 Yeah, so I will hit record. Oh, nope. I guess you already started recording. Correct. Yeah. So we are good on that. So today is February 10th, 2021. This is the Amherst conservation commission meeting. And so I have seven o'clock. So we are good to get rolling. So starting off with comments from me. I don't have any. Probably the most important comment was just from Stephanie. If you want to give the rest of the group a quick update on Aaron, I don't know if this is kind of open. Maybe that's just to say that she's, you know, you know, she's. In process, I believe. And so is the delicate way of putting it. And, you know, we should hear from her. She's in great spirits. And hopefully we'll hear from her soon. So yep. And so Aaron will be out on maternity leave for a little while and so very happy to have Stephanie on board. Thank you for doing this. Sure. It's, I'm, you know, sort of dusting off the, you know, the memory banks and revisiting things. So yeah, but I, you know, I'm excited to be able to help you all with, with this while Aaron's out and she and I are going to be in touch. So I might be a little rusty tonight and I'm sort of getting used to Aaron's way of doing things in her setup. So I've got her files and I'll try to. Just follow her process, but as best I can. Okay. That sounds great. So thank you, Stephanie. And only one of us is unruly. Just kind of figure out which one. So, but we're, you know, it's me. It's just showed up. So Stephanie, you're next on the list. Do you have any, or I guess Dave is, but so yeah, so I'm going to go to Dave. So Dave, do you have any. Any comments that you want to add? Just a couple of quick updates. I'll be very brief. We're continuing our search for our assistant land manager. I hope that by the end of the month, we will have wrapped that up and be able to introduce the new assistant land manager to the commission. So I spoke with Brad board a week today and, you know, we want to try to set up a time probably in March and have a discussion with the commission. So I'm going to add and to introduce the new assistant land management manager and also talk about. What some of the projects were for 2020 field projects. And then maybe do a preview for the upcoming field season. So that's good news. Stephanie and Brad and I have been meeting about the Robert Frost trail grant. And I think that the new assistant land manager got quite a bit of work done on that grant in 2020, despite the pandemic. And, but we've got quite a bit of work to do. We have until I believe September 1st or the end of September to finish that. But there's a notice of intent that needs to come before the commission. And before Aaron left on maternity, we have had a little chance to talk that through with Stephanie and Brad. And we have a little bit of time to get back into that in a little bit of time. And, and that's what we're looking for. I think it's going to be a little bit of a platform. I think to the podium Catherine Cole and why, you know, there'll be some work that will be proposed. To replace existing bog bridges or replace. Existing stream crossing bridges over small intermittent streams, et cetera. And then there may be some new bog bridging. So I think we, I think with. With guidance from, from Aaron. the Beet Westover is doing the work for us on and with Kestrel's help. So I think we'll use a similar model for that NOI that will come in to you probably in March, early April. Let's see, and then Brett and I were corresponding again with Beet Westover and he is working with a client or two up in the North Amherst on the way to Atkins Reservoir, up in the Flat Hills area of Amherst on a couple of conservation restrictions that owners of land up there would like to gift to the town. So we'll bring those to you at the next meeting and we'll have maps for you and outline those projects. So those were the quick three updates. I know you've got an agenda ahead of you and you want to roll through that. So unless there's questions, I will yield to Stephanie if she has any updates. Great, so one thing, Dave, I just forgot that I think at one point you and I were going to connect and there's some paperwork related to Kestrel. And so there's an introduction. Yeah, we need to meet outside of town hall and Angela Mills, who gives us some assistance up in the town manager's office, has been flat out with COVID vaccination work. But I think in the next couple of days that may taper down a little. So I'll ask her to coordinate with you, Brett. And we just do need an original signature. And I think we can do that safely with social distancing outside of town hall. I've done that with her before. So yeah, so we'll get that done for Kestrel. Okay, yep, sounds great. So thank you. One other quick update on some of you who read the Gazette bulletin may have noticed there's a new column in the, I think it's in both the Gazette and the bulletin anyway, it's written by two seniors. And it'll be a reoccurring piece featuring different trails for safely being outdoors during COVID. And it was interesting because I read the first article and it kind of popped up that one of the focus areas was Puffer's Bond. And the authors had referenced Puffer's Bond as being owned by the Kestrel Trust. And I kind of, oh, well, that's interesting. So I wrote them a nice email and I said, we would just appreciate it. The town would appreciate it when you're referencing trails and Amherst Kestrel has been a collaborator and a partner for