that during a schedule, a special meeting because we're not going to really have much time at the meeting on the 22nd to address it. And we do feel like it's something that we should be addressing looking at and giving feedback on in a timely manner. Yeah. So said another way. I just felt like. Handling enforcement tonight didn't give everyone enough time to get to the meeting. So I think that's a good decision plan on Monday. So just a tight turnaround time. But if we push it off to the next week, the first meeting in July, and then until July 13th that felt like. Too long to not be able to give them any feedback. So that was one reason. So the land use policy and moving forward on this enforcement were the two big reasons that we would try to have that. So with that information commissioners, does anyone have any feelings about this thoughts? Other suggestions for how we might handle it. Do something on the fifth. I'm a big if, if on the 15th, I'm actually have to be presenting to another conservation commission on the 15th. So. I'm kind of talking about the 15th of July. Oh, I was talking about June. Yeah, June 15th or June 29th. I definitely can't do. 15th I can do. I'm supposed to be on the 15th. The 15th player. So no Fletcher on the 15th and no Larry on the 15th. Yeah. Okay. Andrey, what's your schedule look like, Michelle? I'm good for either. Okay. Okay. I can do either at this point. Okay. Sometimes like Laura cannot do the 29th. Maybe the 29th is better for others. So. The 29th might be better if, if Laura is the only one in this group who can't make it, it's better for others. Okay. All right. If that works, I'll go ahead and notify the applicant and schedule. It'll be just. Just a special meeting to talk about zero talker. Do you guys want to try to talk about land use policy at that meeting, or do you want to try to push the land use policy to July? I'd like to talk about both in a special meeting personally. Yeah. I agree. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. That sounds good to me. All right. Very good. That's. That's really good. Thank you guys. Yeah. You have a time. We'll start the meeting at seven and it'll, we'll just jump right into other business at that point. So. I just want to handle some other business items at the, at the get go here. Okay. Yeah, sounds good. Okay. So the department of public works had a, an emergency certification. That was issued for some, they had a blocked culvert. Out on North East street in North Pleasant street. Let me get that up. I think there's a photo in here of. The sinkhole that formed under the road. It was a relatively simple fix. They excavated out and repaired. It was a. A culvert coming out of the catch basin that had the joint had failed. So they excavated and repaired it. It was a very simple fix. It was a relatively simple. I would just be. I'm hopeful that somebody would be willing to. Make a motion to ratify that emergency certification. I moved to ratify the emergency certification issue to the immerse department of public works for culvert repair work at 902 North Pleasant street. I think that. The second by Laura. What's about Laura. Hi. Hi. Hi. Larry. Hi. Andre. Hi. So there are two requests for certificates of compliance. Both of them were actually outstanding. And. Vista terrace. I've been working with the applicant. I think. Wrong one. I've been working with the applicant to try to resolve. To get it stable. They have done a pretty decent job of that. I met this was some of these photos are old. So it kind of shows before and after. This is the after. I was able to, if you recall, we kind of had a minor modification. We installed just a little area, a little sort of basin to handle it. And then we started to. When they had originally approached me and I said, you guys need to give it a little time, but the, the seed has started to come in at this point. These are again before photos when it was not stable enough. But we have reached a point where the grass seed is starting to germinate and it's looking pretty good. So I think at this point that we're, we're safe to. Consider the emergency cert. The, the. Only other elements of that. Application that I just wanted to. Point out was they, so they did submit stormwater. We're supposed to have regular stormwater maintenance logs that are completed for the maintenance of the, any of the stormwater structures on that subdivision. I did get some. And they were not. say there was a couple brief inspections that were done in 2021. I know that some of those were just recently put on the line. So it should just be clear that, you know, we're continuing forward with ongoing conditions so they have to continue to maintain that. But I do feel pretty comfortable issuing the certificate of compliance mainly because I know Alan Weiss has been monitoring that site on a monthly basis basically throughout construction. So I know that they're, you know, I've been getting monitoring reports. You guys have been getting monitoring reports and I'm pretty comfortable that the work that's been done out there has been in compliance throughout the life of the permit. So if you guys are comfortable with that, my recommendation would be that we issue the certificate of compliance with the ongoing conditions that were outlined in the original order of conditions. Sounds good to me. I'll make that motion to issue the certificate of compliance for Vista Terrace, DEP number 089-0626 with the ongoing required conditions. I'm second from Larry, I think. You hear that right? Voice vote, Laura. Hi. Lutcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Chow. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm in the eye. We do, we did also have a second request for a follow-up. This was a certificate of compliance that I didn't recommend that we issue. And I went out to do the inspection and I found a couple issues on the site. So I wanted to just, I did actually email the contractor, but he didn't have a chance to get back to me before the meeting tonight. The first issue is there's a pile of stone that's been placed in the riverfront area. And I'm not sure what that's the purpose of that stone is. If they're planning to do some, some sort of a turnaround or a parking area, or if they're using it for their garden. I just like a little clarification on, on what's going on with that pile that's sitting there. There, there's a little bit of, like the, it's not the, the grass isn't super well established in this area where there was some compaction during construction, but it is mulched and seeded. So, and the, and the grass seed is starting to come up. So I feel a little more comfortable with that. The other issue I had on the inspection was this is the catch basin that's at the base of the driveway. And they have a silt sack in there. And there's also a straw wattle, but the silt sack is completely covered in debris, rocks, sediment. And then there's also like quite a bit of sediment that's piled up around the silt sock there. So that needs to all be cleaned up before we issue a certificate of compliance on this. So I'm just going to recommend that we table that until we get some further word from them that, you know, what the, what's going on with the stone or that the stone has been removed and or that that erosion control situation has been corrected. I agree with that plan, Erin. So they can't, they can't do a, I'm sorry, Jen. Nope, go ahead. They can't do it like a turnaround, right? Like hypothetically, if that piles of stone was for a turnaround, they're not supposed to do that because of the river. Yeah. No, no, they, they, they can't, they, they have put in sort of a little trellis garden, like vegetable garden at the top of the hill. To be honest, I'm not really super worried about something like that. I feel like it's kind of a pretty, pretty low impact situation. And it's pretty high up on the hill. There's a really thickly vegetated grassed area in the riverfront and it's actually turning into a really nice meadow there. So yeah, I'm not, I'm not concerned about the garden either. But okay, so then the only other, other business item that we really have on the agenda tonight is to issue the order of conditions for 398 and 406 North Hampton Road. This is the hearing that was closed at the last meeting. It's the UMass five college, actually it wasn't at the last meeting. It was two meetings ago, but they, they granted us an extension. They actually requested an extension for us to not issue it because they had to go before the planning board and they wanted to make sure that if there weren't any additional modifications to the plan before we issued the order of conditions, there was a reorientation of the dumpsters with the planning, the planning board review and that moved the, the dumpsters and the parking area a little bit away from the wetland boundary. So that actually pushed work a little bit further away from the, the resource area. So that was a good change. They also added a canopy over the bike racks and there was, I think some additional plantings that were put in between the site and the butters to the west. So relatively minor changes to the plan that didn't really impact the resource area at all. So that's the update on that. And I would say if the commission's comfortable that we'd be ready to issue. I have everything drafted and ready to go and these are my recommended conditions. Okay. Are you looking for a motion, Erin? Yes. Okay. We'll make a motion to issue over conditions for 398 and 406 North Hampton Road, EP number 089-069 and within conditions above. Second. Okay. Voice vote, Larry. Hi. Laura. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Andre. Hi. Also an I. Thanks for keeping that moving, Erin. Absolutely. So let me see. I think that's everything. We do have some monitoring reports in the folder. And I didn't update you guys on all of the site visits and things that I've been doing this week just because I'm a little bit, it's been a little bit crazy and hectic, but I will be updating you. I'll try to give you guys a little, at the next meeting, you're going to have more than you want. So I'll just continue to update you as I can on what's going on. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks for keeping us all moving, Erin. I know it's a lot. And with that, I think we have to do our, or at least open and continue our first hearing. So let me just get the agenda out. Yeah. So this is going to be a continuance continuation to the next meeting because the applicant has decided to do a revision of the plan in the application. So we are going to open the hearing, but we're not going to open the public comment portion of the hearing until the next meeting. So we're continuing the hearing to the June 22nd meeting. And at that point, we'll open public comment on this application. The reason for that is one, we don't have the actual application to comment on yet. And two, the applicant had requested a continuance and so is not present at the meeting tonight. But we know that there's a lot of interest in this application and we really want to hear from everyone on it. So if you're here tonight for the hearing of Berkshire Design Group on behalf of Bruce Allen and Carol Cobono, apologies for any mispronunciation for the expansion of an existing driveway parking area and 100 foot buffer zone BVW at 51 Spalding Street. So if you're here for the 51 Spalding Street hearing, we're continuing it into the June 22nd meeting. And at that point, we will be happy to discuss and take public comment when we have a complete application to consider. And the applicant can be present at the meeting. Um, so Erin, I should formally open it and then we should have a motion to continue, correct? Okay. Yes. This is an NOI, Erin. Yes. Or an RDA. Okay. This public meeting is now called to order. The hearing is being held as required by the Visions of Chapter 131 Section 40 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth and Act Relative to the Protection of Wetlands as most recently amended in Article 3.31, Wetland Protection under the Town of Amherst General Bylaws. And so I just need a motion to continue this public hearing to June 22nd at 7.55 p.m. I'll make the motion to continue the public hearing for 51 Spalding Street to June 22nd at 7.55 p.m. Second. Who's that you, Michelle? Okay, that's Michelle on the second voice vote. Andre. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Laura. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay. So we're right on time for our second hearing, which is review and approve or review and take public comment on proposed amendments to the Town of Amherst Bylaw regulation and propagated by the Wetlands Protection Section under the Town of Amherst General Bylaws. So this is a continuation from the last meeting. I was not there because I got the flu. So I've asked Erin to kind of summarize some of the major kind of discussion points and questions that came up in that discussion so that I'm sure we have sufficient public input and public comment on some of the more complicated proposed amendments. If that's okay with everyone, just to make sure we get into the details and that everyone is clear on kind of the ramifications of some of the revisions. But again, major thanks to Michelle and Roy, who unfortunately isn't able to be here tonight. It seems like they're in great shape and are massive improvement just talking through some of it with Erin. It seems like these bylaw revisions will, will avoid some of the stickiest situations we find ourselves in. So I'm really glad that we're doing this. So thank you for your time spent. So Erin, how do you want to, do you want to go through kind of the questions that you wanted to get back to and provide more detail on first and then we can have kind of any further commissioner comments or questions and then open for public comment. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, I mean, so we have, we have basically this whole meeting now to handle this and I think that that approach sounds good. Part of me is very tempted to actually flip through some of the markups to go through them. I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to go through every single section and every single change and pick it apart. But at the same time, I do think that there is some value in sort of skimming, flipping through and skimming and just addressing any questions that might come up. I think that the first question I just want to, I'd like to just address right off the bat is that at the last hearing, there was a couple comments that were raised regarding our a butter notification waiver that we inserted for the request for determination. And I just wanted to clarify that again for the record and, and sort of state my position on it, having gotten a number of public comments on it and definitely a few came in at the last minute today. So under the State Wetlands Protection Act, a butters are not required to be notified for a request for determination. So for and clarify Aaron that a request for determination is literally that a determination as to whether an applicant has to file a full notice of intent for a permit or not. So it is not a permit. It is a it's a determination on whether or not the applicant will file a permit. Precursor to the permitting process just to be extra clear. Yes. Yes. So so under state law, if you're filing a notice of intent, you have to notify a butter and post illegal ad. But under state law, if you're filing a request for determination, you just have to have a legal ad. So it's actually just a public meeting, not a public hearing under the State Wetlands Protection Act. Under our local bylaw currently, there isn't a butter notification requirement. When we were going through the bylaw revisions, we suggested adding a waiver for the a butter notification requirement for request for determination. And the reason that we added that in was specifically because the railroad had filed a request for determination and had requested a waiver of the butter notification requirements, but we didn't have anything in our regulations that allowed us to do that. The commission granted the railroad a waiver of the butter notification requirements. And as such, I felt it was important that we add that into the regulations. At the last hearing, there was a lot of opposition to that. Members of the public felt that it was extremely important that we keep that requirement in there, and or there was even a suggestion made that we make it so that it is not something that the Conservation Commission can do to grant a waiver that all applicants should be held to the same standard. I'm completely fine with either removing that waiver section and or inserting language that we can't grant a waiver to basically make it so that they don't have to notify a butters. I'm comfortable with either one. I do think that that's the whole reason for this public comment process is for us to take comments from the public and hear what people think about the regulations. And so I'm comfortable either way. But I think that that might be a good thing for us to discuss just at the start, because I know there's a lot of interest in that particular issue. And I think the public might want to hear people's feelings on it. Great. Commissioner, does anyone have any feelings or instincts to share on this? Off the bat. I just want to sort of bring up that Andre Andre raised a potential midline solution, which was to state when we might consider a waiver, which is in the case of maybe railroads or utilities or basically the impetus for us, even including this was for these like very big and reoccurring projects like that perhaps happen on an annual basis and would involve notifying hundreds of a butters. So that's sort of where the idea came from. I just don't want to forget that that was an option that was brought up last time. So thank you, Andre, for suggesting it. Yeah, I think that the way that shows is that if we're going to be granting such a waiver, it should be defined how and who. And instead of it appearing to be arbitrary or something that we kind of decide on the fly, I think it would be a lot better if that's all defined already so that we have some go by. And if it falls within, yes, if it doesn't fall within, then no, and then the public knows what to expect. And so does the do the applicants. It's a very timely discussion because we literally just got the revised RDA for the railroad today. And so we're going to be faced with this question again basically immediately. And I just wanted to make sure that you guys knew about that. Yeah, great. Larry. I'm just curious what other communities that you might have looked at have done about this issue around the state. Yeah, so Amherst is very unique in requiring a butter notification requirements for an ARRAD. Most cities and towns do not require a butter notifications for an ARRAD, excuse me, I spoke there for an RDA. So just to make that clear, even in other towns bylaws, they do not require a butter notices for RDA applications. So Amherst is unique. And so a using the railroad as an example just because they they are the kind of the key proponent where we were considering it for. In most other cities and towns, they don't have to notify a butters for their annual operation for their five year operation and maintenance plans that they submit to the state. So Amherst holds those applicants to a higher standard. And again, this is a request for determination. So this is a precursor to any kind of probing process. I'm repeating that for the benefit of the members of the public here. So the reason that this is above and beyond is there is absolutely a butter notification and legal legal ads placed for a full notice of intent. So a permit application. But in this case, Amherst is above and beyond already by having a better notification for a request for determination to decide if a project even needs to file a full permit application. I just want to also get away from the example from the railroad and just go from just the standard homeowner who wants to do something very simple and is actually going to come in front of the conservation commission to apply. You know, you could have the unintended consequences of folks being like, well, this is so little and I have to do all this stuff on screw. I'm just going to go do it. And maybe it actually would be a violation or turn into something like that. So there's also an unintended consequence. But also just just the standard homeowner where it's like just these these processes aren't that easy and straightforward enough, you know, and it takes a lot for them to come up in front of us to do this stuff, which is great. And that's what we want to do. And we want to make it easy for it. And I think we do a really good job at it. But there's also that piece of it, just like another another step in the process. That's like because like you said, everybody here, it's an RDA. It's not a full permit for an NOI. So when you go, if they do come in front of us for the RDA, and we determine that it needs an NOI, then you go through all the hoops. But this is this. I really like to make this as easy as possible for people, because we can make that determination. And then we can say, Hey, you know, we got some really great minds right here, and we can help, you know, walk them through it. And then when it comes to if they have to do an NOI, we're here to help. Or Aaron, but you know what I mean? So I just want to consider that and not just these also these massive big projects like the railroad and Eversource or something. So just consider the smaller homeowner. That's just like, what am I doing? I do think that that's a very salient point, given that we're constantly, you know, we don't have any mechanisms for educating the public. So often the first time people are even hearing about the Conservation Commission and wetland protection regulations is when they hear, Oh my God, you have to go in front of the board. But those times when people voluntarily voluntarily come talk to us about their project are some of the most cooperative and educational that we can go through in the town. And the opposite of that is enforcement, which is also is not good fun for anyone and not a fun process to be involved in. So I agree with what you're saying. Flusher that having more onerous requirements to have somebody even just come in front of the board with a project on their residential property is something we need to consider. Anyone else? Many comments or thoughts on this? I have a question to what we're discussing right now. So it is so are we discussing a potential proposal to and maybe to modify the the bylaw requirements to exclude perhaps exclude the single home residents or whatever we would call them from the requirement to notify a butters on a RDA. Right. So yeah, so there's a couple of routes we could go right. We can say that a better notification doesn't apply to residential RDA applications. We could include them in kind of any more detailed specification as to when a waiver would apply. Right. So we could wave a better notification for residential properties. For example, in the same vein as we want to have the ability to waive it for utility. There's kind of two ways to go there probably. But if we're waiving it for single family properties and we're waiving utilities, then at what point are we? I'm inclined to feel we should follow an intellectual waiver where we realize the circumstances involved and realize that that is not necessary under some cases and let us make a decision. So it's up to kind of the discretion of the commission. Yeah, because you got a little Andre was saying you got to have it's got to be a little clear, you know, where's that threshold to do that. And the fact that you said no other towns are doing this is also interesting. So it's like why are we making this harder on ourselves? That is what's the threshold to make that intellectual determination or whatever. And so now we do that and put that on ourselves. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a couple pieces like as you guys are talking this out that occurred to me and one of them is like fairness, right? Sort of like if we're asking one person to do it, but then we're waiving it for another person, is that really fair? Because there is a cost associated with it and it can range anywhere from $2 per a butter to $6 per a butter, depending on what a butter notification method is used. And also where we're under our regs, which the town of Amherst is also unique because we require a 300 foot buffer from the property boundary for a butter notices where other towns require 100 foot buffer from the property boundary. So we're including a lot more butters in our a butter notification requirements than would be required by other towns. So the cost is then increased because there's a greater buffer around the property. And I think that's a good thing because more people know about it and if there is an issue going on with said property, more people are going to be aware of it. I think that a lot of the issues with the a butter notifications are people feel like they don't always read the legal ads in the newspaper. And I think that's why a lot of people really like the a butter notices because it gives neighbors a heads up if something's going on. So just to sort of talk out all those points, I just wanted to point those things out. Yeah, again, besides for the benefit of members of the public who aren't navigating these situations all the time, a butter notification does happen when there's a permit in which case we're going to like condition something that is otherwise would otherwise be in violation of the Wellens Protection Act. An RDA, I can say from experience, I'm correct if I'm wrong, but nine times out of 10, it's not something that would be subject to a permit anyway. So it's not like an RDA is is going to be a big project that is going to put the resource at risk. A lot of the time RDAs are landowners who want to hand cut and remove invasives from adjacent BBW or adjacent buffer to to a wetland. And it's something where it's an educational opportunity to allow landowners to explain the project and allow us to help share, you know, ideas and resources for how to best protect the resource that they're working with. So I just want to make that point that an RDA is not, you know, putting in a new building next to a wetland. It is often kind of a much smaller, potentially not an impact. So it's just a different category of project than an NOI. Is there anything about whether or not people defer from this because it's a financial hardship? Well, I'm an Amherst. It's a really interesting question, Larry. I haven't actually run into a situation like that. I mean, I've certainly talked to a number of folks who've been like, what I have to do the how much is this cost, you know, like I've gotten those questions before where people are like, this is very expensive for a simple, you know, for me to put in a deck in my backyard or for me to put in a pool, I'm, you know, spending hundreds of dollars on a butter notification requirements. Legal ads are about $300 just to give you a sense. So like when somebody files an RDA, there's a $50 filing fee, a $300 legal notice, and then you're notifying a butters within 300 feet of the property boundary, and that's by certified mail or certificate of mailing, which, like I said, costs between $2 and $6 per letter. And I mean, immediately, I think like, how are you defining cost, right? Because to me, when I hear, oh, you have to send a certified letter, I'm like, oh, my God, I have to go during times when the post office is open, and that means I have to get time off work. And I think that's like another like logistical thing that can be really tough for some people. On that vein, since we are using utilities versus homeowners as an example, I'm sort of reluctant to further subsidize the railroads and utilities and, you know, put costs on homeowners and not utilities, even though they're often the ones that are going to be having some greater impacts to more people. So that's just from a philosophical standpoint, I think, if we're weighing the utility railroad versus single family homes. Yeah. Who has not yet weighed in? I don't think Laura's weighed in. I'm curious to get Laura's thoughts. I think the one thing that stands out to me is why other towns haven't done anything similar. So I'm just, you know, I think that's the piece that, you know, makes me pause a little bit. I tend to agree with Fletcher's point that if you make it more onerous for people, they're not going to come to us preemptively. And I just, and that's what we want to encourage. So I'm just sensitive to what we incentivize. You know, we want to incent people to come to us with anything they have questions about. So anyways, I see sort of, I see both sides here. So just procedurally, I see that there's a member of the public and attendance, Sarah Matthews, who has had her hand raised this whole time. And do you want to wait to take public comment at the end of all of our discussion? Or do you think we should do like topically? I just know that a lot of people have wanted to weigh it on us. Yeah, I say we should give it maybe 10 or 15 more minutes if you want to take some public comment on that particular question. And then I think we should, if we are at an impasse with a decision and people want to give it more thought, then that's fine. But we could move on to the sort of next items in the regs that we can cover to as we continue to think about it and consider it. Yeah, so I think that's a great idea. I think we give it 10 minutes of public comment now. And again, like we're not going to vote on these bylaw revisions tonight. This will be continued to the June 22nd hearing. So there'll be another opportunity at that hearing as well. Yeah, so with that, what I'll do is if you have joined us and have a comment that is relevant to the point of discussion, which is of Amherst bylaw regulation possibly requiring, well, that currently requires a butter notification for RDA applications, but we are proposing to add the option that the commission can waive these a better notification requirements for an RDA application. If you have comments or questions relative to that topic specifically, please raise your hand. And I will allow you to talk. I'm going to ask people to limit questions and comments to kind of two minutes per person, just so that we can keep this moving. We already have forehand raised and I'd like to keep this to about 10 minutes just so we can give a lot to get through. So, Sarah, thank you for your patience. You should be able to talk. Yeah, I can talk now. Thanks. So I just wanted to correct factually one thing you said about other towns not having the requirement to notify a butters when there's a request for determination of applicability. Shootsbury does have that requirement, so that's a neighboring town. There are others neighboring towns that don't, but Shootsbury does. Number two, and this was some research that we did. I asked a law school intern to do. There were no other waiver provisions that he could find in any other town bylaws. So you'd be doing something different than other towns do by giving yourselves the ability to waive. That's not something that is in other bylaws, the waiver of the right to notify. Like they either have the there's either the obligation to notify a butters when there's a request for determination of applicability or there's not a requirement, but there's no ability to waive it if there is one. And I think that that makes sense. I'd also, you know, that you don't that you can't waive it because of what Erin was talking about. You just, I think that when you set up a situation like that, you're asking for potential issues with people. And I think there's a reason that that's not there. And then the other thing, I mean, I still, I personally am a proponent of not changing it. I think that people put that in there for a reason. I think you've done a terrific job on these, these amendments generally. But I think there was, you know, I think that I feel like notice is helpful. I people don't, they just don't pay that much attention. And it gives people more of a heads up. And I think that's good for participation. I think in a situation like the railroad, I agree with what Michelle said, you don't want to be subsidizing the railroads, also the types of things they do, like with their spraying and stuff actually affects more, you know, area and more people. So it's even sort of more important to be aware of what's going on. That's, that's my opinion. But, but anyway, I just wanted to clarify that about the other town that shootsbury has it. That's helpful. In that research, were there towns aside from shootsbury that had a, yeah, that don't, yeah, they're definitely that did not know shootsbury is the only one that we that the guy that was doing the research family found. So Northampton does not require it. Holyoke does not. Pelham does not. And Southampton does not. I think that's right. Okay. Okay. Oh, it's possible. Pelham also does. I don't know. You'd have to check Pelham. Sorry, I'm reading too quickly. I just remember that shootsbury definitely does. So it's possible. Pelham also does. But anyway, it's not that no towns have it. Yep. No, that's very helpful. Thank you. Those are all great points and great things to consider. I really need it. Thanks a lot. Yes. Okay. Janet Keller should be allowed to talk now. Thank you. I also, I listened very carefully to what you all were saying. And I appreciate that you don't want to increase the burden or chase away someone who might otherwise come to you. I still feel that the notice is incredibly important. And the impacts of even some of the smaller changes that people then go on to make can can be great. One thing I did want to say and emphasize regarding the railroads and the utilities and maybe highway departments that have so many miles to maintain is that I was