 Oh, there she's there. She's there. She made it. Okay. Got it. Never mind. All right. So we'll kick this off since we're recording. Hi everyone. Hi Michelle. Welcome. So this is the Amherst Conservation Commission meeting on July 8 starting at 7pm. We have two items on our agenda tonight. One is a chapter 61 a conversion than the other is a conservation restriction. So Aaron. For the chapter 61 a. So we need to provide a recommend. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. We need to provide a recommendation to the town council regarding rate of first refusal for the land. Correct. The Mitchell family farm trust land on Sunderland road. Yes. I'm opening the materials. Do you have. And you've been out there and been in touch. Do you have kind of a report and a summary that you can give us or did you want to discuss anything in particular? Yeah. So there's a couple of things. So we have the packet that is from. The Mitchell farm trust attorney. It was submitted to us that basically explains the situation. Their, their property has been in 60, chapter 61 a. And they, so it's been an agricultural use. For how long. Um, if you don't know, don't. I'm not positive of how long, but I know it's a. Amherst family. So, you know, it's, it's been in for some time. They. Have a bona fide purchase offer, I believe. For a non agricultural use. So they're requesting to basically. The land from an agricultural use to a non agricultural use. So typically. Our role in looking at that is to. Take a look at what the resources are on the land and see if we. Feel that the. See if we feel that the resources warrant us to recommend acquisition of the property. And I apologize for whatever reason, like. Screens are a little funky here. So just to, to share with you the. The parcels and I can't see attendees from the public. If anybody's in attendance and has questions. So hopefully. Jen, you can kind of keep an eye on that. But I'll just, because I'm sharing my screen, but this is the, the property. It's located between. Monke road 63 and Sunderland road. And. Eastman Brooke, which is a perennial stream runs through it. Comes down and then circles back. North again. It's mapped as perennial on a USGS. There's wetlands. Mapped on the property. There's flood zone on the property. Existing. Femal. Femal designated flood zone as well as. In our, the town's flood map provisions, which are currently underway. It's showing a hundred year flood zone on the property. We've looked at this property many times in the last year, haven't we? Because of. In the last year. So there was, there was actually a. An anrad for property just north of here. That we had a peer review on. This is the one we had to do all the wetlands review about where things were. No, Larry, that was. That's across the street. Okay. I thought that was the same property. Sorry about that. There was one across the street and there was also one north of here as well. So you're, I did the same thing. I was like, Hey, I recognize this area, but that's what I thought it was different parcels. Yep. So there's flood zone. And then. This shows. This is a map of prime forest or I'm sorry, prime agricultural soils. So you can see where the ag soils are located, the prime agricultural soils are located on the property. And then I also did a. Sorry, I've got a very upset baby upstairs. It's blustering me. This is a customized soil report from USGS on the property as well. So you can see the, the property is kind of highlighted here. And then it goes into the different soil types that are located on the property. And I provided this to you. I don't, you know, I didn't want to kind of go through this without fine tooth comb during the meeting more so just to alert you to the fact that these are kind of the, the general things that we would look at. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point in determining our recommendation to town council as to whether or not we feel that the property should be acquired. And. One other sort of last minute thing is that we did receive. Letter. An email from. And I put it in the wrong folder, I think. A letter from in a butter who. You know, I'm like right at the end of the end of the afternoon. I didn't even get a chance to read it. But they're. Basically. They're, they're a butters who live nearby on pulpit Hill road and. Kind of pointing out important considerations about the property for us to be aware of. And then there's also a report that they provided to us on. I'm sorry about that. I'll. It's in the file. If you have access. Larry, it might be better to just open it on your computer. So we can all read. Yeah. I mean, I've got to move to a different computer. That's okay. Don't worry. Sorry. The window smaller. Yeah. So I'll just, I'll just stick here for a second. So you guys can. I mean, however, whatever you guys want to do. This is the letter, the email that was just received. There's a report that was received or a. Document that was received with. With photos