 Okay. Sorry, Larry. Go ahead. I agree. We probably should probably be on record. I was just saying, is it does it go beyond us? Does the does the does the it's a town have to approve it in a different way other than us? No, so it's it's the regulations that are promulgated by the bylaw so the conservation commission will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the changes. So what's going to do is set up our website to include the previous version marked up versions and then the the like latest version that you guys are reviewing for final approval and take public comment on that and then and then hopefully approve. I'm shooting for early May for that. Well, thank you, Aaron and Michelle and Roy for all your hard work on that. Yeah, that's not easy. Yeah. Okay, well so let's kick off this meeting if that okay is it okay Aaron. Okay, so because I see we have seven attendees already but not our new commissioner I've been checking. So welcome to the Amherst Conservation Commission meeting March night 22. Whoa, did you guys just get weird feedback. I felt seems to have gone away. Okay, well first item. My headphones. Everybody. Everybody who's not talking mute. Let's see. Okay, that seems better. Yeah, so let's try to mute when we're not talking I guess for this meeting. Thanks. Good idea Aaron. So we have a pretty full agenda we only have three hearings and one of them is continued because they hadn't yet notified of butters, but there's a lot of stuff going on Aaron's bouncing a lot so there are a bunch of kind of big other business items. So we're going to move through the early part of the meeting efficiently as always. So we can give some time to some of these bigger ticket other business items. So the first item on the agenda I think is an update for me and that was pretty much my update. I don't see Dave here. Aaron, do you have an update. No update from Aaron. Okay. So the next thing on the agenda I think is land use applications from Scott Jackson. I'm looking to see if I can see him. We could also talk about the land use policy. Let's see if Scott's here. I do not see Scott Jackson called in if there's anyone in attendance of the meeting that's going to talk about Scott Jackson's land use applications please raise your hand. He may or may not show up. Okay, and I told him like if you can make it come if you can't don't worry about it. Okay, mostly because I know that this is a He has previously had this approved by the board so it's kind of like he administratively is doing it just to make sure that it's okay because he took two years off due to COVID. It's been he's been doing it I think for like a decade he's been doing these two classes on these two properties. Yeah they looked very familiar. Um, so I'm sure everybody has these land use applications in front of them but in brief summary, it looks like the first one is at plum springs. It's on March 30. And he's using it for field labs, field labs on March 30 April first six eighth 22nd 2729 than May 4 20 students up there we go. It looks like I doesn't say what the class is but equipment is flagging that will be removed field data forms no alteration to the conservation area. There's a bunch of other information in there. I think it's the same. I took this class number a long time ago, and it's just it's a it's a great class it's just for like wetland wetlands identification and how to use field field forms and everything like that so it's pretty straightforward. They might take a couple soil pits but really stick them right back when you're done. Yeah, that helps. That's a great class for wetlands I took it to. Yep. I have no problem with this. And I don't see any possible problems I mean, the only question we ever have with this is parking, but it looks like to see detail it. I'm just going to stop sharing for a second because Dave Z is saying he's having trouble getting in and I have to send him a link. Yeah. Oh no. Okay. Yeah so unless anyone else sees any flags with this I think Scott has a track record of being a very responsible user of conservation areas for these classes so I feel comfortable approving these land use applications. So you have any questions. Okay. So let's see. Did Aaron want to motion to approve these. I didn't draft one. I think you just use hold on just a second. Here I'll just say it. So we need. So CLU 22 and 22-2 and CLU 22-3 are the permit numbers that helps. We need motions to approve land use applications with permit numbers CLU-22-3 and CLU-22-2 for Scott Jackson for use of conservation area for field methods research classes. So moved. Again. Okay, voice vote. Larry. Aye. Oh sure. Aye. Leroy. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Laura. Laura. Aye. Oh sorry. And I'm an aye. So those are all approved. Aaron is Dave okay. I sent him a link. Just check. He texted me so I'll just check. But if you guys want to move on to the. The, the, the, or the, the mission statement, I don't know if you guys wanted to talk about the mission statement. That would be minutes. Let's do the minutes really quickly. So we'll skip ahead. So we have Aaron to talk about the mission statement, but we're looking for motions to approve the minutes from six 24, 20 and five 27, 20. Does anyone have any comments or corrections to those minutes? No. Move to approve. Okay. So I need a motion. Was that a motion, Laura? It was. Okay. Did you second. I second. Okay. Sorry. All right. We need a voice vote. Larry. Aye. Butcher. Aye. Leroy. Michelle. Aye. Laura. Aye. And I'm an eye. So the next item on the agenda is. The mission statement. And I. Trying to pull it up. I can also pull it up here too. Sorry. I'm multitasking over here. I can't seem to hear. I can't hear from Dave. So I'm not really sure what's. Going on with. Where did you, I know I saw it last night. Where did you save it? Am I losing my mind? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Which. Email. Email from Erin. Okay. So this was the email. And this was the draft. Now this was taken from the Western conservation commission. And I just included Amherst because they had a real, they have a really nice existing land use policy. And so, although ours is much more comprehensive and different, but I think the mission statement is really important because it kind of helps us to prioritize the entire document. And just help guide us a little bit. And one of the, Dave did have a comment on this. That, you know, he. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe he thought maybe the protection of. Water lands. You know, habitat and stuff might be number one for us. So we might want to reorder these. We might want to change them. It's. Completely up to you guys. How you want to approach this, or if you want to completely wipe this out and start with your own. Completely unique. Document. Yeah. I agree. A similar structure is a good place to start. There are a few things in here that kind of a flagged. And at the heart of it is really like this tension between preservation and conservation and land management. So like preservation has the competition that you're just keeping it the way it is. And then conservation, something similar. And then management implies like actively managed for these end goals. And then the last was a sustainable manner. I think that also sustainable can a lot of different things can be conflated into the word. Sustainable. So I feel like. We do all of those things like we do. Preserve the land, you know, like it is not being converted to other uses. But we also manage it. For various reasons. Like a lot of the mowing that we do, like, that's not necessarily preservation by definition. So those are the things when I read this, I like jotted down. A couple of like ideas, but I'm really interested to hear, I know other people on this commission have a ton of experience with this kind of thing. So I'm really interested to hear what other people's thoughts are. I agree with a bunch of that, Jen. I think number three, definitely just get rid of sustainable manner. Because that has way too much. You can go anywhere with that. Yeah, so I'm not sure if we just want like these bullet points or like. I like it. I like it's being short. I think that's important. But when you talk about the preservation versus conservation and conservation, you know, you know, you know, in those types of, you know, like number one, you could say we protect open space, you know, preserve open states. So because we are managing these lands actively, very actively because we kind of have to, but it's gets really complex to try to explain that. So maybe talking about the protection, we're trying to, we are trying to educate. We are, but the conservation commission, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, I think Dave's idea was like, take number one, number two and put it as number one, because really what we're here for is that resource, which is this water. And then it goes from there because we are actually in the conservation commission where we get to manage over 2000 acres. You know, most concoms are just strictly wetland, you know, so. It doesn't say what to do, but it doesn't say what to do. So I think that's a good point. And that further, I agree with everything you said. I'd explained it further to say that we may protect water, land, animal and plant natural resources for the health of the environment and the health of our community. Because we are protecting it for the health of our air and water, so that the people who live here experience. Healthy, healthier natural resources. And there's a lot of research to kind of connect those two. So I would put people in that equation. I think it's controversial in like the land management world, I think. So. I definitely want to hear from others. Anyone else. Any thoughts about this? With all you say, I think we just need a draft that would, that we can. Can fall in on. I mean, I agree with the comments that you've made, both of you. Okay. Michelle, I know you have a lot of experience with this and I can be tricky. Do you have any reactions? I had some thoughts. I sent like sort of a. Correct changes to Aaron, but I'll try and just say them here. So I think. Like Aaron or somebody said, one should probably be concert, like the conservation of land and water resources, right? Because that's our primary. Mission and also one in five could probably be combined. The community aspects. I really would like to see the animal and plant natural resources be separated from water and land and just be conservation of. Like native species for, you know, in an ecologically beneficial manner or something rather than sustainable. I just don't like animals being called natural resources. I think that's old school. So. Other than that. I thought maybe like instead of one. In five, we could sort of have like. Or maybe the education of the community, the encouragement of community participation, maybe like promote and facilitate the use of lands by the public too. So some reordering, maybe take out human stewardship. I think that's pretty. Obviously. It's not your stewardship. But yeah, like instead of maybe what was the. Sustainable manner, maybe like ecologically beneficial or something less ambiguous and sustainable. Cause that can go a lot of places. I'm also trying to think about like a good way to have this conversation. And if it's like an on paper conversation. It could be kind of a long one, but like maybe. You know, putting something up on the board and talking about it. Rather than just looking at this and hashing it out. You know, this is a tough forum to do this kind of thing. And we're, we really can't like share documents outside of the meeting. Yeah. So, and I don't want you guys to feel like you've got to nail this down tonight. Yeah. I think that's a good point. I think it was more just to kind of get the creative juices flowing. And if anybody else has comments to share or suggestions, feel free. What I can do is take what you've suggested and, or if you want to send me markups, I can try to consolidate everything so that it's kind of in a. You know, a functional. State, you know, functional mission statement. And then we're hoping that at the next meeting, I'm sorry, the draft land use policy for you guys to review. And hopefully we'll be scheduling a public hearing soon on that as well. So we'll have a lot more time to sort of wordsmith it, I guess. Okay. Yeah. And I mean, in terms of the feedback that Fletcher and I just shared, I think it's pretty in line with what Michelle might have sent you. So maybe. Yeah. If you could, Aaron, if you'd be willing to incorporate. Michelle's track changes and send it back out. I can try to. Be more responsive. Yeah. I agree. Oh, just, and also what you guys just said, because that was helpful too, but things I hadn't thought about. I think the mission statement is super important though, and that we will come back to it time and time again. So I think it's worth our time. Definitely agree. I wonder if we, and like, I can look at this too, like for fed work, we have access to like this whiteboard function where you can like actually share and like see things on teams. Like we use teams, not zoom, but I wonder if there's anything like that, that the town has access to Aaron where we could in the next meeting, like spend, we can limit the time, but spend just some time if we can all see us kind of retyping and re, you know, editing in real time in the meeting that might, that might be the most efficient way to do that. At some point, that's probably going to be the most efficient way to finalize it, but. Okay. I think there's a whiteboard function and zoom. Do we have access to it in this forum though? I don't know. I'm not. I'm like, zoom is not one of my skills. So I can, I can talk to it and ask them. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Does anybody else have ideas on it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can do a remote revision round and then maybe. We can do a limited in-person edit session. Yeah. Just whatever edits you guys send me, just send them only to me so that it's not members communicating. Yep. Perfect. And yeah, Michelle, I 100% agree with you that this is, this is worth the time. Okay. Did any other commissioners have anything to add? No, I mean, I just agree with what's been said. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's, I think we can consolidate it. It's better. I think it's, I think that the top thing with the missing statement is to get it as concise as possible. I think it's much easier to write something that's long. Yeah. But to get it into something sort of. Very short is much more challenging. So. Agreed. Okay. Thanks, Laura. Thanks, everybody. Sounds good. That sounds like a small step forward. Are you okay with that, Erin? Yeah. No, that's great. Okay. Cool. So sorry, I'm just checking the agenda. What was our first hearing seven 30? We have five more minutes. Is there anything else that you'd want to cover in the five minutes? Erin. Oh yeah, definitely. Let me just, let me just see what I can, where I can jump here. Hold on one second. Okay. You get a new land manager. Assistant. We, we did hire. Tyler back, which I'm really happy about this. Awesome. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Cool. Okay. So these two items, we could just get crossed off the list. Basically. Okay. And a request for certificate of compliance. Both of these items. The emergency cert was approved by Dave. Just removal of three trees. Hazardous trees. Gentleman's property. Who lives on. He abuts Puffer's pond. And so I went out and did a site visit though. That's all set. And then the two 73 lever road I visited today. That site's all set. If you guys want to see pictures, let me just stop. So I did upload them. I saw it, but. Can share the pictures with you. Sight is fully stable. With me while I switch and jump around screens here. I'm going to go back to the two 73 lever road. I pulled the permit out of the archives. And everything is above board here. The one thing I talked to the landowner about, he was doing some hand fruiting of invasives in the back, which I thought was fine because we've definitely given the green light for people to do that before. So looked great. And. I would. I'll just go back to the screen in case anyone wants to motion. You're muted there, Jen. Okay. I'm going to ratify the emergency certification for 64 mill street. I'll move to ratify the certification for 64 mill street. Second. We'll get the second to Leroy. So I'm the top of my screen. So voice vote Leroy. Michelle. Hi. Butcher. Hi. Laura. Larry. Hi. And I'm an eye. And then we need a motion to issue a certain complete certificate of compliance for our two 73 lever road. Move to. For the certificate of compliance for two 73 lever road. Yeah. Seconded was Leroy voice vote. Leroy. Laura. Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Butcher. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. If you want to jump into next here, Aaron. For sure. Um, so. I. Okay. So just a couple of things. So there. I think we should, I know Michelle had some comments on, um, one of the forest cutting plans or both the forest cutting plans. Um, so I don't think we should really talk about that right now. Cause that might take a little more time, but I just wanted to point out to people that for this meeting, there's quite a bit of correspondence in the, um, uh, one drive folder. So if any, if everybody could just have a look at that. Um, and then, and then the forest cutting plans as well. Um, uh, a couple of site visits, um, um, extra ones this week, uh, the, and just as an FYI, that there's a proposal that DPW is going to be bringing at some point to do a replacement of the, um, Plum Brook, um, Colvert that goes underneath potline lane. Um, I've been, I visited the site with Beth and talked with her about that this past week. And then, uh, did a site visit out at Trillium way, which there was, I don't know if you've seen that, um, the location of the, the fence was in the wrong place. So they're hopefully going to be correcting that. Um, Southeast Commons. We've had some issues with the, um, submission of monitoring reports. And I know, um, Erica Larner has been working for, um, Amir who's the owner. Um, and she might have, I know she's, she's working to try to, um, um, make sure that there's a matter of, um, not having a contract to do the inspections or if it was, you know, the weather that it was sort of presumed because the, you know, a lot of the time the ground was frozen that we wouldn't require monitoring reports during that period, but I have been in communication with her, um, letting her know that we're, you know, we, there've been many weeks that have passed now without monitoring reports. So, um, I think that's been a good basis for that site. Thanks for doing that, Aaron. Um, this is concerning. I just would ask if you can keep me posted on any responses. Cause I would love to see those inspection reports become, come in regularly on a weekly basis. Um, especially now that we're in moving into fast melt mud season. So, um, I don't know what's going on there, but, um, we need to know what's going on there. Yeah. Go ahead. So they, they switched, uh, contract engineer contractors or. Wasn't this like a, um, No, it was their inspector. So they had. Environmental inspector who submits the monitoring reports. Oh, that's separate than, um, the design folks. Correct. Yeah. My bad. Got it. Yeah. Um, those will get back on track. Yes. Is there a like, uh, Time at which we moved to the next step. Of enforcement there. Well, that's sort of up to you guys. Um, I. I checked in, uh, I checked in like where are the reports, where are the reports? And then, um, I know there was some communication between her and the owner, like to make sure that she was getting paid and, you know, that sort of thing. Um, so I think that was a lot of it. Um, but. And also I think there was a, you know, a freeze, deep freeze kind of period, which, you know, I understand, but we have had some, you know, like 40 degree days where it was raining in between the freeze. And so for me, I've had some sketchy, you know, just checking in on sites that where there, there've definitely been movement movement of material. Um, that I've identified on some sites. So just, it doesn't seem to matter like what the freezing conditions are. It's almost like our climate is in a constant freeze saw cycle during the winter now. And it's been an observation of mine for like the last three years that there is really no deep freeze that last fall winter. Yep. Okay. Well, unless there's a commissioner that feels like we should put a hard, unless anyone feels like we need to put a hard deadline on this, I'm okay with monitoring, continuing communication with the goal of getting those weekly monitoring reports back online. And if this is still an issue at the next meeting, moving forward to the next step of enforcement after that. Um, does anyone is, is that okay with everyone? Does anyone have any comments or concerns? Seeing a lot of. I like the timeline that you put forth. Yep. Okay. Thanks, Michelle. Okay. Great. Um, that was productive. Thanks for that. Productive seven squeezing those seven minutes Aaron. Um, so let's do our, um, seven 30 hearing. Let me open that already. Oh, it's the notice of intent. Okay. Sorry. I thought we were doing it more. Oh, it should. This is the. Go ahead. Um, did I get the order wrong in my slides? Yeah. I think you're right, Jen. I think you're right that it is the, um, the NOI was first. You're right. I mixed up the order in my slides. So my apologies. So we haven't opened this NO, this hearing yet. Do we. Correct. I would just continue it. Okay. Just, just say that it's, it's going to be opened at the, um, uh, Sorry. Wow. Mark. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I just need, um, motion to continue the notice of intent for a Berkshire design group on behalf of Valley property management. Killer iron properties for renovation of existing house removal of existing barn and restoration plantings in the river front area of the mill river at 80 pine street. And note that we'll open this, um, hearing officially at the next meeting on March 23rd. So moved. Okay. Thank you. Voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Larry. Hi. Ronnie. Hi. That's your. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay. So the next one is 735 and I have a 735 exactly. So this is a request for determination. We have a number of requests for installation of a generator and propane tank with a secluded concrete pen piping and 100 foot buffer zone. At 138 Sunderland road. Um, Aaron, are we expecting. We have a lot of attendees. Yeah. Um, so if you're in attendance at the meeting and you're planning on representing this. Um, and this RDA, please raise your hand. I see Sam. Yeah, it should be soon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for promoting you to a panelist. So you can join us. Um, Hey, there's, um, hi, we can see you and hear you. Perfect. Sorry. First time on the Wellens commission. Um, anyways. Yeah. On the back of that. I'm a survival senator request termination. As a result. Hold on. I have to like formally open the hearing. Give me two seconds. I just have to read this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So the public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40. Of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.3 ones, wetlands protection under the town of Amherst. General bylaws. Um, so sorry. Let's try that again, Sam. Thank you for being here. If you wouldn't mind just introducing yourself and giving us a quick overview of what you're doing. I'm just going to go into the operations coordinator. Amherst survival center and requesting. We are requesting determination for construction of a. 30 kilowatt generator and associated propane tank and necessary pads and piping. Within the hundred foot buffer zone of the. A budding intermittent stream. Uh, And 38 centerland road. We expect site work to be relatively minimal. Um, this is within the boundaries of. Construction. Um, and. I can bring up aerial photographs if, if necessary, but I know that Aaron has them. Uh, Seeing those associated with application. Yeah. So, um, it looks like we don't have any major concerns with the proposed work. Um, Aaron, would you mind just quickly sharing some site. Visit photos. I don't mind for some reason. Whenever I'm in share, share mode, I'll not allow me to, um, share the photos from. On drive. Um, bear with me. Just one moment. There we go. Um, so I, it's kind of weird. Like I, I was taking pictures just to show you guys that there's, there is fencing sort of all around the survival center in the back. So it's not as if this is going like in a, you know, um, an untouched, uh, um, area where there is no, this is looking out from the fencing toward the stream. So you see where the stream is located, but there's, um, there's multiple fences around the property. And my understanding and Sam can probably help a little bit more with this is that it's going sort of on the parking lot side of this sitting area. Is that correct, Sam? That's correct. So there's a slight incline in between where we're looking at the picnic tables here and where you can see the vehicles. Um, so in the, the flat of that hill, essentially. This, this area here is what I was sort of envisioning, right? I'm based on the plan. That's right. Okay. So it's, it's between a parking area and like a, you know, picnic lunch kind of area. Um, When would you guys plan to do this work, Sam? Uh, this would be near end of calendar year. 2022. Um, Okay. Okay. Um, I guess the main focus or main question I would have is just man, making sure we have good sentiment and erosion controls in place during the work just while, um, dirt is exposed that close to an intermittent stream. Um, So I guess Aaron has some comments here, just installation of a straw waddle at the limit of work while you're doing the work and making sure you're stabilizing any open ground, um, at the end of the work, which I'm sure you would do anyway, since it would probably run into your parking lot if you didn't, um, but those, I guess, my two main comments commissioners, did anyone else. Have any questions or, or concerns here? All right. Well, Aaron and anything further that I didn't cover concerns. No, I think this is a really super simple one. Agreed. Okay. Well, Sam, thanks for taking the time to come before us with this. Um, we appreciate it. And so it sounds like commissioners were looking for a motion to issue a negative determination when anyone be willing to, to re make and read that motion. I'll make a motion to move to issue a negative termination of applicability condition under the wetlands direction by checking box three. With positive termination of applicability over the local bylaw by checking box five. Second. Larry's on the second voice vote Larry. Hi. Roy. Hi. Laura. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. And I'm an I. Okay. Thank you, Sam. Best of luck with the project. Appreciate it. Thank you, Sam. Good job on the application. Good night. All right. Great. Sorry, just pulling up the agenda. So the next RDA. Is at 740 and I have 741. So I'm going to open that RDA. Let's see who. Well, I'll just open the hearing first. So this is a request for determination learner consulting on behalf of Dan Louie Louie builders for. Lewis or Louie. I'll get that corrected builders for tree clearing in the hundred foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetland. And an intermittent stream. For construction and associated work. Are the public meeting is now called. So please note that this is an after the fact permit filing. So the public meeting is now called to order this meetings being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the commonwealth and act relative to the provision of wetlands. As most recently amended an article 3.31, the wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. and you are participating and would like to represent the applicant here. Erica, I see you. I'm going to promote you to panelists. Dan, could you raise your hand if you want to be moved in? Or Erica, maybe you can tell me if I should move Dan and I see him. Oh, there he is. Okay. Did you do it, Eric? Oh no. Okay, I got it. Dan should be here too. Yeah, yeah, if we can have Dan and that'd be great. Great. I'll just wait for him to... Dan, we see that you're here but we can't see you or hear you. Oh, try again, Dan. There you go. Hello. Give me the pronunciation of your last name so I get it right. Lewis. Lewis, okay. You got it. Welcome, Erica and Dan, thanks for being here. Would one of you be willing to give us or first maybe you should both just introduce yourselves and then whoever is going to give us kind of a five minute overview of the project? That would be great. Sure. I'm Dan Lewis. I'm the owner of the property. I'm both Lott's and I'm the builder and Erica is my representative for the violence. Wonderful. And I'm Erica Larner, the Wetlands consultant. Mr. Lewis reached out to me after he had cleared two Lott's at the intersection on Tuckerman Lane and Kingman and he had gone into the, excuse me, about 75 feet into the buffer zone to an inch midstream and BBW the way that the two resource areas intersect. It hits about 75 feet into both resource areas and they weave back and forth amongst each other. So they, you give me a call to come up to that site. There's two single family home lots out there. One of them does have some jurisdiction cast on it from the intermittent stream that is mapped on MassMapper and the USGS as well as the BBW that's associated with it. The upper lot to the north to the eastern portion of that site. There is a swale that is alongside the railroad tracks. I know that Erin had asked a question about that. And I did actually investigate it because the first