really struck by the impact that they have if they choose, for example, a way to maintain those rights of way with herbicides, for example. It's a huge impact on the resource and potentially even to people along the way. And I did a little bit of research. I have limited time, but increasingly jurisdictions are looking at requiring less impactful maintenance. So first you got to know they're going to do it. And people along the way, I just feel it's terribly important and you can't be asking people to look at the newspapers for those legal notices. That's not a way to learn about it. So I'm still not seeing what the public benefit is here that outweighs the opportunity to weigh in on these determinations. So I would invite someone to perhaps explain why one isn't explain the difference that you're seeing that I'm not. And again, I want to emphasize that I am so grateful and appreciative of all the work and the high high quality work that you've done on this overall update. Thank you. Thanks, Janet. I'm going to disable your talking, but Fletcher, if you're still there, would you re-emphasize your point about the concern, what the concern with a butter notification for an RDA is? Yeah, sure. Let me just disincentivize the unintended consequences of more burden on folks with something that's most of the time 95% of the time, extremely simple procedure that we get to have this opportunity to engage with these folks without. And as we've, Erin and Jen have you said, if we're going past once the RDA, if we're going to the NOI, the notice of the tent, the real permit, everything's out the door we're talking about and everything goes straight into a butter notice. It's just 300 feet. I didn't know that about the boundary lines opposed to some towns are just 100 feet. So just, again, folks, we're talking about some pretty standard things here that happens. Again, I'm just sticking with a kind of small landowner here idea. So I'm just afraid of the unintended consequences and disincentivizing folks actually going to try to come in and do the right thing. Thanks, Fletcher. Okay, the next person I have is Paige. We're getting towards my 10 minutes, so I'm really going to ask folks to keep it to two minutes possible. Hi. Like Jen and I appreciate all the work you've been doing. I have a few quick comments about the a butter's notice. First of all, commenting that it's 300 feet is more than other people. I think it's essential that when it's a stream, anyone downstream should be notified. And that's going to be a lot more than 300 feet. So I don't think 300 feet is a good thing. It's too little. In terms of the cost, it seems like in this day and age, we could just email people. And if there was some way to build that into the regulation, it would be cost free. Butters could register their emails that they wanted to be notified if there was something that came up. So that would eliminate the cost. I think it's important to keep public input that people directly affected have a lot more information that will help for better outcomes and better decisions. And I'm confused about this RDA argument. It seems circular. It sounds like you were saying that a butters would be notified if there was an RDA, but there might not be an RDA. And so butters wouldn't be notified. And I'm not clear about what that's about. But it seems like you're almost saying that a butters might be notified if this happened, but they wouldn't be otherwise. And so there might be a way they're left out of the loop. Just to clarify that page, the RDA is a request for determination that is a precursor step to a filing of an NOI, which is a permit application. So if there's a project or proposed work that is not a major impact to a resource, they might submit a request for determination. And it gives the commission a chance to work with that project or applicant to make sure that the resource is protected, but that they don't have to go through the process of filing a full permit. If the commission decides that, in fact, that project meets the requirements for a full permit application, at that point, what they call a notice of intent for a full permit application, they are required to do full notice of butter notification and legal ads. So it's a the RDA is a precursor to any sort of formal permit process. That's helpful. But it seems like public input might sway whether or not you determined whether or not it was required. Fair point. Okay. Thank you. And Dorothy Pam. Hello. My question is about timing. If you don't notify about her. Dorothy, you're breaking up a little bit. We just lost your audio. Dorothy, we can't we can't hear you. Oh, can you hear me? Oh, it just came back. Okay. I know I'm having trouble with the internet. Did you hear that my thing is it's a question of timing? You said it's a question of timing and then we lost you. Okay. If you don't notify people when there's a RDA and only when somebody wants a permit or you think they need a permit, how much time does the if the person if in a butter is notified, how much time do they have to think, study and organize and to respond after if they only hear about it when a permit is requested? Because people don't read legal ads and they're hard to read anyway, because they're very small. So that's my question. So I can I can address that if that's helpful. The so legal advertisements are required to be posted a minimum of five days prior to the opening of the public hearing, a butter notices are required to be sent a minimum of seven business days prior to the public hearing opening. So that gives you a sense if in a butter is notified, they're usually notified right before the hearing occurs. So it it doesn't really allow much time for sort of mobilization as you've described, like if they're getting a notification right before the hearing opens. Okay, so so that would suggest to me that if there is to be any meaningful public input, then you should keep it as it is and notify people if there's an RDA, even though they don't all lead to permits. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I see Sarah has her hand up again, Sarah, one more comment and then we gotta kind of cut this one off. Keep things moving. Oh, all right. Hi, thanks. Now I just wanted to make the point that I think that notifying people of requests of determination of applicability is really important because that's the point at which the decision is made whether or not they need a permit so that that's determining from a legal perspective whether the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction, has the authority to weigh in on what's the proposed thing. So I think from a legal standpoint, that's actually very crucial. And it was actually recently that I got involved with my sister and brother-in-law because of an ever source request for determinant of applicability to spray herbicides. So I think that, you know, for people who care, you know, and it's like particularly with the, you know, things like the utilities, the way they sort of operate and have a lot of leeway and other areas. I think it's really important that people be notified. I just want to emphasize that again. And I think it is important. I understand like sometimes in a small case with a single family helmet, maybe it's not so important, but there are going to be cases where that's actually the critical thing is whether the concom has jurisdiction or not. Fair point. Appreciate it. Thank you, Sarah. All right. So how to move forward on this issue. Personally, I feel pretty conflicted and I think everybody has made fantastic points. If the decision was just the waiver or not waiver, I think, I do not think having a waiver is a good idea because I think it will make it more complicated for us and potentially unfair to applicants, which is not the goal, which we are trying to avoid. But the question of whether the butters need or that we need to have a butter notification for an RDA, it seems like some very salient counterpoint commissioners have brought up some very salient counterpoints for that. Commission, do we want to give Erin any direction on this? So there's point A, waiver, no waiver, point B, RDA, but our notification are no notification. Can we give Erin any actual direction on either of those things with some amount of consensus right now? Or do we need to mull it over, I think it over, read some more, do some of our own research and bring it back up in the next meeting? Yes, Erin. Sorry, would I mess up? I don't know. You didn't miss anything. I just wanted to make a point before you guys weigh in on this, which is I don't think that what we're asking right now has been is broken in any way. I just wanted to point that out. Like the way that things have been working has been fine. I added that in basically to make it legal. So if somebody came before us, it's not like we were doing something that was going off the rails and not in our regs. I think from my perspective, it would be more helpful for us to say waiver, no waiver, and or if we're saying no waiver, I think it would be very important for us to say that in the regulations that we're not waiving the abutter notification requirement. And I feel like that should be what we're considering as opposed to wiping out the abutter notification requirement altogether. I think that there's been a lot of public support for the abutter notification requirements from neighbors. And like I said, I think it's been similar to the Zoom meetings. It's been an opportunity for inviting public comment and public discourse, public involvement in our process. And I think that's an important thing for us to continue to do. So that's just my comment as staff. I would be hesitant to wipe out the entire section requiring it because we have required it since 2014 or maybe even before then. I think that if the waiver is what's the hang up here that we could just either stricken that from the revisions just so that we're not hung up on it. And or we could just say no waiver and just make it simple so that like across the board, it's fair to everybody. So let's do a quick kind of round robin here. Commissioners, would you be in support of removing the waiver provision from the abutter notification process within the RDA? Larry. You're on mute, Larry. You're muted, Larry. Sorry. I'm beginning to lean toward the idea just to go back to no waiver at all for anybody. Okay. Michelle. Mike. I agree with Larry. That's where I'm at. Okay. Fletcher. Say that again, Erin. You said that from 2014 this began. Well, or before. I'm not entirely sure when that provision came in, but the the waiver provision came in or whenever that. The waiver provision is new. The waiver provision is new. There has not been a waiver provision in the abutter for notification for the RDA until now. Right. It's always been. It's always been a butters noses regardless in the bylaw. Yeah. Since the bylaw before all of our time. I'm trying to make sure we have less headaches. So it's going to be the same headache that we've had since 2014. Right. Or in this case, people applying for RDA headaches. Yeah. So if we, I mean, yes, I would say get rid of the waiver because unless we have some certain threshold that puts us over that, it's too gray to say, Oh, well, you're okay, but you're not. It's just we don't have anything there. We're not going to have anything. That's fair. In that case, get rid of the waiver. I would like to get rid of a butters noses for RDAs. But if you're just asking about the waiver, get rid of the waiver. Okay. So let's just stick to the waiver for now so we can give Erin clear direction. So Laura waiver. No, I agree. I think, I think requiring a waiver puts undue onus to try and, you know, balance like who gets it, who doesn't. So yes, I'm agreeing with that one. Okay. Andre. Yeah. I think. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. I find also that that actually instituting a fair method of issuing waivers is as much too complex to for this right now. I would say given what we've got, I would strike the waiver. Okay. So that's good. That's some clear direction for Erin. No waiver. Now I think if people are comfortable with it, we should go around again and just give a soft vote on RDA a butter notification or not. If you're not comfortable weighing in, you want us to take more time, say, give me till next meeting. And that's totally acceptable. I could go. I find this a little bit complicated. In the case of, you know, I think in the case of, you know, single family residences, and if they're doing it for themselves, I think it would be good to to get rid of the notification. I think in the in the case of a large of the, you know, of the utilities and so on. I think I think the public has brought out the members of the public who have spoken have brought up some very good points and there is a public interest in knowing what is being proposed, so to speak. And so I would tend toward not or tend toward making them have to have to notify folks. So it's a little bit complicated for me there. Okay. Okay. Can I ask a question, John? That essentially is a waiver, though, right? If we're waiving it for homeowners, but not for, I mean, that is. Yeah. So we're not, what's the question right now? Do we require a butter notification? Sorry. No, I was saying what I heard Andre say was over against a waiver. Maybe I misheard it. Well, I heard him say he's against the waiver. I also heard him say that he is less in favor and tell me if I'm wrong. I don't mean to mischaracterize what you're saying. He's a less in favor of it for, you know, single family homeowner. Maybe I misheard it, but okay, he didn't say that and more in favor for like utilities. Yeah, so I change topics. Yeah, just to just to clarify, speaking specifically about notifications. I think in that case, in that case, so we're not talking about an actual waiver for, we're not talking about an actual waiver. What I'm talking about is a notification to the butters and I find it a little bit complicated because, you know, in order to avoid burdening folks who are just, you know, the regular folks are just trying to do something in their backyard, if you would, versus a corporation that's got a big, big project. I, you know, I tend toward allowing some, and I wouldn't call it a waiver, but exceptions to the requirements. Can I just jump in? Hold on, Erin. We got off track here. Yeah, so let's let's regroup for a second. We just had consensus that we are not going to allow any sort of waiver from the a butter notification for an RDA. We just all agreed to that. I then switched gears and said I wanted a sense from everyone how they felt about the a butter, the requirement that for an RDA that you have to notify a butters. And what Andre has said is that it's complicated. You know, he can see salient points coming from all directions of that issue. It is complicated. It absolutely is. And so the point I, you know, the goal of this exercise is to get a feel for how everyone is on this so that we know where we are. We know clearly if we need more information that we can gather before the next time we discuss this. And so we know if we are close to consensus and or if we need Leroy to weigh in before we can make any any headway on this. So the point was just to get a feel for how everyone feels about the requirement that you notify of butters for an RDA. Erin, did you have a more to say? I just feel like we're going down a bit of a rabbit hole with this in the sense of like teasing it apart. And like if the requirements been there, the bylaw review committee looked at this for four months and we didn't remove that requirement. Like I feel like that requirement, there's nothing wrong with it. It's an extra layer of public involvement in the process that we've never really had an issue with. So I'm hesitant to remove that because I feel that would make these changes which overall these changes are a extreme improvement in protection to resource areas and that if we start removing things like that it's going to make this a very controversial process and that in talking about removing a butter notification requirements it could create a lot of folks being upset about that and not wanting us to change what we're proposing or what's existing. So I'm just concerned that it would be a very controversial change that the public would not be happy with if we eliminated a butter notification requirements for RDAs. Yeah, I completely hear you and tend to agree with you. That said, this is our moment to discuss this and it seems like several of our commissioners have brought up concerns about that a butter notification requirement. So I'm just trying to make sure that we have all the information we need in order to vote on these bylaw revisions. Just trying to make sure that the commissioners have a chance to really weigh in. But yes, I agree. This has been a long discussion of butter notifications for an RDA, something that it's not measured the impact that it's having on the process. We don't hear about it so we don't think it's a problem but we also don't know how many people are considering submitting an RDA and don't because they're like, oh my god, this is a very onerous process. So I think Fletcher and Laura, you guys have kind of expressed where you are with concerns for a butter notification. Is that still kind of where you sit on this? I'm trying to make it harder on anybody but if you don't know, this is an RDA and you want to make it complicated or not complicated but we're talking about the complication of these utilities or something, there's another way we can post it. I don't know. I mean everything's on our website, right? Yes, yeah, all current applications and agendas are on our website. Yeah, so if you don't want to read the legal ad, go to our website. You know, I don't know. It's there. You gotta find it. I agree. I don't find anything on the website. It's hard. Okay, Laura, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I hear what the public's saying. I would love to have data that we don't have. You know what I mean? When people, you know, the number of people that say, I want to look into something and oh my god, this is too long. I'm just going to do it. I mean, I'm sure it happens quite regularly in Amherst and in other areas too. At the same time, I also agree with a member of the public who said that people who are butters the property have a lot of information about the site, whether it be a small homeowner or a larger corporation. So I don't know if it's been in place for a long time and there haven't been complaints about it. I don't feel compelled to change it. I just, the comment, Fletcher's comment really resonates with me in that you want to get people to feel comfortable to come in front of us, whether they're going to cut down a tree. You know what I mean? Like something small to like extending their deck by two feet or building a stone patio. You know? So anyways. Yeah. Yeah, I definitely appreciate the conflicted sentiment. Michelle? Sorry, I know we all want to move on. But so butter notification is defined in our regs and it's defined for the purpose, you know, of certain purposes. But I'm just curious, you know, Erin, if there is a middle ground, like, you know, if we are all conflicted on the extent of, you know, how onerous it would be to give notification, could there be an RDA notification? Could we have a second definition for butter notification that was RDA specific? Well, you could just require no US mail notification and not have it be a certified return receipt. I mean, that would be a lot cheaper. That's an option. Those are options. I'm sorry. I'd add that legally something sent in the mail is considered to be delivered. If it's mail. Is that true? Yep. That's legal. I forget what stipulation. So so that might be a compromise is to require it just be sent through US mail. The only kind of issue with that is there's no real proof of mailing unless we have people send us photos of their letters that are all addressed and stamped. Trusting them to do it. Yeah. So okay. So I think we've we've kind of circled this enough. And I think we should move on for tonight. And we'll we'll be sure that we get a little caught up on this case he can kind of weigh in as well. Since he like Michelle has been really in the in the midst of all these, the bylaw regulations. But I would just ask that people when you're spacing out doing something, think about this because we want to figure out if there's more information that we need in order to make the decision that we're clear with Aaron about it so that we can keep this moving forward. And I also want to say thank you so much to everyone who's from the public who's joined this to talk about this. It's something that we take very seriously. Like it is the most important thing to us that we have as much public involvement in this process as possible. Because it's very important to all of us that we protect this resource as best as we possibly can. And we recognize or of including a butters and having as many voices in the process as possible. We just want to make sure that we're not involuntarily excluding people from what is like a very, very important educational opportunity through the RDA process. So this is again not something we're taking lightly. We 100% hear what everyone is saying. We just we're going to keep kind of digging into it and thinking through it. So thank you for being here and for all those helpful comments. Both members of the public and commissioners, I really appreciate how we can discuss this. We can, you know, agree to disagree and admit when we're confused. So I really appreciate that. Okay, Erin, what would our next? Yeah, I do want to just just say something that I think is another very important point about the changes to the bylaw regulations. And I think it's pertinent to this conversation is historically like in our current bylaw regulations, we do not have minor activities excluded. So anybody has to file a permit for cutting a single tree, right, in a buffer zone. Right now, all of the state exemptions, well, there's only a couple exemptions that fall under our local bylaw. Under our bylaw changes that are proposed in this hearing process, we're adding those minor activities back in, we're adding those exemptions back in. So I just want to point that out because a lot of the more onerous filing requirements that have been required for single family homeowners are now being removed a little bit so that there's a little more wiggle room for single family homeowners to put in a deck if they're over 50 feet from the mean annual high water, if they're over 50 feet from the buffer, put in a deck, a shed, a patio, a pool, those are things that