as well. It's. And they're so basically there's. You know, they're, they're highlighting sort of the same, a lot of the same information that. You know, I highlighted in my report as far as, you know, the flood zone, Eastman Brook being a perennial stream. Where the property is located. I don't know why this flips so quickly. It's sorry about that. And then so. They're what she's talking about the eruptor. So there's this project that's been presented to town staff and it's, they have a website. It's, I think it's pretty well public knowledge at this point that they've. They've talked about putting in a research lab called the eruptor lab. And it's a large sort of research and development. Project. And from what I understand, this is what they are hoping to. Construct and that there's a website eruptor, the eruptor website where they kind of go over a lot of these renderings and things. So they're proposing to sell the property to a group that will develop this eruptor property. Correct. But as a reminder, our job isn't to assess. You know, what they do with the property. Our job is to make this to advise town council if based on the resources on the property. We should. Execute our right to purchase the property. I agree with that. However, in the process, I assume that if the town exercises its right to take the property, they take it at the full market value. Exactly. Yeah. That's, that's, that's, that's the critical part. Is that the full market value or the appraised value? I'm not sure which one it is. I'm sure it's that would also probably end up in court, but I'm sure it's at least initially in terms of the town looking at it, it'll be the fair. It'll be whatever the fair market values. It's whatever is described in the purchase and sale agreement. It's a language that's articulated in the PNS, which is what the, what the, what the, what the price should be calculated based on. That's probably above the fair market value. So Lori, that's the PNS with the eruptor people. So. I don't know what this particular purchase and sale agreement says. I just know that anytime I've executed on a purchase option or a purchase option, I'm not sure if it's in that roefer. It says how the price will be calculated. So I don't, I don't have that language in front of me right now. But again, I also don't think that's really our purview. Is it? I mean, No, no, no. No, exactly. I just want to. Just to sort of address that from, from what I understand, there's, there's an offer to purchase the property currently. And from what I understand, I think that if the town decided to exercise its right of first refusal, there would be appraisals that were done on behalf by the town, the town would have an appraisal of the property. And then the landowner could have an appraisal of the property and they could use those to negotiate if they decided to proceed. But again, that, that is all contingent on the, you know, town council deciding to move forward with. Trying to purchase it. So right now what the town council is looking for from us, as well as from the planning board is recommendations on whether to exercise the right of first refusal, whether they should look into purchasing this land. And whether we think, whether we think the property is appropriate value for the town in terms of conservation level. All right. So it sounds like valuations that kind of the next step, we're just at the first step, which is whether or not we'd be interested in the land at all. Yeah. Okay. Hold on. Let's, let's maybe do hand raising. I think people are, are accidentally interrupting. So let's use the raise hand tool just because not everyone has video. Me mostly. Yeah. But yeah. So it sounds like to Laura's point, the valuation is something that would happen and appraisal is something that would happen next. And I think Roy, thank you for advancing the conversation. We need to think about the resources on the site. So Anna, did you want to add. Yeah. So I think one is with the law states is fair, full and fair market value. So just to kind of. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that one of my questions that I had about the email that came in. Is, you know, regardless. So if we choose not to exercise our, like that email was hugely helpful. I saw the author of it is in our attendees. So thank you for that. But I, I think. My question is they, I mean, they, they're still going to have to come through the process. Right. We are, we're absolutely not ignoring these resources. So I think that we need to make sure that, you know, we're not allowing things to be built in wetlands. We think the town needs to permanently conserve. These resources by purchasing the land. So just to, just to make sure that's really clear that we're not allowing things to be built in wetlands in, in, in not recommending this. Great. If we choose that route. And if I could just state. Dave Zomek asked me to state for the record that this. Aaron. Sorry. I don't have a hand on here. I apologize. Right along the bottom, there's a raise hand, but it's okay. You don't have to use the race. Just show up on my screen because I have. I'm sharing my from. But I will, I will try to figure it out here. I wanted to just state for the record that Dave Zomek asked me to mention that this property was not highlighted in the open registration plan. It was not highlighted in the open registration plan as a location in town that is priority for conservation land acquisitions. Apparently this area is specifically zoned for research and development. And so. That was basically what he wanted me to just state for the record. Thanks, Aaron. I remember him making that point in the past. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And do you mind scrolling back up to the bulleted listed points? I saw something about this being in the context of natural heritage. Priority lands, which I didn't see specifically on the property, but I'm wondering about its context and the greater landscape. And if that's something. To think about. Yeah, I was wondering a similar thing in terms of connectivity of natural heritage. I think it's a good point. If this land were to be pulled out of 61 a and sold to this company to put this facility on the site, they still have to go through our full. No, I permit process and still can make sure that we can. Our job to protect the wetland. And part of that process is a complete understanding of natural heritage. And so if we were to do that, we would allow any kind of development at all in the 100 year floodplain. For example, ideally they wouldn't want to do that. Just as a little bit of background. We, this is, you know, a slightly different decision than our general permitting process, which is. You know, being faced with the project and making a decision about how to protect the resources at that juncture. But I'm, I'm with you, Michelle. I, I worry, you know, Eastman Brook is a really cool stream system for like aquatic ecology and connectivity. So it's definitely a valued resource worth protecting. So I'm just, just to that question pulling up. So, you know, there's a lot of natural heritage and endangered species layers that we would ordinarily review in the course of our. Wetlands filings. So that's estimated habitat and priority habitat. There are also. Other, like a bio map core habitat. Critical habitat. I'm not sure what the. I was referring to as far as natural heritage endangered species, because I didn't see anything on the property from. That fell under natural heritage. Designation. So maybe this is a good moment. I see. Janet is here. Thank you for joining us. Janet, I think that's the person who wrote the letter. If I'm not mistaken. If you have any clarifications or comments or input, or want to say anything at this point, just raise your hand and you can give you the. Ability talk. Great. So you should be able to contribute at this point, Janet, and we appreciate you making that to be. And. Thank you. So go ahead if you have anything to add. Sure. So I, um, I thank you for this discussion. And appreciate it very much. I can. Um, Uh, hear the, um, expertise that you have and. Um, I have seen before and am grateful to see again. Um, that you're concerned for the resources and, um, uh, if you, uh, I'm not sure of how exactly I worded that, um, about the, the, uh, Presidents of the natural resources, but, um, I yield to your superior, um, uh, understanding on that. If I got it wrong. Um, uh, if there aren't any present on the land. Um, thanks. I thought I was saying potentially, but, uh, if I got that wrong, um, I stand corrected. Thank you. No, no. Um, thank you for attending Janet. Um, and point taken. Um, so unless you have, um, are any of the other attendees here? Um, I see a Hilda. Um, Oh, Hilda has her hand raised. We'll bring in. Um, You should be up. There we go. Thank you. Thank you. If you wanted to make any comments. Yeah. And I'm not on a butter, too, and a butter at 298 Montague road. And I would see this project. If it's built where they say they want to put it. Um, I guess the, the building. What they've been telling us is, is on the eastern end of the parcel, so they know they have to bring utilities and, and, and the road and everything from Sunderland road. My issue is not specific to this parcel at this point, but I would like to know what the current regulations are with regard to how much wetland can be displaced and replaced. Because when, when other projects have come before conservation commission, there was more than 5,000 square feet. So they weren't viable. And if you look at the town map, you'll see just at the south of my house. Part of a huge subdivision that was denied because it was too wet back there. More than 5,000 feet would have been needed to be replicated. So what, what is the, what is the general rule nowadays about the number of square feet that can be disturbed and replicated? Is there a maximum Aaron? So if it's over 500 square feet, then they're required to replicate. And there