many years, but they are owned and maintained by the town. So please, so she was happy to correct that. So it's kind of a fun little correspondence. Yep, I'm sure an innocent oversight. Yes, well, I'm sorry, Brett, one other thing related to gifts. I have been in touch with the attorney for, you may remember the Paul Cole property. That was, and boy, I'm going to blank on the name. It's a small subdivision off of 116 across from south of the double roundabout as you go by Atkins. And we're going to be getting seven or eight acres over there and a trailhead up to the Mount Hoyok Range. And I was in touch with the attorney for the project recently and they would like to gift the land in the next 60 days. So that'll be another one coming to you. And recall, that will be yet another trailhead. We'll have a small parking lot there and that'll allow people to park right off of 116 and get right up on the Mount Hoyok Range. And given how crowded it is up at the notch sometimes, it'll be a nice little overflow for for taking some of the pressure off the notch. Yeah, I'm sure that'll get well used once it's discovered. So we'll have some maps and some documents for you all to sign on that as well. Great. Any questions for David? So as always, sounds like great stuff going on. So thanks, Dave. You are welcome. Stephanie, anything that you'd like to add at this point? No, I so I just wondered in terms of Aaron's PowerPoint. If that's something she usually just goes through the entire thing with you or just with the relevant hearings and agenda items. Does she just bring that information up when it's relevant? Yeah, it's more sporadic. So if there's one, she'll bring up that slide or a couple of slides rather than kind of doing it as a presentation, so to speak. OK, great. Then I don't have anything. Aaron has got me well equipped. And I think you all have access to the information she sent me as well. So I think we're good. Yeah. OK, great. So I have 710 by my clock. So why don't we just go right ahead and why don't we start with our Conservation Land Management piece. And so I see a mic here. So Mike, wait, oh, no, I see two mics. I'm letting the correct mic into the room. OK. Mike Cunningham Minnick. Yeah. And so I have a potential conflict here. I don't think I'm OK with it. Mike and I are both in the same department at UMass, but we've had this we've had this before. So I'm OK if other people are OK with me. So we only have four anyway. So I think if you conflicted out of every UMass professor, Brad would be in trouble. Same department, so it's a little bit closer, but yes. Yeah. OK, great. So hello, Mike and looking forward to seeing you on Friday as well. So all right in our series. So, Mike, if you wouldn't mind giving a introduction to yourself and a brief background about what you're doing and maybe even why you have bees behind you, that'd be great. Yeah. So real quick, I do have a few slides that added up to a five minute presentation. So after I introduce myself, is it OK if I just share a screen and go through that presentation? Yeah, we have a fairly full agenda. So as long as it's fairly quick, that's fine. It should be just under five minutes. OK, presentation itself. So I'll be quick about my introduction. Hello, everybody. I really appreciate being here. My name is Michael Cunningham Minnick. I'm a postdoc at University of Massachusetts Stammer's in the Department of Environmental Conservation, working with Dr. David King. And I do I work with bees. And that's why there's a lot of bees around. My project is actually different than what I'm going to present to you today. So I'm just going to go ahead and jump into that. If you guys don't mind this way. OK, so we can see your screen. So I think you're good. Great. So I would like to share and discuss this ongoing research project that is designed as a title implies to understand the influences of local resources and landscape features on bee communities of our managed forest. And simply put, there is just a great bee diversity in this region. Studies that address the global bee bee decline consistently conclude that more natural land covers are beneficial for bees or at least associated with more bee diversity and rare species of conservation concern. So that's ultimately why I'm here tonight is to ask permission to use some of these properties. Now, among the many land cover types included within the collection of the Amherst conservation areas are forests and in the native bee world, forests are intriguing and mysterious, or at least I believe so. It is often the case that a greater diversity of bees can be found in the less complex and heavier managed land cover types than adjacent forests. And studies show that this difference is strongly related to a greater quantity and diversity of flowers available to bees in the more open areas. And a good example of this is the power line right away to your on your left, which is managed for bird conservation and the quabban. And then just a couple hundred yards away is what appears to be a depopera under story. So the oddity of all this is that from a landscape point of view, these almost always are shown inferred, rather, to benefit from more forested habitat in the area. And why is that? So to answer this, a PhD candidate at UMass and myself designed an experiment that addresses an underlying assumption of nearly every study that attempts to quantify the bee community in the openings versus the forest. And our design recognizes