time I was out on the site, there was standing water. And when I went out again, the plants were not predominantly hydric, more worthy soils. So the upper lot would be outside of the commission's jurisdiction based on this delineation. And the outer lot, the clearing that was occurred prior to the filing would come within 60 feet of the resource areas. And the extended clearing that would go with the limit of work and the self-insight as proposed would go within approximately 50 feet of the, of both resource areas. The building envelope is proposed to be within 75 feet of the resource areas. Yeah, I was just going to say, sorry I was muted. That was kind of a whirlwind overview. A little difficult to follow. I did have, Erin is now sharing a site map, which I did have pulled up, but we might have to run through some of that again. So, okay. So the building is within the 100 foot buffer of BVW and it borders the 100 foot intermittent stream buffer. What's that red line? A limit of work. Limit of work is almost up to the 50 foot intermittent stream buffer or parallel to, parallel to the 50 foot BVW buffer and almost up to the 50 foot intermittent stream buffer. Okay. There's a lot to unpack here. Real quick, you can see this from Henry Street, right? If you're looking across the tracks. Okay. I was just getting a variant here. Okay. Erin, maybe would you mind orienting us with some site visit photos? I would be happy to. So when you pull into the cul-de-sac and you look out sort of to the right, there's an a butter on one side. So this is kind of just looking, looking down. And I got this so that you can sort of see that as soon as you, on the right side there, it drops down. So there's a slope almost immediately on the edge of the cul-de-sac. And then this is, if I sort of turn to my left looking directly towards Henry Street, that is what I see. And so it's a lot then there's, in the back of the lot, there's the railroad track and then there's Henry Street on that side. So this is facing down toward the intermittent stream. This is the area of the lot that was cleared looking down towards the the woods. And then the clearing did extend down the slope. And then this is just a photo. There's there is an outlet which isn't shown on the planned delineation. And I assume that this is probably a stormwater outfall, but I'm not entirely sure what that what that water is from. This is looking to the east, I believe, just toward the delineation, trying to capture those flags. You can see one sort of right in the center of the photo. And then this is looking left toward where the intermittent stream moves through the property. This is again the stormwater. This is, I took a photo to the left just so you could sort of see the slope, the clearing on the slope. And I think that's probably my biggest concern on this site is the fact that there's a slope that's been cleared. And then I believe that the limit of work is proposed to extend down onto that slope, which is a little bit worrisome, kind of wishing that we could keep them up on top of the flat plateau of the lot and restore this steep slope so that it protects the resource area a little bit better. And you can see the stump's cut there. This is looking out. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Sorry. So back on the picture of the slope. So if I'm squaring this picture with the plan view map we saw, the 50 foot buffer is about at the toe of this slope? Oh, yes. Okay. Is that track Aaron for you? Yeah. I mean, what's so what's hard is like this is one site we're having sort of the limit of work staked out and the house staked out would be really useful to get sort of that context of where things fall just because of the sloping nature and also the vegetation. It's really hard to get a sense of the offsets from the BVW. And also because you have BVW and you have the stream, so sort of, you know, where those those buffers fall. It's a little like, like Erica said, they kind of kind of weaves so weaves through the landscape. So it's a little hard to tell where that buffer falls. Okay. Sorry, going Aaron. Sorry to interrupt. So this is turning back around and facing north. And so this is standing on the lot, which is so there's, there's sorry, it took me off. There's two lots that are side by side. And so this is looking at them the long way. And then back down the slope, back down the slope, you can see the railroad tracks there. And that's, you can see just is a right square in the center of the photo. If you look directly down from the railroad tracks, you see a dark spot. That's where the culvert comes out from under the railroad tracks and flows. I believe it's east. And then this is, these are some photos of the swale that runs along the railroad track. This is a photo at the top of the slope looking down just to give you a sense of the steepness of it. And, and this material is moving on the site right now, you can, you can see that it's moving and start, there's starting to be some accumulation of sediment right on the edge of that slope. So regardless of whether the commission acts tonight or whatever moves forward, I definitely think that it would be a good idea to get some erosion controls out there as soon as possible. So Aaron, real quick, so that the stream below the dark, the dark ribbon, that's the stream. That line, that line is the stream. Yep, exactly. Yep. And one more question. Erica, when was this delineation done? Like what time of year? Very, very late fall, December 17th. It was the last warm week before we got frozen ground conditions and I know because I took the day off to do the field work because it was the last chance I was going to get for before frozen ground. Yeah. But yeah, so it was very, very, very late fall, like three days before winter. Okay. Okay. commissioners, I want to open it up, clarifying questions and comments. Yeah, Michelle, go ahead. Erica, you said the tree cutting was done 75 feet into the 100 foot buffer. Is that Aaron, I see in our notes the violation of the wetlands protection act and local wetland bylaw? Exactly. Is that that? It is, yes. And this RDA was meant to respond to that violation and to permit the violations and then the additional by right, well the, I'm sorry, the not by right to the additional clearing would be to the performance standards for Inland Bank and BVW as well. Other questions? Let me just go back to that, the original plans that we saw before the pictures, please. So, and just to give you perspective on, there's a lot here which appears to be completely outside of our jurisdiction. It's just the lot that's on the corner of the cul-de-sac that's in jurisdiction. Erica, do you? Oh, sorry, go ahead. I just wanted the house, so that orange is the house slot, is the proposed house? The orange is meant to be the building envelope in that we don't have a set footprint. The Lewis builders would be building this and potentially could be looking at a varying set of footprint layouts. So the intent would be to cover potential locations of the house, but I seriously doubt that they're looking at a 10,000 square foot home. That it would be to cover the potential for varying locations or layouts of the actual footprint of the house for varying entrances and appearance ways. That's correct. We're looking at like a 1,900 square foot home, that's what we're looking at there, which is not going to consume that building envelope at all. Cool. Yeah, that was my question. Thanks. And I can actually say that I believe that Erin's comment about the erosion up at the top of the slope is a decent one. We do have a silphence proposed at the toe of slope, but that I think that potentially that we could suggest that if there is any kind of gulling or movement of sedimentation that a coconut fiber matting or erosion neutral matting of some kind be implemented as a secondary backup if there's any kind of rib, rib, rib, I can't speak today. I'm so sorry, folks, gullies or, you know, the R word. Rills. Rills. Thank you. But I guess my to what you just said, Erica, what is the point of disrupting that whole slope? What is what is the intention or the reasoning for tearing up that whole slope and ripping out the vegetation? In my discussions with Mr. Mr. Lewis, the intention is not to actually do so. It's again, to provide the most flexibility that should be that this would be the extent of the lockdown that was intended, the tree works been done, but that I wanted to provide a natural breakpoint for the silk and instead of trying to fight with the slope, and that additionally, should any rotation need to be happened, happen a tree or two to provide safety to a foundation that something lines up different with the side of the sorry, the side property setbacks, and they need to do a touch more extra work. I wanted to provide as much flexibility for onsite construction to go smoothly without coming back after the fact and saying, sorry, we had a violation again. So I wanted to make sure that we provided the most flexibility there, so we didn't have an accidental violation again. Okay, so this is a stepping back a little bit. Did you do any like so that can that I don't know if it's a storm water outfall or like that concentrated surface water flow, any idea where that comes from and was it included in the mapping? I wouldn't find online information about where that might have come from, from what I could look at as the actual material of the piping the PVC that the width and the timing of the putting when the subdivision was put in. It appears that it would be drainage from the streets and that it does appear that the there's been, sorry, trap rock placed in that location again to freshen it up as a storm water outfall. So I can't find any publicly available records or I couldn't I'm sure they do exist, but I couldn't find them to find out what it was, but it did based on subdivision timing and the PVC pipe timing it looked like they were both in the 80s. May I just ask how many of the commissioners went on site and viewed this site, viewed the lot itself? Anybody on the commission went on the site and viewed the site itself? So I didn't actually schedule a site visit for the commission to come out and see this and part of that was because well it's I mean the commission could come out and see this any time, but I it's a commission itself could come out and see this any time itself, right? Right. Has anyone on the commission come out and looked at this lot? I think she answered your question. I think she hasn't scheduled a site visit so the answer right now is no. Okay. I mean I so and part of that is that I think so for me personally I think that there's some outstanding issues with this application and I don't know if that's something that you want me to talk about. Yeah I think the first thing I would say is we need to do something immediately to stabilize the site so regardless of what is decided here and what the next step is I'm concerned about what looks like some sediment kind of collecting and heading towards that slope. So unless any commissioners disagree with me I think like immediate action is that we need to stabilize or protect that slope. And then Erin do you want to get into any further information needs here? Yeah yeah and I did send some of these to Erica before the meeting so she could be a little prepared for kind of what my questions were going to be and she did touch on some of these questions already like with regard to looking at the swale along the railroad tracks and investigating whether or not there was any indicators of hydrology. I didn't suspect that there would be but I was just curious if that had been looked at. I mentioned already the slope issues. I mean so there's a couple things that occurred to me about this site and just because of the topography and the nature of it is that as soon as this site is opened up that there would probably be peeling the top soil off of the top of it and pulling the stumps and in doing so they would be stockpiling a large amount of material somewhere on the site and my concern is it being that the site plan as it was submitted to us they could push that material right up to the limit of work they could push it right down the slope towards the wetland and stockpile basically wherever they wanted and they could leave it for to sit there for three years if they wanted to in over the course of the life of the permit and I have a concern about that that we should identify where the material that's taken off or the material that the topsoil on the site where it's going to be located for the duration of construction so that we can keep that material away from the resource area and then also have some mitigation there to protect it I've and I could say immediately that we are quite happy to say that all stockpiles will be outside of the hundred foot buffer zone and that that could easily be a condition for a negative determination is that we would keep all stockpiles outside of the hundred foot buffer and there's plenty of non-jurisdictional space for both lots okay so as far as the construction of this house because of the topography because of the slope and also because there's a neighbor that's actually down slope of this site that stands to be sort of on the receiving end of a lot of drainage from the lot I have some concerns about the existing contour versus the proposed contour how it's going to be graded on the site and also once it is graded and the house is constructed what they're doing with water a lot of times just how downspouts are positioned can really cause a lot of issues in terms of the rills and gullies that Erica had mentioned they can carve carve out and cause issues and if we don't have any requirements for those areas to be stabilized that water could be directed directly towards the slope it could be directed down towards the neighbor it could you know they can be put underground found french drains they could be put right up to the limit of work you know there there are issues that could come about during construction which we have zero control over if we just say negative determination on this house footprint they could literally put the house on the entire house footprint develop that entire area so I think it would be useful to have more detail and to Erica's point like like let's say somebody spec that you know they decide to do like a spec house like somebody wants to buy it they want to have the builder build a house well then they want to do a deck then they want to do a shed they want to do a patio they want to do a pool you know there's all these additional factors in here we don't have anything on a plan so anything that's in that building envelope is fair game and then just a couple comments from the my site visit and I you know I shared the site visit photos but the outlet at the Toa Slope which we already talked about um staking and this is something that um visiting the site I was like wow we you know would be really useful to see where the limit