historically they would have had to file an RDA for and that was very strategic on my part to number one incorporate those because right now we're dealing with it seems like sort of a surge in permits from my perspective and so if we're dealing with a surge of permits like large scale development permits and things and then we have like a large scale development for an apartment complex and a large scale development for mixed use buildings and then we're getting a permit for a shed, it's like it feels a little bit unbalanced and so it's the goal with these regulatory changes just in general is to sort of even out the playing field a little bit and say okay we're going to give single family residential folks a little bit more leeway to do some of these smaller projects but we're also doing some things to strengthen the setbacks and to tighten up the performance standards so that we reduce impacts elsewhere that might be more large scale impacts so I just wanted to point that out because I think that it's it's important and relevant to the discussion so another way to say that is that we're making sure that the RDAs and the permit applications that come in front of us are ones that are likely to really impact the resource so we're sure that the onerous hoops that we're asking people to jump through for these permit processes are really ones where the project proposed is likely to impact the resource which is that's a very good point Erin you know we're tightening restrictions so that we're really going to see the projects we need to see but we're allowing more leeway for the projects we don't need to see to move forward without going through a very onerous permit process was that a fair summary Erin yeah yeah and so what I'd like to do is just touch on so Dave had had some questions during the previous meeting about and sorry I had this all queued up and just want to jump back really quickly there were some questions that were raised regarding like some of the decision making and like some of the other towns that we looked at for some some of the setbacks and the fee structure and things like that so I just want to talk about that really quickly because one of the big changes in that these bylaw revisions is also going from currently a 25 foot to 35 foot no disturbed setback depending on the type of development right so driveways and parking lots you can go up to 25 feet from the resource area and like residential can go up to 35 foot no no disturbed but then like for for commercial buildings it's like 75 foot setback right so the proposal right now is to just make it an across the board 50 foot no disturbed setback so that is a that is a pretty dramatic change from our existing regulations to the proposed and I did look at a number of communities and like the two number one communities the number one and number two communities that I looked at were Northampton and South Hadley and part of the reason for that was because those are communities to me that are most comparable to Amherst in the sense of like college presence development pressure high population but I also did look at a number of other communities just to see what their setbacks look like so like for example East Hampton or Granby or Leverett they don't have any no disturbed setbacks right there are communities who have bylaw regulations like Pelham who also don't have any minimum setback shootsberry is another one doesn't have any minimum setback but then you look at a town like Sunderland Sunderland has excuse me a 50 foot no disturbed and then community like Hadley Hadley has a 35 foot Belcher town has a 25 foot so Dave had asked sort of just to give a rundown of what is happening in other communities what other community regulations look like and so that's what this is meant to to show you guys and give you a sense of do you agree with those changes that we've brought forward with a 50 foot no disturbed or do you think that's a little too much do you think we should scale it back a little bit Erin just a quick clarifying question when you say in the wetland setback like for example East Hampton you say wetland protection act what does that mean so what is the defaults if there's no bylaw change right so what that means is that the no disturb is actually a it's spelled out in the bylaw regulations as being a restriction that the conservation commission has to enforce so towns like North Hampton and South Hadley they have this 50 foot no disturb like we have a 35 foot no disturb a community like East Hampton they would theoretically let people work right up to the edge of a wetland and there's no sort of vegetated buffer that they require in between a work area in a wetland thank you so the 50 foot across the board no disturbed setback would bring us to the most stringent end of the spec the local kind of spectrum in terms of no disturbed bylaw setbacks just kind of is that a fair summary we would say in this research yes yes I mean it's it's it's making us it's it's adding a little bit of additional protection to the wetlands and my observation is and you know Jen and I had a conversation about this earlier today is most of the upland area in the town of Amherst has either been developed or protected and so what we're dealing with a lot of the times are these properties that have wetlands on them and a lot of times they might be sandwiched between two other properties in an urban area these this is guidance for the commission and again there there are there is still a provision for replication so people could still come before us with a proposal to fill a wetland people could still come before us with an a proposal to encroach closer than 50 feet and the commission can review that on a case by case basis there may be situations in highly urbanized areas or areas where there's a really severely degradated wetland where there's an opportunity for mitigation and so the commission could theoretically balance whatever is proposed for development against whatever mitigation is proposed to improve the resource area or gain some net benefit from whatever is being proposed but this is just sort of like a and and in my opinion this this evens the playing field as well because there's like this is allowed to encroach 25 feet this is encro allowed to encroach 35 feet this is allowed to encroach 50 feet this is allowed to encroach 75 feet it's confusing and and I think a big part of the bylaw review committee was looking at this and saying let's simplify this and make this easier for people to understand and like just more straightforward in terms of what people can expect and you know people who are proposing development in town to understand our regulations a little more clearly. Thanks Erin. Commissioner does anyone have any questions on about this research that Erin just either the revision or this research that Erin just shared seeing some shaking hands okay. From my perspective I think this is the right thing to do both for clarity but also because often with our existing 25 to 35 foot no disturb it ends up being that kind of the project limit is at 25 to 30 feet but then there tends to be other activity happening inside of that no disturb area whether it's temporary or permanent and to me once you get within 25 feet of a well end there's no question that there's an impact and so I think that the 50 foot no disturb is a better mean disturbance line understanding that no matter what we do there's kind of variation around that that mean that also makes sense for me from like a scientific standpoint in terms of stormwater management for a setback so I personally am comfortable with it and think it's the right thing to do. Commissioner does anyone have any concerns looks like a happy but maybe tired potentially burnt out crew. You guys made great points I mean one the town is built out that's pretty straightforward and so everything's degraded in some ways unless it's protected and like you said Erin people are still going to come in front of us to see for mitigation or whatever that's still gonna it's not there's going to be some yeah smart smart engineers coming in front of us to figure a way around it so excuse the 50 foot. Yeah and I mean if we can if we can get resource area improvement out of the greater encroachment then I see that as a net gain if there's some issue that needs to be cleaned up some you know invasive species issue that needs to be addressed I feel like we can we can use that as leverage to allow encroachment where it could be considered to be more appropriate but you know that's just a more solid line there is one other change that I want to point out because it's it's a pretty significant change and this was modeled after the Northampton bylaw regulations which is that I included in there that in the area on a given lot the area between 50 and 100 feet that there would be a limit of 20 percent alteration of that buffer zone on a given parcel so that's another and again it's it's a discretionary it's guidance and it's if they're in a highly urbanized area there they may be permitted to alter more than that if they're you know in a rural area then the commission may stick to 20 percent but it it provides them sort of some guidance that we really don't want to see like the entire buffer zone outside of 50 foot clear cut if we can avoid that we'd like to try to sort of concentrate things and limit impact as much as possible the other thing I really like about that for my two cents is I like the quantitative angle because a lot of the time when we see these permits the first question I'm asking is what's the square footage inside xx buffer what's the percentage of total and so what that does is drive an applicant towards actually quantifying the impact which will prevent will actually help everyone because it's going to keep these these applications moving more quickly rather than opening it one hearing continuing to the next like it'll help people to have the information we need to make a decision be more likely to have the information we need to make decision when we open the hearing did anyone have any questions about that revision or I just had a question and where did that come from did you see that in a neighboring community or it was in Northampton the city of Northampton had it and I really I really like the Northampton bylaw the bylaw regulations in Northampton because I feel like they are a little more stringent than Amherst but they also provide a little more flexibility in urban areas and that was something that the bylaw review committee spends a lot of time discussing because when we were discussing that specific condition the thought was well in Northampton they specify in specific zoning districts they allow closer encroachment so if it's a downtown district for example they may may allow encroachment to 35 feet or to 10 feet or something like that and we looked at the zoning in Amherst to see like would we feel comfortable adjusting our sort of our setbacks based on zoning district but Amherst and Northampton are different enough in our sort of zoning layout that it didn't fully make sense to do sort of like an apples to apples comparison with them on that but I did really like the 20% limit because I feel like that gives us a little more you know leverage for mitigation or leverage for protection, resource area improvements. That's great yeah thanks Erin so I'm