that bees fly in the vertical dimension and may be using forest resources well above our head throughout the canopy. For instance, all standardized bee sampling takes place on the ground with colored pan traps known as beagles or roughly four feet or so above the ground with larger traps such as this picture, which is supposed to be a blue vein trap. Now, standardized netting also takes place in the zone. So we're missing a lot of area. Every we all know that trees produce an insane number of flowers. And studies across the globe are finding that wild bees collect pollen from trees like red maple that produce showy red flowers, as well as when pollinated trees with catkins that are common around here, like birch. So perhaps these are actually distributed throughout the canopy where the food sources and the nesting resources, such as dead wood are located. And that's something that we're wanting to address by placing with a sampling design one tether over a really high tree limb and securing a trap to it every five meters from the ground. And this will allow us to understand the stratification of the bee community on a vertical in the vertical dimension. Now, using a range finder, we can also qualify if there is dead wood or flowers available at each of these strad within the vicinity. And this will ultimately tell us if and how bees in the canopy are responding to resources there. So these may be opportunistically using both resources in the forest and in adjacent openings. And therefore, in our site selection, we incorporated a distinct gradient from managed openings into the forest that range from the forest edge to over 500 meters, 500 yards into the forest. Given our current funding, we are asking you all if we can place one vertical line of traps in 13 locations across seven conservation areas, as depicted here by the red target icons. There's an additional component in that trees mostly flower early in the season while flowers in the opening are available more year round, if not more concentrated in the summer. So some researchers, including myself, suspect that bees use the forest resources in the spring and for the most part tend to transition to resources of the openings in the summer. And therefore, we're also asking to have our traps out from March to September of this coming year to ensure we capture that temporal variability. And that's it. I didn't know how the format was going to be. So I left this up as some additional questions that might be asked. But it might be better if we just do a Q&A. So I'm welcome to I'm happy to share that with everybody or have you a question. Yeah, great. Thank you, Mike. We also have the application in front of us. We do have a little bit of additional information. I mean, from my perspective, this all sounds really interesting. And yeah, it doesn't seem like it's going to be a undue burden. Are these traps going to be visible from the roadside or from trails or anything like that? Because you mentioned that there's not going to be any signage, but there is going to be these materials out there that are going to look kind of strange to some people. Great question. Yeah. We haven't, I haven't, at least, looked at where we're proposing to put the trails coordinate wise with. Sorry, the traps with the trails that are that are in these conservation areas. It's quite possible that they would be visible. I mean, they are their fluorescent yellow with fluorescent blue on top. Now it's a single strand. And I will say we did this. This is the second year of the project. So we've done it in McQuabbin, Montague Plains, Montague Wildlife Management Area. And we never had anyone have an issue with them. We will have a little research researcher tag on the tree that they're attached to if it seems to bother anyone. Yeah, no, not more of a bother. Just we have a lot of curious people who would probably be interested in knowing and might help avoid somebody messing with it or something. Yeah, that was going to be my only feedback as well, is that you're more likely just to have curious passerbys here. So any like even I mean, I don't want to make work, you know, a research tag is fine, but something identifying that it's a UMass research project with contact info. Yeah, I would. I would agree, Mike, I think I think having something there, I would hear on the side of caution. I think, you know, in any normal year, there are thousands of people who use our conservation areas every year, but 21 is going to be continuation of the pandemic. And people don't always stay on trails. They they bushwhack, they have their own little special places. And I would just hate to have somebody, you know, mess with a couple of your lines and ruin your data set or whatever. So I think a little, a little, a little more, I would hear on the side of a little more information. You know, what is this and you could attach it. We don't generally mail or screw things to trees, but you could find a way to, you know, put something there that just gives people a little a little indication of what it is in your contact information. That sounds fantastic. And I think there's a slight educational opportunity there, too. So could I could I also ask, Mike, I'm a little embarrassed to ask you this, but I think there's an email in my inbox from a faculty member at the university about the research that I have not responded to. It's only a couple of days old. Would that be somebody you're working with? Or could there be other