of work would be staked um in this case and again the comment about erosion controls okay that's helpful Erin thanks um so if I can address any of those concerns I'd be happy to whenever you have a moment okay well um let's talk about how we want to do this there I have to open for public questions and comments and we have an attendee with a raised hand so I should give our attendees a chance so why don't Erica why don't you um give us some feedback on those thoughts and then we can open it up to the public for comments and questions before we figure out how to move forward fantastic um okay so the um so the only concern would be truly about the development of the area um would be whether or not there'd be directing runoff during the grading towards the resource area um it would we wouldn't need to be able to concern as a rate be concerned with this as a regulatory issue as to whether or not be graded towards the neighbors that would be not legal but also a silver matter to be worked out among um I think between neighboring lots not between the commission as a regulatory matter we can ask uh Mr. Lewis if he's planning on doing any other grading of the lot um and that I would point out that clearing to the 50-foot line is within the performance standards and that under an RDA submission we're asking whether or not this is an impact to a resource area with the silkence proposed and with the performance standards being met I struggle to see that we need finer detail in terms of storm water management or the actual footprint of the house as opposed to giving you the approximate location no closer than locations um that allows us to work and plan ahead um a notice of intent would appropriate time to have a footprint storm water design um and this doesn't meet the standard of a notice of intent as it falls perfectly within the performance standards and this is um a style of plan that is regularly approved by the commission um when this is such a minimal amount of impact within the buffer zones okay noted um let's come back to um some of those points and I would love your input on kind of meeting performance standards and whether we could move to an NOI in this case um but I do want to give everyone in who's attending from the public a chance to ask any questions or make any comments first um and I notice there's a lot of people in attendance and we have a lot of other issues in the meeting so I'm not sure if all these people are here for this hearing but if a lot of these people are I just want to say thank you for being here um we have a very full agenda we want to hear what people have to say but we ask that you limit your comments and questions to things that are um relevant and within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission so our job here is to protect the resource um our you know and there's not much we can do um outside of that so please keep your comments and questions relevant to what we have jurisdiction over but also I'd ask that you introduce yourself and then try to limit your questions and comments to about two minutes if possible um so with that Brenda I see you've had your hand up for a while here I'm gonna allow you to talk so if you could introduce yourself and ask any uh questions or comments that would be great yes hello I'm Brenda Bush House and I just wanted to add that Lewis Builders never took out a permit before removing the trees of butters were not notified we did not have the benefit of a public hearing when we received the butters notice for the wetlands determination that was a first notice we had received about any of this construction so our neighbors are here to complain first and foremost about that to the builder himself because he is here that we deserved a public hearing and you needed to hear from the butters we you've cleared the train tracks now our houses shake I have cracks on my ceilings I have nail pops okay thank you and I realize okay I'll move to what's relevant here so the issue here is that the draining is critically important and that should be written into the permit I also think that because this is another filing after the fact that this needs to be put on hold we need to have further study and that I would request on behalf of my neighbors that just this gets tabled until we as the butters have any chance whatsoever to do our homework we just found out about this thank you thanks Brenda um I see another hand up do you want I'm gonna allow you to talk you should be able to hear you now if you would introduce yourself and ask any questions or make any comments do you want are you there how do I do this oh now we hear you great thank you yeah thanks for being here okay thank you so I live right next to these lots down the slope and I have to second Erin's comment on the concerns for the erosion um because we would be directly on the receiving end of it and like Brenda was saying already our house literally things in the cover shake I have you know nails popping all of that so it seems to become a problem but my question is who did the land survey I was really shocked to see the working man coming really close to what I thought you know our property I mean we have never done that officially but how did the pink ribbons appear may I answer that um well sure let me just first um Dan if you don't mind so what we're talking about here um do you want is not necessarily the building permit process those pink flags are delineating the resources that are protected under the Wellens Protection Act for the state of Massachusetts and the town of Amherst um so those were delineated by Erica um on December 17th of was that 2021 Erica this past December um so those are slightly different technical things so Dan do you want to go ahead do you have more information sure um so when I purchased the property we had the property survey we indicated all four corners of the property of the property lines and then we had the property clear for our inside our building envelope that's how we proceeded and who was the survey or I think that was the question yeah sure uh Harold Ethan and associates out of uh Hadley they're the ones in the survey on this and there's probably a survey as part of your building permit Dan which is probably absolutely which the building permit which the building permit has not been um issued yet because it has not been turned in yet okay because after we cleared the lots this whole thing came up so that's why we're in the middle of this process here okay okay great thanks no of course um so may I ask why the trees were clear before a permit was obtained because that is a normal process so you can clear the trees and see what you have for a building envelope on your land you have a building envelope that you have to clear up too so that that's what we did at issue here is the proximity of that clearing to the resource delineated by those pink flags to see I understand that yeah no no sorry it's like clarifying that for um you you also gotta realize when we purchased this land we clarified with the real estate agent on this and we um contacted the conservation commission and there wasn't any issue at that time and then when we cleared the lot this became an issue we have those emails who are through the realtor so we're going through the normal process of this which is fine okay great thanks um juan did you have any other questions I think that's that's it for me probably other people have questions yep okay I'm gonna disable talking I see the next on my list um is rosy rosy I'm allowing you to talk you could introduce yourself hi um rosy rosy mac mehan I live in the neighborhood I actually walked down to the lot tonight and stood there uh knowing this meeting was going to happen and I'll just say that finding out that those trees on the back of the lot on the slope and the proximity that that slope has to the wetlands is is uh is very concerning and you can't you can't plant 50 year old trees and I don't care how much coconut um you know uh whatever that stuff is you referred to Erika it's you know those trees were serving a purpose and they're gone and we're just going to be doing damage control uh that that's it so I'm I'm sorry about that and uh and I hope that that's taken into consideration thank you thank you um okay uh we've got juan rosy if you've um unless you have more follow-up questions or comments if you could lower your hand that would be great the last person I think I see on here is amber should be able to talk yep hi everyone um good evening I'm amber kindle martin and I live in the neighborhood as well I live on grantwood drive um so I am not super familiar with this commission and I apologize for that so I don't know what's in your jurisdiction and what's not besides what you've said um but I think it counts for something that this billionaire you know went ahead and cut down a bunch of trees before they had a permit um and I would like to think I live in a town where where those regulations mean something so I just am completely bewildered by this process and how this was allowed to happen and you know I know you guys don't care but people would use those you know use those woods kids use them dogs use them I mean yeah you bought the property I understand that but there are certain parts that do concern the town and that are resources that belong to the town and I can't believe that you could just knock down those trees without any regard for that so I'm here to support my neighbor who's the abutter and just to say that was a resource the whole neighborhood used so thanks a lot okay thank you amber um all right uh let's see it looks like there's one more hand raised charlie yes hi i'm charlie schweig i'm also in a butter I'll just say that I second everything that all the other neighbors have said um they they've captured my feelings about this as well okay thanks for being here charlie um and everyone who's made comments amber Brenda I see your hand up again um if you still have a question or comment leave it up otherwise okay Brenda um if you have another brief question or comment my question for the commission is what are the options here when somebody uh removes trees without proper permitting authority and it affects a wetlands so what are the options here and I would ask that the neighborhood needs time we need time to research this we have had no time to to explore our options here and so please just let us know what the potential is thank you yeah um so that's actually a great segue and I just want to say for those of you that are here thank you for coming to this meeting um the procedure that we're following is like the best that we can do to kind of address this in a way that does the best it can to um protect the resource um and so I'm going to let Erin if that's Erin would you be okay with kind of explaining what our options are kind of the different decision points um along the rest of this process just so people understand what what's on the table of course um so I'm just going to pull up the actual application while I'm talking because um on the application um it actually it checked every single box which um was is a little unusual from what I usually see on an application but um so what that means is that um here's the application and here's section B where it says determinations and so these are the questions that the commission is being asked to make a determination on so A is whether the area depicted on the plan's reference below is subject to the wetlands protection act so um clearly there are areas on the site that are subject to the wetlands protection act um for B whether the boundaries of the resource areas depicted on the plan um and or maps referenced below are accurately delineated so that's another question with this permit that the commission would have to answer um whether the work depicted on the plan's reference below is subject to the wetlands protection act and what that is there's there's multiple options there but the commission could say yes the the work is subject to the wetlands protection act but it could be conditioned such that the work could move forward without having an impact on the wetlands that's one option so that's sort of like our when we're issuing a negative determination that's the one where we usually issue um when everything is sort of you know in great shape and we're ready to proceed um the commission could also say uh no uh or we think that the work is subject to the wetlands protection act but we cannot um we we think that uh the notice of intent application is necessary so that we can um get more information or maybe the commission doesn't feel that um they you know might have questions about the potential for the project to impact a resource area and so that's an option there too and then the last box is whether um the area and or work depicted on the plans is subject to the municipal bylaw which it it is so that would be a positive as well so um the commission has to respond to each and every one of these questions and basically issue a decision on it ordinarily we see box c and d checked um most of the time and so that's why we usually see uh negative determination with conditions and a positive determination under the bylaw this one's just a little different than what we usually see which is why i wanted to pull it up to clarify we've been stepping back further from that it's worth saying so if we issue a negative determination with conditions the project moves forward according to those conditions this is for the benefit of members of the public if we decide that we can't issue a negative determination or we can't fully condition this in a way that would aptly or fully protect the resource then we would ask for a per a notice of intent you know a full permit application and a permit um for this site so that we can adequately press um kind of protect the resource so this is kind of a screening for a full permit at this point um just so members of the public understand kind of where we are in the arc of well into permitting um i just just from a um sort of a regulatory standpoint to i just wanted to point one thing out so with an rda the commission has 21 days to respond so um in this case where we're you know we've got to we've got to do something tonight uh something has to be a decision has to be rendered on this tonight basically um unless the applicant was to you know give their um blessing for us to continue for some reason so a reason might be to say well um we'd like additional detail on how the drainage will be dealt with on the site or we'd like additional detail on replanting the slope and stabilizing it and and or we'd like to adjust the limit of work line to keep it um up on the plateau flat area of the site so that we're not impacting the slope um and to adjust the plans accordingly so it's really there's a lot of give and take with the decision making process tonight um it's really where the applicants coming from sort of where they're at with the application if if and also where