are only very specific parameters under which. Wetland can be altered and replicated. So it would have to meet all of those requirements. One of them being that the wetland is a finger like projection off of an existing wetland. So it's not like you can come in and fill in a whole wetland. You can only fill in. I mean, and again, it's not like we can just say, oh yeah, you know, fill in the wetland. There, there, there's a very specific set of performance standards that the applicant would have to meet. I think that it's a little bit jumping the gun on, you know, that's why I wasn't being specific. Yeah. But I believe the regulations is up to 5,000 square feet under certain, again, under certain parameters. And then a replication would have to also meet certain parameters being in the same. General area as the area that's filled. It has to have certain hydrologic and soil characteristics in order to, you know, be able to even for the commission to even consider that. So. Great. Thanks. Thanks, Aaron. Thanks, Hilda. So I'm going to let's see. So, okay. Janet. Did you still have a question? Your hand is still raised. Or are you all set? No more hands. Okay. All right. So I think at this point, we have a good understanding of public interests here. And the resources on the site and the question being presented. We do. Everyone's doing on this. I just wanted Aaron to see if you had any. To share on this decision. I'm sorry, could you say that one more time, Jen? You broke up a little bit. Sorry. I was just going to say before we kind of do a straw man poll and see how everyone's. Feeling or if there's more we need to know, I wanted to see if you had any specific guidance on this. Did I lose you? You're asking, you're asking a farm girl. So I feel like I'm going to have to. Okay. Okay. I'm going to have to kind of not offer a, an official recommendation. I grew up on a farm in Amherst. My farm was permanently protected. So I'm biased. Extremely biased. And I'm going to be straight up with you about that. So. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Does anyone, so let's kind of move around. Quote unquote room. And you're going in and out. You cut out sometimes. I don't know. Based on the town level opens. You're breaking up, Jen. So I'm just going to jump, I'm just going to jump in here, Jen, since you're having issues, do you mind if, if Leroy just takes the poll kind of through just so that we can make sure that. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Jen too. That sounds great. Go ahead. Excellent. Then I'll just go anywhere I see you guys. Larry first, how are you feeling about this? I don't think the town should take. Go after the property. Fair enough. Well, it has not been addressed or indicated through the broader town plan. You know, I still think that emmer should consider. You know, acting upon that right of first refusal. Given what I've read. You know, I don't think the town should take the property. And potentially the, the species that exists. So I actually, I do think we should. Recommend that the town purchase the property. All right. For her first meeting. It's already interesting, Michelle, your thoughts. I guess I, I second Laura, not having a lot of context in this, but it does seem like there's some conservation values on the property that should be. At least looked into further. Okay. All right. So I'm looking at. I'm going to make it complicated or maybe I'm just going to ask more questions. Erin, I'm looking at the, the open space. Interest plan or the open space plan. Open space and recreation plan. And I'm, I'm kind of just curious in terms of your thoughts. You know, I know Dave said this doesn't really. Fit in with the, the plan. You know, I'm just curious in terms of, you know, I'm just curious in terms of your thoughts on that. That long-term conservation plan. But he had a, he had a conflict in that he said, because it's already dedicated to a. A development thing. Larry, I was not done talking. One moment, please. So, so my question for you, Erin, is, you know, do you. I understand that this is not necessarily. There's two parts to this, right? Like it's not, well, it's not in that long, long range vision. But it's not in that long range vision. So I think that's the original question of, of conservation resource. I'm leaning towards saying no to exercising the right. Because I don't feel like given the overlay of species, there was. In my mind, kind of enough to, to justify that given. The cost. And so my, I'm asking 17 rambling questions. My other question is, are we factoring in. What the market value of this land is when we look at it. Yeah, I don't think we are at this point. This question simply are we interested in the resources in the right to first refusal. I'm always interested in. Look at what's there. Yeah. And I mean, just to, just to. Very quickly touch on what you said, Anna. I think that the town in the open space and recreation plan. Targets by priority lands, it hopes to acquire in