research that is going on about these? I wasn't going to bring it up. I sent you an email. It was probably a few weeks ago now, but it's it's quite all right. I I ended up getting in touch with the land manager, Bradley. And now that I mentioned it, I'm fair game, Mike. So it's quite all right. Everything worked out. Yeah, I apologize for not getting back to you promptly, but you're here, so that's great. Yeah. And, Mike, can you just reiterate the timeline? So when they're going to go in and when they're going to go out? Yeah, ideally, we would like to have them up and put them up in March. And we would like to do this so that we can hit nearly all of the tree flowering and hopefully the spring femurals as well. And to make sure that we incorporate the temporal variation that I spoke about, we we like to hit around September. If that's a problem, you know, we'll take what we can get. But our first year's data shows that that's really when the B diversity starts trailing off as they go to hibernation or die off. Yeah. So again, this all sounds good to me. The only other request I would have is any research products that come out the other end, if you wouldn't mind sharing those with the town. So we're all very interested in everything that happens on the town lands. And yeah, it's just great to see. We would love that. Absolutely. Yeah. Is there a typical time that those are submitted in the following year? No, no, you know, whenever you get to them, when they come out, sometimes people will do a brief demonstration or a brief presentation in front of the concom, that's not necessary. But yeah, just like a brief little write up or something would be great. Yeah, we're planning on writing this up in a peer review journal. So we'll we'll do a report. Well, let's plan on a report early next year and assuming everything goes well from here. And and then, of course, we'll send copies of the publication. So that sounds great. The only other piece is just to make sure that you are actually on conservation land. You know, if it's on somebody else's land, you'll just have to talk to them. But that'll be up to you to figure out those boundaries. And I'm sure you're well on top of that. So we'll do when we. I'm there's probably steps after this and I'm jumping ahead of myself. Would we send the exact because we haven't gone through and picked out exact trees or anything yet? But when that day comes, hopefully, would you like a list of the exact coordinates? So that'll be useful, particularly for town staff, in case we start to get comments on it and particularly for Brad. So we just kind of know that they're out there. If somebody says something like, oh, yeah, we know, we know this in case. I don't know, maybe they see something else out there that would be helpful. And all of that will be dealt with through Stephanie. And so we'll bring this to a vote in just a minute or so. And then after that, Stephanie will take care of the paperwork and any additional communications can be done through her. Sounds fantastic. So does anybody else have any questions or comments on this one? If there's anybody from the public who would like to weigh in on this, you can use a little feature to raise your hand. OK, if not, whoops, OK, so there is one person. So, Evan, you should be able to speak now. Hello, I'm Evan Turner. I'm with the solar development that's on your agenda for later tonight. And I would just like to say we would absolutely love Mike to talk to you. Because we're looking at using that area for pollinator habitat right there off Shootsbury Road, which would involve largely turning a lot of a wooded area into a field. And then there's still a lot of woods on that property left. So I am secretly convinced someone planted you at the beginning of this meeting to make me excited for a three hour con con meeting. So I think we will try to find a way to get your contact information. And please look out for an email from us in the near future. Great. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you, Evan. Thanks, Evan. Yeah, hopefully it's not three hours, but yeah, we shall see. OK, so any other comments or questions? OK, so if not, we are looking for a motion. I move we approve the application for use of Amherst Conservation Commission land for sorry. The Bees in High Places Local Landscape Influences Vertically Distributed Forest Bee Communities proposal submitted by Mike Slasname is cutting him minute. Seconded. Thank you. So I need a voice vote on this. Larry. Hi, LaRoy. Hi, Jen. I and I for me. So thank you, Mike. Stephanie will be in touch with the paperwork and I will see you virtually on Friday. That's great. Thank you all so very much. Have a great night. You too. Bye bye. OK, so seven twenty five. So we still have a little while before our seven thirty, which is going to be continuation anyways. But maybe there is a quick item or two, Stephanie, that we could do in the next few minutes. Or let me go through real quick and see if I can find one of many little while. Poor farm might take a little while. Be cutting. Yeah, maybe we can do one of the certs. Let's see. Are there any certs? Yeah, I don't know if there might just be a placeholder. I'm not. I don't know. Did you see any in the folder, Brett? I got to go double check. I looked at everything that was at least an hour ago, Jen. Yeah, let me because I looked through everything, too. Let me I'm not seeing any emergency certs in here. I don't think so. That might just be