the commission is at with the application and working together to try to iron that out yeah so i want to say again hopefully that's a thank you erin and that hopefully that's a helpful overview for members of the public who joined us we really appreciate you guys being here and being engaged in this process we understand it's complicated and um just know that we're doing our best to kind of make that clear to you and to spend our time to understand kind of what's going on at this site and how to best kind of protect the resources involved um so with that commissioners um we kind of need to get a sense of if we're moving in a direction of do we need more information to the point where we could potentially issue a negative determination or um do we think that there's more here and we need to move in the direction of an NOI so i guess what i'd love to hear from commissioners are additional information we need to evaluate um this rda i just have a question i'm sorry lori one second um or this is either erik or dan you're talking with that slope and that um the last the plans that you're saying with the envelope was that on that slope the building envelope was were you planning on developing something on that slope i just want this for clear very clear reference that that slope is the building envelope on that home that slope is included on that building envelope that the plan was right correct that that plateau is on the building envelope the plateau sure i was asking what the slope the slope is on the on the back end of the property yeah so it's within the limit of work pleasure i think but not within the building envelope i was like yeah i was asking about the building envelope that was correct question correct gotcha okay and you were saying that you cleared the slope in order just to get an idea of the building envelope no uh so we we cleared the trees and the trees that were cleared on the backside just so you guys all understand those trees were all leaning in towards the property if they were leaning away from the property if you look at the photos you'll see trees that are leaning away towards the slope which we did not touch any trees that were leaning significantly in towards the property i mean significantly like a 55 degree angle in we cut those down because they were going to encroach onto the home so those were removed and we left the stumps behind we are not touching those stumps on the on the slope those stumps will stay on the slope they will stabilize the slope they will actually regrow from the stump and they will just continue to stabilize that slope those trees we are not touching at all okay that's helpful thanks other questions commission yeah loroy i just had a thought uh i guess for the building i guess the total envelope right now is around 10 000 square feet and you're trying to use about 1900 so is there any opposition to just make or shrinking that envelope the the the whole square footage is 1900 that does not relate to the building envelope i could take a two-square a two-story home and make that 1900 square feet which makes that building envelope even smaller on the square where i was wondering if you're willing you're on your own to shrink my willing to shrink the building envelope correct the building envelope is established by the zoning i'm i i don't have the authority to shrink that building envelope so maybe the question might be more loroy the limit of work so this goes back to the question that erin asked at the beginning of the meeting is just erica or sorry erin asked erica if there's any way or why the limit of work had to extend down that slope um and i you know erica said it was you know to be conservative we don't want to have to worry about we want to give you enough space to work we don't have to worry about violations moving forward but i think i would press that question is could we push given kind of the tenor of the commission and the amount of information we're looking for here could we pull that limit of work back up to the top of the slope i would say that the only thing about putting the limit of the work at the top of the slope is that the clearing has already been done um it would probably be a bit disingenuous to suggest that it that it has not been um that i think that it could be that the commission conditions that there is no stomping beyond the top the edge of the plateau so there is no pulling of stumps i think that that would be a very appropriate um condition um to say that there's to be no more no stomping on the slope and that the slope is to be stabilized um but i think that would those be very appropriate you know conditions and like in this said mr lewis is open to that um that that's why i stated it when when the trees are leaning in it just becomes a hazard for the home but if you cut them down and you let the stumps stay they regrow from the stumps they do and it's the other thing is that it stabilizes the bank yeah and the other thing is that the commission doesn't want to accidentally get permission to do further clearing where the limit of work where it is um there's something you know you could say you can reference the plan that i submitted and then again as a condition in the negative three states that you know despite any plans that are submitted there is to be no additional clearing um and that that would be that you know no additional clearing is permitted than what exists on the site is of this day um and that could prevent any further additional um clearing and i don't think that like mr lewis has been stating he has no intention to do so and um my intention was to be as conservative to make sure that we are protected from accidentally moving something and not having covered it in the permit i'm not doing our due diligence so if we're getting feedback from mr lewis that he has no intention to touch those areas that i think that might be a good solution to protecting the slope and the resource area without any further alterations and not allowing more alterations accidentally um through the permit but if there's no intention to touch that slope why not just pull the limit of work back i mean what are you going to do outside of that area if it's not something and not clearing you see what i'm saying like if there's no plan to work in there like let let the let's make the limit of work accurate i well i guess because the reason why i would say is the limit of work the trees were already cut that's why i wouldn't want to do that i also would say that there's a potential likelihood of replanting um there could be some but sorry landscaping there could be some potential for a deck that might go over just over the top of the slope so i think that preserving some ability to put something over just over the top of the slope would be important for the construction of the home but i think that changing where the limit of the work is towards the 50 foot there's no intention to go any further um then no issue with that if there's a deck over the limit of work i mean can a deck be outside of the building envelope no no no the building envelope goes to the limit of clearing right yeah and that is just down slope attention so building envelope is meant to include things such as the you know the potential for a deck for any grating for or you know a gravel drip line for you know for the roofs things like that yeah yeah okay erin did you have a comment or question yeah i just wanted to say so every commission is different right and every commission is different in what they require for a simple single family house project um and every site is different and on a case by case basis the commission can review this and say do we have the information necessary to make a determination here this particular law is tricky because of the topography and ordinarily you would see existing contours and proposed contours and i think one of the things that's confusing about this visually on the plan is that it's difficult to see where that um plateau is and where the slope starts and so um it it would be more advantageous for me to see a complete plan that has existing topography proposed topography i wouldn't be opposed to and i know like in the past what we've done is we've placed like a house footprint um that is larger than what they're proposing to do but include a driveway um somewhat of a driveway something anything even if it's bigger than what they're proposing to do include some um information on where the drainage is going so that we can determine that the drainage isn't just being downspouts aren't just being directed onto the slope and that there's no stabilization or anything going on there um i think that there's additional information that would be useful to the commission to make sure that there aren't going to be any um impacts to the resource area so so functionally there is no way to do grading without pulling stumps so if stumps are not allowed to be pulled and they're not going to be pulled and we're saying that we're more than happy to have the condition of no additional stump pulling there is no functional way to grade down the slope um that would allow the building envelope as it is would allow for an overlook deck to look into the woods behind them and see the beautiful stream um additionally the proposed driveway would be outside of the commission's jurisdiction um so providing that information as a requirement would not be within the commission's per view and i would say that the driveway would be outside of the hundred foot buffer top of the plateau that's nearly over half the acre it's outside of the commission's jurisdiction there's no wetlands up there um so and i'd say that under an rda it's extensive to require fully engineered plans for something that amounts to the potential of 10 000 squaring potential clearing sorry and we're saying we won't do any more we're talking about then five thousand square feet six thousand square feet of clearing in the outer 50 feet um 60 feet and out um no additional work being done proposed erosion controls um the standard of information that would be requested at this point would be something that would be standard for notice intent and it would not be this the level of work here is not i don't see how it can actually impact a resource area and the question that this application is asking is asking the commission whether or not the work will impact a resource area um and so i'm not seeing how any more of this work will impact a resource area or that any directly was so i'm not sure that fully engineered plans would be an appropriate request in this case i'm personally feeling like i'm kind of flying blind here like unless i see a full set of plans i i feel like jan i can't make a determination or opine in any way so that that's where i'm coming you know i feel like we can we're talking about this a little bit circularly right now so you know that's my few cents i don't know how other commissioners feel but um if you folks haven't been out there it might be clear if you have been to understand the site rather than fully engineer plans yeah so laura just so i understand your your question you're asking me for a fully engineered site plans on the site yeah what i'm asking for is i when we look at when we look at what's been done and then we hear i mean what i'm hearing is that there are no plans to build in certain areas but yet there's been clearing there it's just but so but at the same time it's just it's hard for us to give approval for something unless we know precisely where the development's going to be um and and just for a little bit of backgrounds when we're when we are looking to approve um requests like these um you know we it is not typical that we all have to go on site so typically we're provided enough information to look at to look at the designs and the maps to be able to make determinations so um just to yeah just to remind you we're we're understood understood okay good thanks laura other commissioners so we can provide the information um and a solid set of GIS sketch plans that go over the concept plans that are land surveyed to the commission that would show the limit of work being listed at the um limit of clearing that is currently there and show a notation that says no additional clearing or stumping and that there would be the building envelope would go to the top of the top of the slope if that is what the commission would require to make a negative termination without fully engineered plans we can revise the submitted plans that seems like it would be a good compromise um something that we can just go ahead fletcher well yeah because we're not I don't think we're asking for a complete engineered plans here but yeah but you just erica but what you just spelled out there now you're now I think people are starting to get a little bit more comfortable we're not yeah we need the exact house plans immediately with but what you just you know we under we want to understand the contours of the property on the paper with that limit of work is going to be fletcher just so you understand I believe we submitted topos from um herald ethian associates which shows the topos of the law which which shows erica's map which shows the topography of the law it should show that on there totally and if we could just have the resource area delineations and buffers and then like the building envelope and then I believe that's all on there isn't that all on there on the drawing that you showed which has the red lines and everything in there it shows the building does have the contours on it it shows the building envelope it shows the contours it shows the wetlands delineation it shows all of that stuff on there so I'm I'm I'm a little confused and excuse me if I'm confused but it shows that all on there so this was the original plan that was submitted with this application just for context excuse me excuse me sir let me speak for a moment um this is the original plan that was submitted with the application there was no building envelope there was no limit of work sign line all there was was the annotations and the points for where the wetland are sure I I excuse me I'm not done yet um I responded and said there's information missing here we need a building envelope we need a limit of work line and that was submitted to us the problem is that um when we're when we're viewing this um excuse me just one sec while I get back to it it you're showing the building envelope over the slope extending over the the slope where the clearing has already occurred and the commission wants to see that adjusted before they approve it um I also would continue to advocate for the fact that we have some sort of a drainage plan because my concern is it doesn't matter where the building envelope is if drainage is being directed onto that slope there's an opportunity for erosion to go down into that resource area I understand in that plan it shows a hash line which shows the building envelope around the entire perimeter of the plan that that's established