specific areas. And the reason for that being like resource area or habitat connectivity, for example. So like, if there was a, like Zala is a great example, it was between Podic and Catherine Cole. That's like, yeah, that's prime area that we hoped to acquire and we did acquire. I think like Hickory Ridge is another good example of like. A resource along Fort River that is natural heritage endangered species. It contains significant intermittent streams and perennial streams coming into the Fort River and so on and so forth. So it's like, we have certain properties that are targeted in those plans. And then while multiple departments sort of contribute to the open space and recreation plan, the idea is also highlighting priority areas and maybe not so priority areas for conservation and recreation purposes. So that's, that's basically the context of that comment. Thank you. Yeah, I'm leading towards now. And let us say, hey, that we'll get to you because we're almost done with the pope. His last step is Jen. What are we thinking? All right, next to last step, I'm, I'm still in the list. I think this is going to end up being a no, but I'm actually with Laura that I really believe that this initial step is simply would we be interested in seeing what's there. Why I think it'll end up being a no is I think we'll end up being able to protect it through the law and our bylaws. Quite significantly anyway, without the cost. But I'm always interested in if we have the right, we should at least look into it. Or as we can do a site now later on. Let's do it. And now Jen, if we're hearing from you at all. You guys hear me? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I'm so sorry about that, I think I caught most of everyone's input. And you know, I agree with, I think Leroy and others that. If there's a shot at at least further evaluation and understanding the landscape better, I think we should, I mean, the landscape in terms of purchasing the property, I think that we should advise town council that they look into the rate of first refusal. And that's based on, you know, my understanding of the. Hydro hydrologic and like water resources on the site. So, um, I believe what we're. Oh, good. I'm yielding to others yet. So I guess my question is what's the downside of recommending, right? Like, because I, I definitely am hearing what Leroy and Jen are saying. Is there any, like, why would we not, I mean, every area that's going to come out of chapter 61 is probably going to have something, right? So I'm curious where that line is where we wouldn't recommend or where we would, because I mean, yeah, I, I agree. Like if there is a chance, if it is, if we are able to, then of course that'd be great. But that, I guess my question is like, when would we not, if that's the, if that's the way we're looking at it. Okay. Um, yeah, go ahead, Larry, Larry, I think. Two things. One is that one of the things that I think we've got to realize is that we have to re people, people are going to respect us if we give them a good choice. So we've got to have good reasons for doing what we're going to do. Otherwise they'll say, Oh, ignore the conservation commission. That's one thing. The second is that I was starting to say before is remember, it will come back to us anyway, because we will have control over how they develop the conservation side of that property. So we can have an impact in the end. That's my two points. Right. But so to Anna's question, you know, I don't know quite how to answer that. We haven't faced many chapter 61 a conversions, like in my tenure on the commission. But I see your, what you're saying, like if something is in 61 a for agriculture, what would it be? I mean, I'm not sure when would we not. I mean, I think there's a possibility that it's like a point where the soil and water resources on the site is so degraded that, you know, it's something where you'd have to restore the resources in order to have them be a functional part of the ecosystem. You know, I can imagine scenarios where there just aren't quite the patchwork of water resources on the site. Yeah. So I could see this being a spectrum and this being more towards a property that has resources that, you know, resources of important conservation value. Yeah. And looking at it that way, then, I mean, it makes sense for me based on. Is it Eastman? Yeah, based on the way Eastman runs through it, then yes, that's a resource that we'd want to protect. And so that, yeah, that would make sense to me to, to encourage council to at least look at it and consider. Right. I just wanted to note too, for the record that there was a comment in the question and answer that. Hilda Greenbaum. Stated that the purchase price for 18 plus acres is. 1.6. Yeah, that's not really relative to us. No, just, just stating it for the record that it was stated in the comments. And it was in their letter or then the. Packet. Yeah. All right. Well, should we, I think we should probably vote on this. You need a