a placeholder, Brett. OK, no, but definitely is a placeholder in there. I didn't know if there was something else, though. OK, so we have the monitoring reports. We have other business. OK, so I don't know why don't. We could do the ever source piece real quick. I don't know if we really need if there's much of a vote that's needed on that one. So the one from ever source is just a notice that they are going to be doing some work on their land. They're going forward with Podic and they are putting in the road that was sort of that was approved by us a little while ago. So I don't think we have anything else on that one. Do we don't think so? It was Podic, Tilson, Amherst substation are the three locations. Podic, Junction of Route 116 in Sunderland Road, Tilson Farm Road and Route 9 in College Street. And Podic was the only road work that was proposed, I believe. And there's no vote that we need on that one. I think it's just sort of informational. That's just informational. They they're exempt, so they're just letting you know. OK, great. So I have seven thirty by my watch. Um, so why don't we just deal with the Amherst College one real quick? And so I think I saw Kate is on. So yeah. So Kate, you can you should be able to unmute yourself and I understand that you are going to be asking you for continuation. Great. Thanks, Brad. Can you hear me? We can. Perfect. So, yes, hi, folks, and thanks. We do want to go ahead and ask for a continuation. This is just because the potential contractors that we're working with need a little bit more time to come up with some potential designs. We just got today a couple of drawings that might work. And so we're trying to review those. And the only other update is that we did get some comments back from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. So we also would present about those. They basically said that they don't believe that our project would have any impact, but that they do want us to catalog the presence of the climbing firm, which I believe some of you all had brought up as well. So those are the two updates. And we basically just want to ask for a continuation of the hearing, hopefully until March 10th. If I don't know what the rules are in terms of skipping meetings in between. Yep, no, that is perfectly fine. And so assuming that we have a meeting on the mark on March 10th. So, Stephanie, are we scheduled then? And if we are, do you have a time that would work? You could do 730 on March 10th. OK, sounds great. So unless anybody has any questions, looking for a motion for continuation for March 10th, 730. I move that we continue the request for determination for replacement repair for foot bridges on Amherst College property to March 10th at 730. Seconded. Thank you. So voice vote, Larry, I, Jen, I, Roy, I and I for me. So thank you, Kate, and we will see you on the 10th. Thanks very much. Bye bye. Bye. OK, so we have about five minutes, Stephanie. So do you have a preference or a suggestion on which of the other items we should hit? So that's what I said. Yeah, the other ones are five minute items. Yeah, they're all, I think there are people here to speak and I think they're going to take longer. Yeah, but I'd rather. Yeah, so why don't we just? Yeah, why don't we go for one of the enforcement? So why don't we start off with poor farm? Because I don't want to just kind of sit here for five minutes. I hear you. OK, so if you are here for the poor farm enforcement order, order, if you can raise your hand and so maybe it is quick. Oh, OK, there's Meredith. OK, Meredith, you are two. I'm allowed Meredith to talk. Excellent. So Meredith, give us a quick update on where we're at and some of the proposed changes that you have made. That'd be great. OK, hi, everybody. I actually wasn't expecting to be talking about this project tonight, but because I'm here for another another notice of intent, but I can give you a quick update. I had a meeting with Aaron and Rebecca Zimmer from Natural Heritage last Friday and we reviewed the draft that I had put together. And now I'm working also with David Haynes. He is helping me put it together because I have some time constraints and. He's going to be taking over the project if something anything happens out there in the future. But we had a good meeting and I don't know where what you guys know about this. But basically, I'm just drafting a wetland restoration plan for all the areas that were disturbed. In the fall, we have a pretty good planting plan of a bunch of different species working on monumentation of the wetlands, permanent monumentation. So bird boxes, rebar with wetland boundary caps on them. And then we're going to do posts four by four posts with signs. One of Aaron's concerns was that the bird boxes really wouldn't be enough. So we're beefing that up and and we're also monumenting on the where the flags are going to be where the flags were approved. So it will be forever marked with something, whether it's a bird box, a post or rebar and no mow signs. So it should be really clear. I will say that folks understand that this, you know, the violation, you can't go beyond the wetland line. I think we got that straightened out. So but the signs will help if somebody's on a tractor out there. In the future, they'll see the no mow signs. So I think that we're what else? Then one other question, I think Meredith from Aaron was just to verify that the plants that you're putting in are all native. Yes, absolutely. And yeah, she