by the town of Amherst that that's the hash line that goes around the perimeter that's the building envelope yeah I mean so I just I'd like to just talk to the commission directly for a minute here um I don't personally feel like this plan is adequate um to protect the resource and I do think that we need some information on the drainage and what the plan is for how the drainage is going to be handled on the site um I I have concerns about the building envelope extending down onto the slope I have concerns about the issue of the clearing in a jurisdictional area without any sort of restitution whatsoever that there should be some sort of planting and there should be some sort of demarcation there that that area is not going to be encroached upon um the commission is fully within its right to if they think that a notice of intent is required for this they're fully within their right to do that if the applicant wanted to um adjust the plans to incorporate some additional things the commission could ask that and the the applicant could take the opportunity to adjust the plans to to provide some additional information um if the commission is comfortable with this you can approve it as is but it feels very much like you guys are getting a lot of pressure right now to act quickly and in the interests of the applicant and I'm just wanting to make sure that you know that you have multiple options here and you don't need to um be pressured to do something that could potentially um not work out well so I would I would like the commission to know that there is regularly um clearing up to 25 feet to intermittent streams and bbw's and building allowed up to structures within 50 feet um this is a lower request than that but I think that I'm hearing that a revised plan that takes the building envelope out of the commission's jurisdiction would be the best way to go so I think the applicant would like to request a continuance for us to revise the plan for the commission to review at the next available hearing that seems like a great compromise I appreciate that Erica um and Dan and I want to say you know we're all doing the best we can here we're trying to understand as best we can you know we all are professionals in our own right in other areas and we do this as volunteer and you know we have a lot of technical experience combined here so please um take us you know give us the benefit of the doubt here that we're doing our best with the information we have in the time we have to treat this as keep this process as fair as possible um so I appreciate the the compromise Erica we want to keep this moving Dan I know you want to keep it moving um so yeah so I think a plan that pulls the building envelope out of the jurisdictional area would be fantastic some Erica if you could think about some sort of planting or stabilization stabilization of that slope that also I think would be great I would ask um I would ask then why the commission had not done an enforcement order that required this and instead instructed the applicant to file an RGA to permit the work quite happy to adjust the building envelope but this was the direct explicit instruction of the commission to file this way and it is a frequently permitted performance standard meeting activity to clear to the 50 foot and we're already saying there will be no clearing it is already there no stump pulling it would be an activity that would be permittable why were we directed to this application or not had enforcement activity taken so quite happy to come back with revised plan that talks about where the building envelope is outside the commission's jurisdiction but we were instructed to file under an RDA to permit the work as it is but Erica what's the difference if the reason we're keeping the limit of work including that slope that's been cleared and you said it's that we were not going to leave it in the limit of work because you might do some landscaping what's the difference between just putting that up front and stabilizing the slope with some plantings because that allows the homeowner to use landscape plantings if they choose to and an area in which is frequently permitted to be altered needs a performance standard the commission themselves are obligated to operate under this is allowed to clear to the 50 foot we are giving up more than that and if they want to be able to do landscape plantings that should be allowed we shouldn't have to have been made of plantings in a restoration it should have been done under an enforcement order and we are directed to permit this as the standards do direct the commission to allow this area to be cleared so I'm happy to pull the limit of work the building envelope out because I don't believe there's any intention to actually put the house down the slope the intention of showing that there is to allow for any site work that might have been required in an area that had already been cleared we'll put no stumping and we'll happily move the slope fence up to the edge and put some additional back of erosion controls as necessary great so the commissioners sorry okay go ahead I just want to say you guys can request plantings you guys can request stabilization regardless of whether there's an enforcement order on the site you can request that as part of any application any permit you can request it as a revision that's not actually true you have to actually review the application that's in front of you you can't direct a permit and how to design and construct on a site well if you think that there's going to be impacts to a resource area on a slope you absolutely can yeah I'll respectfully disagree on that there's no I'm sorry legally there are a couple of decisions you can issue a positive determination requires to go for a notice of intent which would not be consistent with any of the commission's previous decisions or you can issue an enforcement order and require it done which again would not be consistent with commission's behavior up to this point what was directed for the last three months to the applicant nor any of its previous decisions we're already compromising I'm sorry that this was a violation but these activities are regularly permitted we do not need to do native plantings you cannot direct us you have to tell us will this impact a resource area even if we come in with an order you can do an order of conditions sure but you cannot direct us with a native planting plan what it must be you have to make a decision about what is being in front of the commission this is an overreach for something that is regularly permitted in front of the commission and we spent the last three months developing plans and delineations under the presumption that this is what the commission would like we are now this is not an overreach if you violated the violation the violation should be dealt with an enforcement order then that is a separate legal and regulatory process which I conduct on a regular basis so it can be dealt with under an enforcement order we were directed to permit the work restoring with native planting is not permitting the work we're instructed to permit the work with an rda this is what we filed we're happy to move the building envelope out of the commission's jurisdiction the clearing as it is if it needs to be restored that should be an enforcement order commissioners yeah we have clarity on what we're asking for um we're here so we can move on yeah so I was just going to say commissioners I need some input here so it sounds like there's a willingness to compromise and pull the building envelope out of our jurisdictional area I need others input on moving forward with conditioning for stabilization of the slope and sediment erosion controls here is this something that we want to pursue or are we happy with additional information and coming back to continuing this rda with the idea that we'd need to make a decision with just that additional information in the next meeting yeah let's go ahead so Eric you just said you'll bring up the silt fence up to this top of the slope you mentioned that right you mentioned you're going to put in the erosion control whatever the whatever you want to do the cotton fibers for the currently for the um the soil slopes is that that's correct correct yeah we're getting erosion control matting trying to confirming that as we start to move forward on this silt fencing or we like silk socks we do we do both but we do rather have those but I'm not sure about the rest commissioners on the on movie are we okay with what's currently on the stump so you were saying no more stumping is going to occur on the slope correct correct so you're saying no more work on the slope is happening you're not we're going to say there's no the trees that were caught in the slope we're leaning in trees are leaning yeah that's fine i'm just saying that moving forward there's no more work happening on this slope so we're going to stabilize the slope now right right that's what we're saying okay yes absolutely that's all that there's no active work to stabilize the slope we're just protecting the correct currently right now the active work will be to install the silt fence and the straw wattles that go through there i install both of them because i feel like that's a adequate protection on it okay i'm just confirming what we're moving forward and then obviously with the plan changes we're going to move the limit of work back out back off the slope the current building envelope sorry i'm just trying to keep everything going in my head yeah absolutely are you guys are you guys thinking of moving all of the work outside a jurisdiction i mean fletcher is that what you're suggesting because moving the building envelope out of the buffer and moving the silt fence to the top of the slope i think would effectively do that so i can't see that that's that's i don't i can't see that so that's what i'm just confirming with erica about what we were just talking about that would include yes that would approximately be the same the top of the slope is just slightly within the hundred foot buffer to units as you see our criss crosses the bvw is the top of slope and we're looking to permit the clearing as it is because that was a violation to have that remain in place as it is but the limit of work still would be within the jurisdiction which is where the the clearing is because it would be left in place and not fully restored and that they could do landscape planting there they could you know do something that was attractive among the stumps things like that but no further grading no construction activities simply that it would be usable yard space with the stumps in place no stomping no grinding michelle did you have a comment or question as far as permitting the work that's already taking place which would be in violation of our bylaws i would like to see conditions on that for native replantings not shrubs with that are going to be seeding the wetlands down below and changing the native composition of waterways downstream so may i was consistent with the permits that the commissioners issued for even the neighboring properties you can see that's clear to 50 feet to the bbw loss in regard to the violation that's taken place that would be the condition that i'd like to see well the violation can be dealt with as an enforcement order this be a determination to permit the work michelle i support what you're saying right now um so other commissioners who we haven't heard from i just need a sense of where you are on this larry laroy um do you feel like the information on the table is sufficient or should we be asking for more here i'd like to echo michelle's point on that uh it is in violation so it's actually pretty consistent with what we have required for mitigating violations in the past so which you require so are you going to require student help erica can you please i'd like to ask a question about what's being required are you going to ask us to do a native planting plan and then come back and permit the removal of those plants because the commission's performance standard for work to an intermittent stream or bbw allows clearing 50 feet and this is at 60 no lawn nothing are we being required under an enforcement order to restore this and then come back and permit it and take them out as something that is allowed under the commission's own regulations is this the top of slope line right here that's shown the contour is that the slope line is a pro yeah approximately that contour okay and so what we're talking about is the area down here that's that's been cleared and your everything that we've been talking about is moving the silt fence to the top of that slope keeping the building envelope at the top of that slope so why wouldn't why would any work be proposed on that slope after we're just asking for plantings or stabilization there you're talking about pulling them out i'm not sure we're being required to pay for expensive made of plantings and i'm saying that if that is not what the applicant wants to put there they can do that by permitting this work they can stabilize the slope using a variety of other types of plants grasses anything that they'd like erosion control matting but they cannot they if they're going to be required to restore with native plantings they can come back and then permit the removal of those native plantings i'm not seeing what the game like how it is something that can be required when this is something that's regularly permitted with lawn further than this well i so i i hear what you're saying erica i i do as far as the limit of work and i think like what you recently were with us on a on a the trillium way site and that's i think i use that actually to compare with this one different in the sense that there was a proposed contour there was a proposed house footprint a proposed driveway there was a lot of additional detail provided on that and it was easy to distinguish the fact that there was a large slope in between the proposed house and the wetland so even if you guys were in your building envelope water isn't going to travel up and over a hill to get to the wetland right um i i think this site is is unique because of the slope issues now the commission is very very flexible in terms of allowing people to have a yard and grass and you know to have an area to use in relation to a single family home the concern is that slope so this the violation i think is being compounded by the fact that a slope is has been exposed and now there's a potential for erosion particularly if you're opening up that area there's been some opening up already with the site's been open for over three months nothing's reached the resource area there's there's been no excavation it's just from vehicles why does it need to be native plantings because if we restore the top of slope we're taking everything out of the commission's jurisdiction it should have been an enforcement order what are we permitting if we need to restore that entire thing up to the