motion. Yeah, so I. Wait a minute. We don't need a motion yet. We need to vote. Well, vote on what? I mean, you have to know what you're going to vote on. Right. So let me pull up the agenda. Hang on and I'll read it exactly. Here we go. Okay. So I need to vote on whether or not. The, we want to recommend that the town council exercise the rate of first refusal on the. Property of Thomas F. Mitchell family trust and Mitchell family farm trust land on Sunderland road. So we'll go around. Yeah. I think we're going to vote here. Wait, somebody needs to make a motion. Oh, I got it. I got it. All right. I move we recommend town council exercise. It's right at first refusal on the parcel of the Mitchell family parcel. I can't see the address of the Mitchell family parcel in North Amherst. Could I just a clarifying point was the, was the motion to exercise the first rate of first. Yes, it was. Yes. Advise that town council. Exercise the rate of first refusal. Yes. Correct. Sorry, I've got to write this verbatim. Oh gosh. I don't even remember what I said already. It was good. We need a second. So second. I think Laura's got the second on that one. Fine. And then we'll do a voice vote on. Hi. Larry. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. No. Leroy. Hi. Laura. Hi. Michelle. Hi. And I'm an eye. Got that Aaron. So Larry's the only no, I just want to make sure I got that right. Yes. Correct. Okay. Very good. All right. So we're taking a little longer than expected. Sorry, everyone. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't have any comment issues here, but the net, the second and last item on the agenda is to review and consider approval of the drafted conservation restriction proposed for 95 old bench. Belcher town road. And Stephanie, I'm sorry. For the delay here. Thank you for hanging with us. You want to kind of orient us to the property. Okay. I'll try to make it a quick overview and no worries. About the delay. That was fine. I'll share my screen and just show you a map of the, of the property. Perfect. Just bear with me one second. Are you seeing that? Yes. Okay. Great. So this. This project has an incredibly long history. It's been a long, a long time. Had entered into a power purchase agreement. With son Edison, actually initially with blue wave solar to develop the South landfill parcel, this particular parcel. Back in 2011. And for many reasons, the project ended up not moving forward. But it ended up not moving forward. And so the project now entered into an agreement with son Edison. To develop the North landfill and the South landfill for solar. And upon. Meetings with natural heritage and endangered species program. It was identified that the grasshopper sparrow was in both locations, which is an endangered species. We knew about the South landfill. And so we came up with the idea that if we could. Maximize development on the North landfill, then we could put a conservation restriction on the South landfill to. Maintain grasshopper sparrow habitat in perpetuity. So that is the proposal that's before you now the town has worked with the Kestrel land trust. For quite some time in developing on the CR draft that's before you. This is still a draft. There may be some final edits. I just wanted to say that right up front. The final edits will be very minor. So if you choose to approve it this evening, you will get a final version. This may not be it, but it'll be very minor adjustments. So the map that you're looking at now. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. Currently. There's no fence or anything around the landfill. If you, for those of you who have been to it, it very much has been treated as a, as a recreational space by the town. A lot of people use it to walk their dogs. People have access over the cap. So it's a little bit unusual in that most landfills are, are not. It's a very natural aesthetic to it. So I know you're familiar with the dog park that's come before you. So the, the dog park that's identified has already gone through approval. And will be constructed this summer. Actually, and I believe it's supposed to be having been under construction now. It's the beginning of it. So the rest of the area is proposed to be fenced off. So I'm not sure if you're aware of that. But I think. This, this fence line. This fence line around the, is basically around the cap. The interior of that entire space would be maintained for grass, hopper, sparrow habitat. So the only access would be for staff that needs to come in to mow. And that's actually part of the habitat management plan. So it's a very, very, very important thing to do. So, again, I don't know if you're aware of that. But also outside of nesting season. Should there need to be access for the DPW? For reasons of maintenance of the actual landfill itself. They would be allowed to do so. The CR does recognize that this is in fact, a landfill. First and foremost. what natural more natural looking state. So there is that consideration taken into account. It's