keeping an eye on the clock and we still I still would like to have like a period of for open public comment were there any other big ticket kind of revisions that you wanted to go into detail on in this hearing or this thing? Gosh there's so many big ticket things with these with these I mean there there's a lot of changes here but I would just like to really quickly state that you know Leroy did a really good job at the last meeting and so if anybody wants to sort of get a refresh on what the overall changes are that that would be a good place to do it but I just just sort of bulleted points really quickly before we jump to public comment is we included minor activities we included state exemptions which should have been included all along really in our bylaw. We made our definitions consistent with DEP definitions so if there were any definitions that were duplicate under our regulations that were also defined under the wetland protection act we removed those we referenced we follow all of the DEP wetland protection act definitions here are our additional definitions that we define under our local bylaw regs. For resource areas riverfront was not included in our resource areas we included riverfront riverfront is now a resource area under our local bylaw regulations there were issues with specific resource areas where sort of the general framework of wetland protection act versus our bylaw regs is that there were performance standards that were pulled from the wetland protection act and plugged into our our regulations and then there were more stringent sort of at the bottom so the top few were borrowed from the state and then our more stringent ones were at the bottom. The problem was it was like as if somebody had picked and chosen which ones to take from the wetland protection act and include in our bylaw now all of the performance standards under the wetland protection act are in our bylaw and our more stringent ones are also listed so it's apples to apples to the wetland protection act. Vernal pools we clarified because there was a problem with our vernal pool definition and there was a problem with vernal pools being a subset of bordering land subject to flooding also under the resource areas bordering vegetated wetland and isolated vegetated wetland were combined together under our bylaw regulations they are separate in the wetland protection act we separated those for consistency likewise under our regulations bordering land subject to flooding and isolated land subject to flooding were separated under our regulations they are now combined so that they are apples to apples with the wetland protection act so and then and then we made it clear under isolated vegetated wetlands that it's there are isolated vegetated wetlands and there are vernal pools both of them are protected under our bylaw and they are defined separately and we used we separated out vernal pools so that there are physical criteria and there's biological criteria now listed so it gives people a lot more guidance there's no confusion over does our bylaw cover what's under the state that is a canned very quick overview of some of the changes there are a lot more I encourage everybody to go through if anybody wants me to individually walk you through the changes I'd be more than happy to anybody who wants to see what the bylaw reg review committee did there are youtube videos up that painstakingly detail every single line of that document so anyway we're ready for comment when you are that's a great overview Erin as you're going through that list I can think of if not one probably multiple hearings in which we got like very hung up over one of the issues that you guys have clarified like I literally could go through with an example of each of the time that one of those conflicting issues between our bylaw and the wetland protection act has caused an issue on hearing so I really appreciate that clarity the other one was there anything with intermittent perennial streams that you wanted to yes thank you for reminding me under riverfront it's exactly the same as the wetland protection act however there is one definition that's different if a if a intermittent stream in the town of Amherst has a watershed greater than a half square mile it is perennial under the new regulations how are you measuring that half square mile would you say fletcher how are you measuring that half square mile very carefully yeah exactly but that's a good point expertise that's an excellent point though fletcher that's an excellent point and that may be a good place to add some additional clarity so I appreciate that yeah like what are the finding of fact like requirements for for doc or what are the documentation requirements for the drainage area to that quote unquote intermittent stream that's a great idea yeah you did you did add something in there and I can't remember the wording but we did define professional expertise to a greater extent so there's like no ambiguity there anymore competent source was defined there was a couple additional definitions that were added competent source best management practice clear cutting was defined impervious surface was defined there was a lot of things that were defined and we put a lot of thought and a lot of detail into those definitions to make sure that it was we tried to make it as crystal clear as possible yeah I'm reading that over I thought go ahead oh I was no go ahead Jen I'll follow I was just going to say reading that over I thought it was an improvement over the current like Well in Protection Act guidelines for intermittent versus perennial streams so I'm a fan sorry Michelle I was just going to say there's a those commissioners with forestry etc backgrounds if you could review said sections and perhaps you know specifically look at them you know we struggled with them and and there was a lot of sources to go by but we appreciate input on those specifically yes I can certainly help you with that I did look over them and I do have a couple things right so I didn't look at this forestry specific but I did look very carefully at that intermittent versus perennial section so is there more that you wanted to flag in that department Michelle um I mean I guess the if everybody could sort of gather their expertise and hone in on particular sections that they'd have some input on so so like the forestry one I think LaRoy had some background in that and so we settled on some definitions with Aaron Aaron's also research but yeah just appreciate input on it because we didn't you know we had our meetings and then we had our homework so it's not like a hundred percent it would I would just appreciate people's expertise on any sections relevant to your knowledge dacha thank you Michelle all right go ahead I could just say one thing so um LaRoy touched on this and I forgot to mention it is minor grammatical changes we're still cleaning up and references to sections we're still cleaning up because the references to sections until we get it agreed upon we don't want to insert all the section references if a certain section is still going to get swiped out so that's kind of the last change um and then I what I'd like to do is if anybody has proposed changes on the commission send me those changes so that I can do sort of the last final markup before the next hearing at the next hearing I'm hoping it'll be final public comment and approval and I can kind of run through if there's any last minute changes that had not already been um posted on the commission page um I would detail those kind of what those last minute changes were great thanks Erin yeah so let's target another 13 minutes of public comment um we can adjust that if necessary but I think this is our time to hear from our participants here so um thank you everyone who's hung on for this discussion I know it can get very detailed hopefully we've kind of made it as accessible as possible um but we welcome any questions or comments relevant to the revision proposed revisions to the bylaw Janet I see you're here again I'll allow you to talk so um I wonder if you can tell me um I've looked on the conservation commission page um and uh what can we expect be to be posted there um before the next hearing um it's a it's a little difficult not being a wetlands expert to look at the fragments and I appreciate that the fragments are there you know the but um am I missing something is there a whole document somewhere that we can look at or um uh is Leroy's um presentation or any of the other presentation materials that you um showed us uh is that stuff available um and if so how can we get to it so that that's my basic question thank you yeah so the answer is yes all of that is available online um Erin what's the best way to direct Janet yeah so what I can do is actually post a full full text version of the sort of final clean version um again it's like I want to wait to assemble that until we have comments from anyone if there are comments from anyone but if the commission would like for me to assemble that now I would be happy to to post it so people can sort of see the document in its entirety um sort of a semi-final draft form um and Leroy's presentation I can definitely post online but all of the previous presentations and meetings are posted on our youtube station which if you go to the conservation commission web page um in the right hand column at the at the bottom of that the list on the right column there's a link to the all of the youtube presentations that have um all of the information from our concom meetings and our subcommittee subcommittee meetings yeah so Janet I'm on the website right now if you just if you google Amherst, Massachusetts conservation commission go to our home page on the right hand side scroll down there's a live link that says meeting recordings that will take you to the youtube channel with the recordings of all of our meetings and so that would include Leroy's presentation and discussion the previous meeting about the bylaws and then what Erin's saying is that right now we have kind of here's the regulation here's the proposed revision is separate documents but Erin once she has the final comments from us will post one collate like collated document on the website does that answer the question uh yes thank you and you can always email Erin if you can't find something that we've said would be there because I know it can be hard to find stuff right thanks a lot yep anyone else any other questions or comments james see james can you hear me yes hello hi i have a few comments um in terms of wavering the notification and I appreciate your point about you know trying to limit the the onus on the applicant but is it the criteria on how much the homeowner has as resources or how much impact that project's going to have on the environment so if you're trying to make you know keep the little guy protect the little guy is he little because it's a little he has little resources or because the project has little impact right yeah I see your point and I think that's kind of what Laura and I were talking about when we said there's a lot of information data frankly that we don't have right so like not only do we not have the science to understand like the aggregate the impacts in aggregate on our resources we also don't have information about the null case right like we don't know how many people