had a question about the groupings. Like there was no intention and I should have made this more clear in the the draft that there's no rows being planted. They're going to be planted in natural groupings of, you know, three or four plants in clumps and then spaced out throughout the area, I think averaging on feet on center. And yes, no cultivars are proposed. We're planning on hopefully buying them from New England plants, but based on availability, I've heard like it's everybody's buying plants, I don't know. So so the plants I've chosen are stuff that's out there now. And if we have to switch them out because of availability, I will be in touch with Aaron and you guys and get permission to to switch out anything I proposed, like if we have to do a cornus cericia rather than a momum, we'll get we'll get permission first and the numbers will all say the same. So and yes, to be clear, no cultivars are proposed. Just native wetland. Yep, and it looks like in the riverfront area, we're proposing upland plants, obviously, because it's not wetland. So there was just three species for sweet burn, huckleberry and low bush blueberry. And because that area overlapped with the turtle habitat, we were trying to pick plants that natural heritage would also like as well as restore the riverfront. So that's why I chose those. So what else is there? So there was the monumentation plan here. Yeah, the monumentation, the riverfront. Yep. And you have monitoring built in there as well. Yes. So I put a long term monitoring plan in there. And we just and then I had also had they had to have a wetlands person out there when they're doing the work to make sure that, you know, to check the plant list of plants when they get there to make sure they're being properly installed. Just some oversight. It's always good to have that. And then they can document whoever's doing that, whether it's me or David or somebody else can document and send a report like a post construction report to the commission and then long term monitoring in the restored areas. I just put two years for now with the understanding that if it's not functioning as a normal wetland after that, then we'll have to continue monitoring. So I think that would be a good place to start. That's what's required for when you do when you restore, when you mitigate for a wetland just two years. It's not that long, but the commission can always ask for more if you guys want to. So, yeah, we're working with the surveyor to update the plant, the actual map with some of the details and locations of the bird boxes. So we were actually talking today about that. And I'm updating the text a little bit more. And yeah, we had some communication with Erin earlier in the week. And I think that's pretty much it. We're shooting to come back on your March 10th meeting with like a pretty final draft, but I'm wondering in the interim if I send a draft, would anybody be able to look or comment? Or I mean, I can always just come back on the 10th too. But yeah, I mean, even though Erin is not here, we're still fully functional. And yeah, luckily Stephanie has stepped into those shoes. And so yeah, everything will continue to move. Might be a couple of hiccups here and there, but yeah. Please go ahead and yeah, submit all of those materials. OK, so we're, yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to intro. Stephanie, did you have anything else that you wanted to add? I know we had one question about whether or not we're going to be dealing with this via an NOI, or this is just part of the enforcement order. I had some thoughts on that. Yeah, that was basically really the question. And I think Erin was kind of posing it to you all. So I think she's kind of putting it in your court. Yeah, so one question that Erin was bringing up, and I can't recall who was on that email, but how do we want to deal with this restoration piece? They will be operating in a wetland. So from that perspective, it could be considered an NOI as required. That being said, it is also something that we are requiring via an enforcement order. From my perspective, I kind of lean more that this is part of the enforcement order. I'm not quite sure what the NOI would sort of buy us. Well, the advantage of the NOI might be just standard conditions. All the protections we just automatically have in place for work in and around a wetland. It might save us having to go into all of that detail on an enforcement order since this will essentially be recreating wetlands. An NOI will also, when you issue an order of conditions, it's going to be tied to the deed of the property. So you have a long-term record? I guess I'll go ahead and say I would lean in that direction. May I address the border? Sorry. Yeah, please. Oh, I was just saying, well, usually my understanding was that you do like an enforcement order is still an order, just like an order of conditions is an order. And so you're requiring the app, the property owner, to do a restoration because you said this is an enforcement order. So you shall do this, not you can do this. That's the difference between an order of conditions and an enforcement. So I was thinking the restoration could be done under the enforcement order. And then if they want to do anything else at all out there, they absolutely have to file a notice of intent and a MISA checklist with natural heritage. So the enforcement is just for planting and monitoring the resources that were impacted without a permit. And then long-term, I think that's what I was thinking in notice of intent. And then order of conditions, get to get that recorded on the deed. And yeah, like long-term use of the properties absolutely needs an order of conditions. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I mean, we can also say as the enforcement order, you shall submit an NLI for restoration. Right, right. But it's just, I know, TEP, I've talked to TEP about this in my other full-time job. And they always say like, don't require somebody to do a notice of intent for something that you're telling them to do. I don't know, it's confusing to me too. But we'll do whatever you guys want. Well, right now, we're just drafting the restoration plan and hoping to plant in the spring. But if we have to do a notice of intent, that will take a little bit longer. Obviously, because we'll have to go through the approval process. So yeah, I don't know. You guys need to decide that tonight or? Yeah, and then we'll have to, yeah. So we'll be additional work on our side. I'm not trying to negate work on our side. But obviously, there's a lot more paperwork related to an NLI. And I think we also, we have other issues in front of us that I'm a little worried about precedent setting as well. So I think we want to be consistent across wetlands violations. So. But yeah, you are right that we do not have to decide that tonight. So except it might be nice to know though. So because if they do need to submit. Yeah. I mean, so Larry or LaRoy. So I'm still, which way are you, Larry? I'm indifferent in terms of, I don't understand the legalities of the different two options. So I'm just sort of, I'll go with the crew. I mean, I think both are perfectly legal. I don't think we have any issues there. NOIs definitely have some stronger strings attached. There's no doubt about that. Particularly the piece that it goes with the deed. So it is documented. That's a very nice piece. Jen was also bringing up the piece about the orders of conditions. Those we can port over to enforcement order as well. It's a little more work. We can build those in. That would be the big solve for everything for me because I am also leaning towards this private enforcement order for asking someone to do it. It'd be tough to go ahead and add more work to them. But if we can just go ahead and port the same conditions, that'd be ideal. It's everything we like. Yeah, and I don't feel too bad pointing them to do more work. They're the ones who violated the wetlands stuff anyway. So we were in discussion with them and went through a lot of work to come up with that delineation. There was a recent wetland delineation on site. There was a lot of known information there preceding the violation. So I don't know. I think we should do what's best for protection of the wetland moving forward. And to me, that's attaching some understanding of this restoration to the deed of the property. Yeah, so it's going to be the deed. I mean, that's the only sort of sticking point for me, Jen, is just the deed. Everything else I think we can deal with because all the monumentation, all of the planting plans, those would be identical, I think. Right. Yeah, totally. So that point, Jen, is there a way that on the enforcement order, as we were saying earlier, you can attach the need for an NOI for any future work so that we know it will eventually get on the deed but also we can get this planting in this spring because that's also one of my concerns. We do want this restored sooner than later. Yeah, I mean, I think that they can pull, if they want to, they can pull together the NOI for the next meeting or so. I mean, they have to go through the abutter notification and there's a couple of pieces, but it's not massive. And looking at Meredith's restoration plan, I mean, a lot of that is the meat of the NOI. Oh yeah. So. Yep, yep. Yeah, that would be pretty much it. Yeah. We're not gonna propose, I mean. And I mean, Erin's comments, and like you're back and forth with Erin on the restoration plan are the same as it would have been for an NOI. I mean, the restoration plan is great. So it's not a lot, it's, you know, some formatting and abutters. Right, the abutters and the legal act and that stuff. But could we record the plan and the restoration plan? Why can't we record that to the deed? I think you can record anything. I'm not sure. Declaration of restrictions, I do those. I have a template for a declaration of restrictions, which goes on, gets recorded, so I don't know. That's another, maybe another option. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. I don't know. I mean, a NOI is our kind of standard tool that we have for getting stuff on the deed. So that I think would be a little bit easier for us. I think we'd end up in the same place. So I think it's really kind of a question of deed or no deed. Yeah, I mean, we've been through a lot on this property. I mean, so you're right about that, Jen. But I don't mean, I mean, if the majority thinks that the enforcement order is good enough, then, you know, I'm not gonna prolong this. Well, I was sort of inclined also to see that it's on the deed. I mean, I figured we could probably do it either way. So the question is, which? There's a little other way. I mean, the more conservative approach is definitely an NOI. So yeah, I don't see any reason not to. Let's go for it then. Okay. Okay. So Meredith, do you still want to come back on the 10th? And so obviously I think you're getting