quite unusual to have a CR on a landfill as we've discovered in our process. So this may be the only one in the entire state and possibly even the country we've we've inquired to others if they've had CRs on landfills and we haven't had any other examples. So we would actually set some kind of a precedent, I believe, with this project. So the idea was to maintain the recreational value by putting in a perimeter trail that will go around so that people can still walk their dogs. I mean, we do have the dog park. So now it sort of formalizes people's ability to walk their animals around the property. It will be fenced. It has to be fenced to protect the grassland birds and to keep dogs out. So there will be restricted access. People won't be able to use the top of the landfill anymore, but they can walk around the perimeter. And it isn't identified here. But just for those of you who may have knowledge, there is a sledding hill area in this section of the of the property that people have used over the years. And that will still be available. So people can still use that as a sledding hill. We are proposing to put in a viewing platform as well with a with a kiosk to sort of identify information about the about the grass topper sparrow. There may be additional kiosks, but those haven't been identified at least at this point, but it is built into the CR to allow for that opportunity to have more signage at some point. But there is a limit as to the number, not specifically the number, but more the the total square footage of impact is written to the CR. So for the for the most part, this is a pretty straightforward CR. It's really just protecting the habitat and resource values of the property. But what's specific to this is that it is allowing the town to access the site as it needs to in terms of operating the the landfill and maintaining the landfill. But everything that's done to the landfill cap in terms of maintenance is in accordance with being in line with the respectful of the breeding season and the in the habitat. So that's pretty much it. Does anyone have any questions? I do. I do. Go ahead, Mary. Why what is what's the reason that the town is granting this to the Kestrel land trust? Why is this going the way it is? Why doesn't the town just do it itself? Well, the Kestrel land trust has we have to have a holder of the CR, which is not the town itself. We can't hold it. No, no, we cannot. That answers my question. Yeah, and that was really actually, honestly, if Kestrel land trust didn't agree or to partner with us in this project, it would have been a bit of a challenge because that's all it took was to say that we had to have somebody else. Sure, but I just want to point out again that the unique situation that we have in that this is a landfill. So to be the holder of a CR and a landfill is really not typical. It's very unusual. So we were lucky in that they were willing to do this and partner with us. I used to use that landfill if it's another issue. I think Michelle has a hand raised. Michelle, it's going to go ahead. Yeah, thanks. I just had some questions about the conservation restrictions and I didn't wasn't able to see the Habitat Management Plan and I know that it's incorporated into the restrictions. But there was a lot of things that you said that weren't included in the easement, the conservation easement. And I just specifically about the trails. Like there wasn't a lot of specific restrictions on like linear feet. There was definitely the type of trails and the width of trails, but there was nothing really saying. It was granting the ability of the town to create trails as they saw fit. But I didn't see anything about ultimately restricting trails through the grassland habitat. So I was wondering maybe if we could look at the or be sent the actual Habitat Management Plan. Sure, but yeah, there is no there is no access to the within the management area. There's no public access. As I said, staff can and yes, we can send that to you for sure. But there is no access allowed to the public into this wildlife management area. So just to clarify, the maximum trail would literally be the perimeter. The perimeter trail is that is the trail. That is the specific trail that is outlined and identified for this project. There is no trails will be allowed within this location. And so that restriction itself is incorporated by reference into conservation easement. Is that the idea because it's not actually in the conservation easement that that's the specific restriction. Yes, just wondering about that. Yeah, there was definitely some language that need to be corrected in the upfront introduction of the conservation easement just regarding it said something about like early successional grassland habitat that was a little strange. But I guess someone's going to be reviewing that more thoroughly. In the in the CR. Yeah, yeah. If you wanted to send if you wanted to follow up with me outside of the meeting regarding some of that language, we'd be happy to have your input. Sure, I can do that. Thanks, Michelle. Okay, so Aaron, given that there's likely to be like some final tweaking and editing of the CR itself. What is our goal here? I mean, I would recommend that the Conservation Commission make a recommendation to proceed with finalizing the language in the conservation restriction that's been drafted between the town and Kessro Land Trust. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Before we move to a motion, does anyone else have any questions or comments on this? To me, it seems very well thought out. Go ahead, Anna. Stephanie, I'm curious if you've received any concern from a butters about the newest part of this or kind of newest part of this moving forward. So we've sentiment has been sure. So, I mean, as you know, this has a very long history and we did outreach actually went out into the neighborhood when we had this latest proposal, because originally when this came to us, the idea was to develop both parcels, as I said. So over time that changed. And when we got to the point where we were discussing this particular scenario of putting the CR on this portion of the of the project area, we did go around to the neighborhood. We did flyer both the Northland Hill site and the and the Southland Hill site. And it was mixed. There were people that were in support. There were people who don't want offense. But there this project has gone through the local permitting process. It actually has been before you all for the Northland Hill for development of the solar. It's also gone before the the ZBA as well. So there were a butters there who were in opposition, some of them because they were just in opposition to solar in general in terms of potential health impacts. And then there were people who were concerned about the installation of a fence around the perimeter and the height of the fence. Originally, the fence was proposed to be six feet. There was a request by and about her to make the fence four feet. And in the end, the agreed upon height was five feet, which was to be consistent with the dog fence dog park fence. So so that's, you know, as I say, that, you know, the concerns have been both pro and against, but the majority for the most part what we've heard is more people in favor. People were definitely in favor of this being protected versus being developed as solar. Thank you. That's great. Michelle's on another question. I would just like to make one comment. There's a park in Berkeley, California that's on a landfill and it's dog walking, people viewing bird nesting endangered species. It's called Cesar Chavez Park. I don't know if they have a easement on it. But if you're looking for some kind of similar precedent or something, maybe that's of use. But otherwise, it's too bad that we can't go birding on top of the landfill anymore. Well, that's what I'm completely in support of the restrictions on it. I was going to say that's partly what the viewing platform is proposed as is to at least have some ability to view from, from a height. It's not exactly the same, but it was the idea was to at least still make it somewhat accessible to folks. To me, it sounds like we're in good company then. That's great about the other site in Berkeley, Michelle. Yeah, and Stephanie, I think this is really frankly cool and I appreciate how much like out of the box thinking and compromising and navigating. This is probably taken to get to this point. So thank you. Yeah, good job. Yeah, I will breathe when we actually have the site, the Northland Filside under construction. Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay, so with that, I need a motion to approve the draft of conservation restriction proposed for 95 old Belcher Town Road. I'll make the motion to approve the drafted conservation restriction for 95 Belcher Town. Belcher Town Road. Second. All right, voice vote. Shell. Yay. Hi. Sorry. Okay, better. Hi, Laura. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I'm an I. So that's all I's across the board, Erin. Excellent. And that concludes our agenda for tonight unless Erin, you had anything else. I think that's it. I do not. Thank you guys for taking the time to schedule a special meeting. Yep. Thanks, everyone. And I guess I need a motion to adjourn. I move. How about a motion? How about a motion to fix your video camera? It works, Larry, but I think it would derail the whole meeting. All right. 757 p.m. Thank you all so much. Larry, you seem to be acting me up more now that that's not the chair. What's going on here? I know. Geez, what are you doing? Waste out the recording for a second, please. What's going on? Yeah, we gotta vote to adjourn. Yeah, let's vote. Voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Anna. Hi. Claire. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I'm an I. But I support this post recording line of questions. I moved location tonight. I'm out on my living room rather than my desk. So that's just like a more aggressive chair.