aren't submitting our da's um but I think that is a very good point and um another way to slice kind of the conflict that we see and another thought if I can um if it's not um put out there if there is no notification then the the onus is on us in the community to kind of go digging for it and uh Fletcher made the comment that it's all on the website when do I go look on the website should I just be doing it every day because maybe something comes up that might impact me or something I care about would it be possible to have a um a targeted mailing list or mailing lists that we could opt into so if it's impacting my neighborhood I would get notified if it's going to you know something I'm concerned about it's use of herbicides or if it's a wetland issue so then I would automatically be notified anything is on your agenda without it being the responsibility of the the person applying just as another way of trying to you know get the community involvement because I don't subscribe to the gazette and so therefore how am I going to know when there's something that hey heads up this this impacts me because I'm not on the board and by the way I really do appreciate what you guys do oh my god it's wonderful thank you yeah no those are great those are great points James I don't know how like opting into notification in our in our sex with like very strict a butter notification regulation so that's probably something that we have to think about but thank you for that it could be in addition to the a butter notification okay thank you on here um Sarah oh one person sorry hold on okay okay Sarah I see you have your hands up again hi thanks yeah I just am weighing in again I just again thank you so much Erin for all your work and I just want to emphasize you know that what she said about that that the her proposal and the work that was done wasn't to remove the butter notification completely that was never the intent and I also just wanted to emphasize again I mean I can't help it I'm a lawyer but I think people have a little difficulty understanding the importance the legal significance of that request for determination of approbability sometimes you know in the random you know in the sort of day-to-day case it maybe doesn't matter but in some of the more complicated cases in some of the more impactful cases it really does because the request for determination of applicability as you guys know you're determining is what is going to be done going to impact the resource and if it's going to impact the resource then a permit has to be issued if there's a determination that it's not going to impact the resource then there's no need to submit a permit and that can be the most crucial question if you're talking about something like pesticide application is it going to impact the resource is like the most critical question you know whether they have to go through the process of submitting it so sorry I'm just pitching again to keep things as they are thanks a lot yeah yeah I appreciate the the extra research and kind of well informed um get on the waiting list to be on the concoms era I know thank you all right I don't have any questions or comments there's still a fair amount of people in the meeting please comment people raise your hand I know even if you just say it's good share your comments even if you know anything is is helpful for us to hear from you oh christie we got that one hi christie sorry had to figure out how to unmute um well I I just have a really short comment I just want to say how much I appreciate the work that you're doing on clarifying the wetland rules um and I think that the a lot of the rules are a lot more clear and are will have an effect that you want to to make the the least impactful things not necessarily need permitting and the more impactful things um requiring you know more more I guess presentation and consideration and especially the better definition of the perennial streams as much appreciate it thank you christie wow I'm so happy to hear people are listening it's like it's it's so nice just to hear that like people are interested because like a lot of times when you go through this process no one shows up and so it's just really encouraging to know that people care and they're hearing this and taking it in and understanding exactly what we're what what our aim is here yeah you could thank uh COVID for that I mean because like zoom honestly we're getting we're getting so much more participation it is it's a lot easier yeah just a lot of you sitting on the couch and participate it's amazing uh 100 with you on that fletcher on every level it's also nice to show that we just don't take this lightly I mean it's really a lot these are not easy decisions okay Kathleen hi I I just since getting some feedback is helpful I just want to say I'm so impressed with this commission and the work people do and Erin you're you are amazing the the professional the professionalism of this whole committee is something all of Amherst can be proud of and protecting the wetlands protecting our natural resources is so important for the future of the town and thank you thank you for volunteering to be among the people who are doing so much work thanks that's all I have to say thank you Kathleen see I actually get paid so I'm like the lucky one these guys are all volunteers they're not getting paid so I'm the lucky one who gets paid to do this work so these guys are really the ones you should thank but thank you for your comments thanks Kathleen sorry about my barking dog um anyone else questions comments on the Bailar revisions so I think I'm gonna call it um so it sounds like any final revisions we need to get to Erin ASAP so that she can get one coherent document up on the website um we will hopefully vote on this these Bailar revisions at the next meeting which is on June 22nd so if you're here and you're interested to see the vote then that happens on June 22nd if you want to see what the final document looks like it will be posted as soon as we can before June 22nd unfortunately just gonna check the website for that one um but if you want to see previous you've recorded meetings and discussions of either the subcommittee or the entire commission on these Bailar regulation they're on our YouTube channel which you can find by googling Amherst Massachusetts Conservation Commission YouTube or going to our website scrolling down on the bottom to the bottom of the right hand side and clicking on meeting recordings um and if you really can find it email Erin um and she can put you in the right direction Michelle did you have another clarifying point or question um actually there's a question just one more thing to leave commissioners within public there there is one sort of unsettled piece that I don't think that we got a good um I don't know I don't even know where to go with it but so in the vernal pool section there is the question of how to identify or sort of not necessarily certify but identify a vernal pool outside of the spring season and so it's relevant because a lot of activity happens perhaps in the summer or the fall um when the biological indicators of a vernal pool aren't present so there are some ways to do that like the exoskeletons of certain um you know animals that would live in a vernal pool but in a dry year they may not be there so if anybody feels like taking a deep dive into that particular criteria it's it's kind of important I mean the alternative is that we require an applicant to wait until the spring season when the biological indicators would be there so that we could see it which you know that could be like a nine month waiting period um so we I don't think that we came to like a great consensus as a subcommittee on what to do about that so if you have thoughts just you know we'd appreciate weighing in or any expert opinions that you might be able to solicit in a new time and we did get feedback from Emily Stockman who's our peer reviewer on that and I incorporated her recommended revisions in there as far as um I believe it's um beginning I don't I don't have it memorized but I believe it's it's March to June is the window um okay so if it's not if it's outside of that window for a vernal pool then the commission really would have to hold up the proceeding until it's vernal pool season okay so we have to recognize that that's that's in there and we would be doing that it's the definition of a vernal pool I mean that's the tricky part right okay that's all yeah no that's great and we've had tons of hearings Michelle where we've waited years so okay all right I haven't experienced that yet but yeah we spent a lot of time on it so I just wanted to give you the heads up thank you for the close consideration um all right so we need a motion on the web on the web there's if you look it up there's a slideshow on identifying potential vernal pools in late summer fall and winter what's the citation on that that I just put in identifying potential vernal pools in summer fall and winter and and and anyway it came up and gave me a slideshow it's completely it's it may not be anywhere near enough in detail but it's there anyway talking about the different seasons etc yeah our last vice chair bob rucks was the vernal pool I know it's I wonder was the man yeah I wonder if Bob would have you saw him the other day I wonder if you're still around yeah I moved a green filler something like he always threatened to do well maybe dead I don't know he lives here I said but I did see him so maybe Bob would be a person to reach out to if we think we need more I'll I'll take a look at the section and see what Emily's revisions were um and I could reach out to Bob if we need more detail yeah I think it's pretty solid but all comment is welcome so please do so and if if people could get me if you have any markups if you could get them to me by the 15th so June 15th um that would be greatly appreciated so I can incorporate the changes and get them posted before the 22nd got it all right we need a motion to continue this public hearing make a motion um I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing of the Amherst bylaw regulation amendments to June 22nd at 7 30 second that the second from Andre voice vote Fletcher hi Andre hi Barry hi Michelle hey Laura hi and I mean I thank you Erin thank you everyone I think that was it um I got all the business right do do yep we talked about that talked about that okay yeah so it sounds like our here are deadlines June 15th for any revisions to Erin so that she can post them before the 22nd our next meeting is on the 22nd make sure you hydrate caffeine eat a good meal not but not too much you're tired um for real out um and then June 22nd 29th we'll have a special meeting so that just remember that so that we can talk about land use policy and the zero tuckerman propose registration plan which is exciting and then our next meeting after that isn't until July 13th so that's the forecast any final questions or comments no but I think you need a motion to close the meeting we do are you on it Laura which I am so happy to make thank you no second oh I'll second okay we got Fletcher in the second Erin voice vote Fletcher hi Andre hi Michelle hi Larry hi Laura hi and I'm an eye thank you guys so much you're all good job everyone your comments are stellar I appreciate you guys likewise right back at your faces