top of slope i don't think that i think that adding a couple plantings and potentially stabilizing with some seed um how does this not meet a performance standard which performance standard does it not meet to put landscape in there lawn around the tree stumps on the slope you're correct yeah well what performance standard there is there's a potential for alteration of resource area of bvw well if material is moving down that slope rills engoling which you mentioned at the beginning if the slope is the slope is currently been exposed the site up above is opened up material what is the difference in terms of in risk to the resource area between putting grass around the stumps or native plantings both of those stabilize the slope correct do does grass stabilize slopes in addition to native plantings yes it does okay so i'm not sure why we need to put native plantings into an area in which he would be allowed to put grass into under this permitting standard the work occurred three months ago we want to stabilize the slope grass will do so i don't see how functionally it poses a risk to the resource area i think i think erica because there was a violation the commission which should be dealt with under an enforcement order if we were told to permit the work this is where you permit it we've done what we were told to do there's been a lot of interruption going on in the course of this call it's very rude people need to allow commissioners to speak i don't think that's really a regulatory thing no it's roberts rules of order is definitely a regulatory standard at all all right um so light standard but it's not a regulatory standard okay how does that impact my client's ability to do work that is allowed and what performance standard does replanting that area with grass not meet so erica you can argue as much as you like this is so counterproductive we're trying to get through as a resident of the town of amherst i have a question you're not here as a resident you're not here i can appear as both right now give up my rights as a citizen chair i do you permanent i would ask for you to stand does it not take control of this meeting chair yeah i'm doing my best i can't get a word in edge wise i'm asking um all right so i'm agreeing with my consultant but i would ask for you to get control of your board i'm sorry i'm sorry control of my board my board is asking respectful questions and trying to figure out how to move forward in this permit in a way that best protects the resource in the best interests of the town of amherst and so far there's just been repeated behavior of disrespecting and interrupting everything that we're trying to say and ask my chair my my consultant is offering everything possible to the chair as for questions being answered great yeah i appreciate that thank you um okay if i can just finish just getting a sense from commissioners larry can you weigh in a little bit here on um wisdom on how you would like to see this moving forward oh you're muted larry i would like to see us go forward but i would like to see us get more information and define things better in this process yeah would you like to see larry i would like to see a better definition of what the envelope of the house is going to be i mean i i agreed with you as a builder that you'd like to make maintain a large area see that flexibility but you're encroaching on an environmental area so i'd like to see you define it better yeah so it sounds like we're back to our original compromise where we should continue this hearing to the next meeting which is on the march 23rd and it would be great if we could see a plan that shows the revision of moving the building envelope out of our jurisdiction the debate is going to remain how we treat that limited work area but this will give us a chance to cool down and figure out do a little bit more information collection so we can figure out how to move forward commissioners sorry go ahead dan i'm sorry to interrupt i just want to be very very clear because i would have done this from the first get go you're asking me for a house plan to be presented on that like a building envelope like i would turn into the building department is that what you're asking me for no i was using building envelope the way it's used in the callouts on the plan that was submitted just where you're showing what was that like 10 000 i believe square foot area in which you could put a building that is on the plan that is the hash line that surrounds the outside perimeter of the lot that's on there so what i can present you guys is an actual house plan that sits on that building envelope which shows the actual perimeter of the home driveway and all that stuff i can do that that was never asked of me okay i didn't know if you had that that would be great if you know this at this point that would be great information for us i was never asked of that and i would have provided that for this meeting 100 i would have that's how we operate okay we put a building on the lot and we present that it's not what i was asked for for this the building envelope is on that lot it shows the hashtag of where you can put a home with inside that yeah and i thought we were adjusting it slightly it was the compromise but if you're willing to show us if that's what you're asking then i can go back and look at compromising that building envelope which is assessed by the town of amherst with the zoning yeah i mean i think commissioners back please correct me if i'm wrong but my understanding was that building envelope not the footprint of the building the building envelope was going to be pulled out of our jurisdiction right now it's marginally within our jurisdiction dan if you have the ability to show us the actual building footprint and driveway footprint that's fantastic but it's it's more understood yeah that would be really really great um and really help inform the discussion better and i i just don't know if it's within your jurisdiction to pull the building envelope out of that wet lands because that's a that's assessed by the zoning that's established by the zoning erica am i correct in saying that or i think that what i'm hearing is that that there's a a bit of um the building envelope yes zoning and what's assessed and then in this particular sketch plan the building envelope represents areas in which you could locate the house and any other site work in which you needed to do so yeah and we are talking about pulling that up to the top of the slope yes i just want to be very clear with you that's all okay that's great i appreciate that um this sounds like a way forward um commissioners are we comfortable with this in terms of the information that and having that additional information and continuing hearing yes continuing hearing erica you heard erica you heard everything we asked for we already went fast we talked about this a half hour ago dan add the plans if you can with the house that'd be great you heard our concerns right our concerns are this slope our concerns are drainage our concerns are plantings we're not just i'm just saying i'm not telling you do anything right now i'm just letting you know what our concerns are so when you come back to us with these plans you know what we just talked about erica you know what we asked for but you also heard our other concerns so just we're going to continue this and i at times i'm concerned that we're asked to give a blank check and we don't want to give a blank check okay all right so i think we're at a point where we can move forward it sounds like commissioners are happy with this direction applicants are you guys okay with continuing this because it would move us outside of i think a 21 day window to respond to the rda to make a determination are you okay with the continuous am i okay with it no i'm not okay with it but i understand so just moving forwards if the commission or the conservation representative would just specify exactly what everyone wants this would be alleviated way ahead of time that that's all not not being rude i'm just being very matter of fact that's all totally we understand that you're trying to move forward and we're genuinely doing the best that we can here we have a housing shortage there's no housing out there period okay um so it looks like we need so erin i have a procedural question we have some members of the public with raised hands at this point i would say that we continue the hearing notify the public that we're going to be continuing to um wednesday march 23rd at 7 40 p.m and that at that time we'll review the revision and take additional public comment okay just to be clear we're talking about one lot here right yeah i think so yeah the other lot is out of jurisdiction right yeah thank you so yep perfect um commissioner so i need a motion to continue this hearing i'll do that i'm gonna make a motion to move um i'm sorry what's the address and again it's zero tucker zero tucker man and zero king man but is this one zero tucker man dad zero tucker man we're only talking about correct yep remove the uh requests for determination to uh march 23rd at 7 40 sorry erin you're muted you're asking something so this hearing is for both properties so if we're continuing this it's continuing it for both but the revisions are just for the one revisions only for tucker man but this is for both zero king man and zero perfect second okay voice vote michelle hi fletcher hi uh laura hi larry hi laroy hi okay and i'm an i so dan erica thank you um thank you for working with us on this um members of the public um we'll be back continuing this hearing and discussing it on march 23rd at ideally 7 40 if things run on time so please feel free to tune back in um and yeah again thanks everyone for working together thank you yep uh have a good night you guys good job thank you thank you you okay all right so that was the last hearing on the agenda let me regroup on this agenda for a second um okay so the two other big things we have to discuss are some administrative changes to hickory ridge and the hint hickory ridge solar array um a request for extension of order of conditions at amherst hills which is the tofino um properties uh up on the ridge um um let's see erin do you have a preference about the order oh you're muted still erin if we could do hickory ridge first um i know tom reedy's on the call and he's waiting for the that discussion item yeah tom if i see you tom i'll move you in tom hello can you hear me hello apologies for the delay tom what a great job you all did holy cow um is there anyone else that we should bring into the meeting no just just me okay all right um so commissioners as um some background uh this is a request for a minor administrative change to the order of conditions for the hickory ridge solar project that we approved um there erin has done a lot of information gathering and tom thank you in advance for your detailed um answers to a lot of those questions as we tried to figure out what's going on um the heart of it is that there's been a change to the layout of the array and laura i apologize that i don't know how the vocabulary used to talk about this so you might have to see good array is correct it um so that it is um would the new array layout would require some of the panels to overlap a sewer easement a town sewer easement that goes to the property and you can see it in the erin slide and the image on the left i think existing is that the girl i'll highlight it hold on one second yeah um and the town uh dpw has now asked that um the arrays be kept out off of that easement so that there's emergency access and as a result in order to keep the same capacity of the array um they've the applicant or um the project is asking that we move we extend a little bit more to an intermittent stream um that we had originally been further away from as a reminder this is a complicated site because the original kind of struggle was to keep the array out of the flood plain the femo mapped flood plain for the fort river running through the site um so tom do you want to give us kind of a three minute probably much improved overview or add any additional information i'd be happy to you you did a great job um so yeah really what's happened here is the original array was approved with horizontal racking so east to west and the new design is for north to south racking because what they're going to have is single access trackers meaning the panels themselves will start off facing in the east track the sun towards the west and then reset overnight and then do it all over again there's actually a reduction of the number of modules it was like 15 000 and now it's only 11 000 because it's much more efficient to have those single access trackers the only problem is it goes north to south as a result and in while there's that sewer easement we reached out to scales go for a head of commission with them and they said this is this sewer line takes really all of south amherst sewerage about 40 000 gallons per hour and so if there's an issue there we want to be able to get to it and so the discussion was well because these are now vertical as you'll see with that green on the left side of your screen in the in the proposed condition I'll call it and so what we've done is shifted to the west because to the east is priority habitat and flood plain to the north is priority habitat to the south is priority habitat so really only direction we could go was west and so we've eliminated the shadow there was a shadow a 40-foot shadow management buffer we've eliminated that and we're proposing and it this has been approved by Misty Ann over at the division of fisheries and wildlife the zoning board of appeals and we're also so maybe a little bit we should be closing with the town tomorrow so that the town will own this um and so we've talked to Dave Zomek we've recorded an easement plan evidencing this bump out and so really what it does is allows the town clear and open that that's to that he's hey out of the that we side to that area and we're also east corner of the eastern array you'll see that in the old condition there were some horizontal rows there and some panels if you look in the proposed condition we've taken those out so we're staying out of priority habitat over there and some floodplain so you know net we think it's an improvement um and like I said we've talked to the other folks and it seems to make a lot of sense so I'm happy to answer any questions that you've got but that's a I know you've had a long night so brief overview um and can you just repeat so this now puts us how close to the intermittent stream it's within the so the third oh tom you're breaking up on me we're not we're not going any closer than feet to the 30 feet no closer than 30 feet so there's a 30 feet yes that's the limit of disturbance is 30 feet and the arrays themselves will be further away than that okay okay okay um commissioners any questions on what's being asked here is this cool okay are we do we have to so misty and you said misty so natural risk natural heritage is like they're okay with it yep I got and I Erin should have that I forwarded her the email uh yeah she was I put the whole thing together to her she was fine with it zoning Rob more was fine with it Dave was fine with it but obviously you know you're your independent body so I'm not trying to say you have to be but those folks have signed off yeah what kind of reduction in area was there of the panels oh I don't know the specifics um we are here in this in this we're looking to keep at least eight feet open um you know to the sky so they can get in with whatever equipment it that may increase Gilford and Jason and I haven't talked about what exactly will show up there um but we won't come back to this well to ask for what we're asking for is the limit we're not going to come back and ask for anything else okay um other commissioners um thoughts on this we're here's looking at you Laura I think this is fine this is pretty standard and just just for the sake of the discussion there's um less impact to bordering land subject to flooding so direct resource area impact under wetland protection and under our bylaw the buffer zone is considered a resource area under our bylaw so there is that change but bordering land subject to flooding is a net improvement under both wetland protection act and um our our bylaw yeah I mean when I first was reading about this I was concerned about moving closer to that intermittent stream but now understanding the net the net that mitigation of negative impact and um the reason behind the changes and feel comfortable with like all of the alternatives that were kind of looked into I I'm okay with moving forward with this um but if there's more then we're going to have to figure that out um just because of like the Tetris that we did to try to keep it out of the resource as much as possible in the original permit application understood um other commissioners though Fletcher you you do have any further now it seems pretty I mean straightforward if everyone else is okay with it Erin you're all feeling all right with it I'm fine with it yeah okay let's close this deal huh yeah yeah I'm comfortable approving this minor administrative change to the order of conditions for the Hickory Ridge solar project again thank you for all the information Tom we really appreciate it thank you uh so do we yeah do we make a motion on this one Erin yes okay can I make a motion to um for to accept the request to a minor administrative change for the order of conditions Hickory Ridge solar DEP file number eight nines dash zero six four six second thanks Larry voice vote Fletcher hi Larry hi Michelle hi Laura hi Leroy hi and I'm an I all right sorry about the wait Tom thank you no no no thanks so much you guys all the town alone this probably tomorrow if not then Friday but so congratulations you did a great job yeah yeah you made it we made it really exciting thanks Tom yeah you got it good seeing everyone yep you too all right one more guys so it's not actually on the on the slide because I'm not sure how I managed to leave it off of there but Amherst Hills am I saying that right Amherst Hills subdivision which is the Tifino project they have come forward requesting a three year continuance on their order of conditions I did speak offline with with Jen about this because I did have some some concerns and apprehensions about this particularly because of the fact that we have already identified the fact that there's resource area changes and the permit is about 20 years old I think as of next year so I think that I mean my conversation with Jen was I wouldn't recommend that the commission extend more than one year and I think that we should tell the applicant that we are highly urging them to complete the work on the road as soon as possible because leaving it open ended that oh we're going to leave this permit open until you sell your lots in the subdivision is you know the lots you know the permits already 20 years old we already know that the site conditions have changed and individual permits are going to be filed for these lots anyways so the road work needs to get wrapped up so that we can close out this permit and that's kind of my my recommendation to you guys I was trying to find it but I'm having trouble am I going to share I can pull it up your mind foggy or something well no it's not that through that whole thing my one year old has been upstairs screaming hysterically the entire time so it's compounded compounded um yeah so just quick overview so Tiffino has asked for three year continuance on the extension on the order of conditions for that permit which is basically like the road and everything associated with it all the individual lots have to file individual permits so the question is and the way I think having looked at this from a few angles I think rather than approve an extension for three years I think one year is a reasonable amount of time so now Aaron's finally sharing Ted's letter but I think that that is like completely reasonable given that the permit will as of August of 2023 April of 2023 so yeah so basically a year it will be 20 years old which is pretty unconventional to have that open for that long so I think that that is I'm with Aaron I think that with the information we have and the kind of tenure of this this project I think that's a good compromise direction but I'm interested to hear if commissioners have questions or are not comfortable with that it's pretty straightforward I mean they could always come back to the board if they have a hardship after a year and are halfway done and need a little more time but this way they we can just express it's a continuation but you know we want the roadwork done and wrap this permit up you could put that all in writing right yeah so just if you explain I've seen it's pretty straightforward to me give them a year but say like listen you can review it for those hardship purposes if they have that if that's whatever we have a vote yes we do yeah anyone else so anyone else have any comments everyone's tired okay I'll move to um uh I'll move for the request to extend the apartment for order conditions DEP file number 89-432 for one year second voice vote slutcher I Larry I Michelle I Laura Leroy okay and I'm an I um the one other issue was the forest cutting plan which I know is uh time sensitive and Michelle did have some comments on um I believe one of them Michelle you want to jump in on that yeah sorry guys I did have some comments it's for both of them um I guess I looked I didn't see I saw the start date was early March so past date I didn't see a duration or an end date to it and my concern is about nesting birds right now is the nesting owl and hawk breeding season and coming up will be nesting cavity nester so to please sit mice all the way beggars um and I'm wondering if we have like a you know a bird survey before the cutting because a take of any of those species is a violation of the federal migratory bird treaty act which you know that's big that's big suit money in jail time so in addition to protecting the wildlife on that property it would be illegal if there was a nest that got cut down in that forest in that forest cutting which is I think one of them I looked at was 20 acres so that's my concern I don't know how we work with that I think there's any I've never heard of requiring that I mean in California it's like you have you just have to do it but there's very different regulations in that state so I don't really know how it works on the local or state level here but it's a significant enough patch of forest that um can I ask a question just to sort of try to move this is there a way that we could ask them to um push the start date to a later time that would avoid um impacts to the owls and hawks and or would we just be kicking the can and then impacting more species if we did that the cutting plans are good for two years and you can re-up them every year after that up to four years so I've never heard of requests like that I filed many cutting plans in my time so I know for the one on poor farm the purpose is conservation um and habitat improvement so and I've already been in contact with the the um forester there who's very willing to work with us so I can mention this stuff and ask them to do inspections for the birds I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do that particularly for the owl and hawk situation um the others I'm not as familiar with I do know the forester though so I could speak to him and just ask him um but I beyond that I'm not really sure how we could resolve it tonight if it's like we could just no matter what time of year they would do it they would be impacting a bird or if we would be telling them we would like for you to do it during this specific window which we could recommend if you have that window right now or it sounds like they could do a bird sort a survey michelle yeah is it I hear that wrong yeah I mean that's what I would recommend and also doing a ASAP and getting it done really soon like I would like to know when they're going to be done by um because we're just we're just it's just getting worse as far as impacts to nesting birds um so michelle are you okay with it sounds like we just need to understand how the like the state and local regs encompass the federal regulation here so it sounds like maybe talking to the foresters is a good way to get more information on how this is accounted for in the cutting plans is that okay with you is it way for the service forester yeah I know both the foresters here so I can just talk to them and let them know what was the concern was expressed go ahead I've never actually come across anything that that that is like yeah I do I do this all the time and I I've never actually had any but I've never heard of the federal migratory bird stuff because then the question is if you ask for a bird saver who does the bird survey you know do you have to be somebody that's certified is it or does it you know what I mean like do you have to have a timing like does that happen at night like it's really hard to see that but the question is like what the standard would be for a survey well maybe the question is how is the federal migratory bird how are the federal migratory bird regulations enacted at the messachusetts the state and local level because I feel like you would have heard of it but yeah totally that's what I'm thinking that's what I'm not I'm also Michelle 100 not questioning any of this I just am trying to figure out who we ask and kind of there's Andrew vitz is the state ornithologist and he's pretty he's very approachable with mass wildlife Andrew vitz at mass.gov I actually know Andrew I mean I don't know what the course of action is but course of action yeah I don't think there's much to conduct him because if you think about yeah these cutting plans are happening on a such a high daily basis all year round and that's why natural so natural if it's priority habitat that's where natural heritage and rare endangered species review program steps in and that's so they they they can provide they're the ones that have a regulatory authority for take when it comes to rare endangered species so I guess that's so but you just requested like a bird survey or something but when it comes to take that's natural heritage for sure it's still take but it would be a federal take under the empty yeah right so that's it might just not be enforced normally I mean that's what it sounds like right like at all like that would that be surprising um okay sorry I don't know I mean I guess I am a little surprised it's not like the regulatory context I'm used to but maybe it's just you know 20 acres of small beans and there's no feds out here looking at that um like a Hadley office the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service yeah whatever those feds um yeah no I hope Michelle you're understanding this conversation is not in any way questioning your background in this I'm just trying to understand like yeah how the layers work yeah would I cover requests like that yeah so I mean I would say the first step is talking to the foresters and expressing the concern seeing what they could come up with and then we can I can give you an update at the next meeting see if they can come up with some kind of a compromise where they um I know at least one of the foresters is um it's Lincoln Fish who's you know he he would be extremely qualified I think to go through and determine if there was nest in the on the site um the other forester I worked with for the town of Sturbridge he's also excellent so I um I think that we should just initiate a discussion with them a dialogue on the situation and see what they have to say yeah it'd be great I'm just interested even going forward because every time this comes up I'll have the same question so knowing how it's accounted for would be good that's great thank you for the detailed review Michelle was there anything else Erin I feel like we're close here yeah I just see um Andre is here and he just raised his hand oh no Andre I'm just gonna promote him if you guys don't mind yeah I just did yeah okay Andre is our new um conservation commissioner who's going to be joining us hopefully at the next meeting Andre maybe not anymore I don't think he was there I don't think I was watching it thank you for the comic relief I needed that Andre welcome oh we can see you're you're muted for some reason now you got a speaker problem no you can see you but we can't hear you oh connecting to audio there he goes well everybody wave to Andre hi Andre welcome he's getting earbuds here I'm assuming you can hear us we're a little bit fried it's been a long meeting um but we're really excited to have you on board and hopefully you'll be sworn and unable to join us on the 23rd and we can do a more formal round of introductions all right all right thank you Andre I spent 28 years in enforcing perfect there you go you could answer our question for us right like a hole a hole opens up and then it gets filled look at that that's amazing that's really cool very cool hopefully our smiles waves and thumbs up are yeah we'll get it sorted um okay I think is that Erin are we can I move to adjourn yeah yeah by 33 and then um can we just do like a group virtual hug oh my god a group virtual hug if you guys have if you guys have feedback on how I can handle those situations differently or like anything constructive I can do to change how I handle situations like that I'm constantly trying to learn from it it feels like this happens all the time so please email me or call me or whatever like I would love to get better at this so let me know what is your phone number I need your phone so guys did we get a second on the motion in a vote yeah yeah oh my god second third fourth okay okay okay voice your voice roll call here watcher hi Larry hi Michelle hi Leroy hi Laura hi and I'm an eye um yeah Laura I'll email you my number