some fairly clear direction from the board that we are satisfied. I have an everything else with the plan. I think people are good with the plan. Is that correct? Yeah. I think it looks great. Yep, especially with the, you know, additional monumentation and all that. I think, yeah, we're in good place. So we would just be looking for an NOI that we can add to the agenda for the 10th. And then we can close out on the enforcement as well. I don't, can't promise. I will be able to submit a notice of intent. I the, cause why didn't you need it? Like three weeks in advance, right? Stephanie? It's three weeks, yeah. Yeah. So you would need it on the seventh in a week. I mean, I guess if it's just the form and the rest of it, right? Yeah, the meeting after that is on the 24th. And then so when do a butters need to be? So can Meredith submit it in a week and then notice? And then does she need to notify the butters before she submits? No, it just, no, butters have to be notified before the actual meeting date. Yep, that's right. But there's time, and that's partly why, cause Erin moved to the notice, the submittal date back a week to allow for that. So if you did get it in in a week, there'd be plenty of time to notify a butters prior to. Right, I just have to get the list. Yeah, so, but I think there's, but I think there's time, I mean, you know, and especially cause you know it's coming in, we could, you know, try to maybe expedite that somehow. Okay, so should we at least give it a go, Meredith? I'll do my best. I'll circle back with the team, the client and the other Wetlands guy I'm working with and maybe they can help. Given what's happened at the past in this, isn't there already in a butters list available? I think so, yeah, so did the delineation, I don't know if the delineation would have had in a butter notification. I don't know cause it's an RDA, but you guys have a bylaw, so maybe like regular RDAs don't need a butters, but... But they have a timeline, so I think they're good for 30 days. Well, it's no big deal. They're pretty really fast over there. So I'll make a request to get it and then we'll have it anyways. And then... Okay. Yeah, we'll do our best. And if nothing else, we'll definitely have the restoration plan finalized. And if we have to push it back a couple of weeks, like I'll have to push it back. Okay. Yep, same thing. And then would they file a note? I mean, it seems like they should file a notice of intent for everything. If they're gonna file a notice, I mean, if they wanna continue out there, why wouldn't we file for everything all at once? That was, I was thinking that in my head, but I wasn't sure where you all had gone with this conversation. So I'm glad you brought it up, Meredith, cause that was actually the thought was you should be having a notice of intent for everything. One issue though is that we do wanna get that restored. So as Leroy was saying before, the earlier, the better, I would think. I mean, is everything stable out there though now? So it's not like there's exposed, I don't think. It's stable cause the soils are all clay. So nothing was running off and they did, they put some seed out after they cleared and grown. And I mean, we have time. It's not, you can still plant in May and June. It's not, I don't think you can still plant them. Okay, so I don't think that we need a vote or anything tonight on this, but I mean, so Meredith, do you need any additional direction or Stephanie, do you have additional advice on this? No, we can just be in touch. That's good. Okay. Thank you, Meredith. And it was, yeah, good for you to be here. And yeah, we'll talk again in a little while. Okay. Thanks for the time, Meredith. Thank you guys. Okay, so I have 752 on my watch. So why don't we go for our 735, which is a request for determination. So this is a new hearing. So I will formally open it up. This public meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40, the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to protections of wetlands as most recently amended than town of Amherst protection by law. This is being presented by Robin Oaks, who's requesting permission to install a split rail fence in backyard with 50 foot, within 50 feet of bordering vegetated wetland, a 26 hopbrook road map 18 seed lot 112. And so is Robin here or representative of Robin? Oh, there we go. So Fiona, okay. So Fiona, would you mind introducing yourself and then giving us a background what we are proposing here, and then we will move forth. Absolutely. Can you hear me okay? You were good. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Wait a second. Let me, I just want to make sure that you are able to be heard as well. This is Robin Oaks here. I'm her daughter. A little bit of background on the project. We in the spring, beginning of COVID got a puppy. And so we have a dog now, who's a wonderful addition to our family. So we were looking to install a split rail fence in our backyard to give her some space outside. So she wouldn't be running into the wetlands because it's sort of like a marshy bog back there. And we didn't think that would be very safe for her or for any of the things that live there. So we started the process and then we reached out to the town and then they said we should reach out to Erin. So we reached out to Erin and then she said we should fill out this form. So we filled out the form and here we are. And we did the butters notifications and all that jazz too. Great. Thank you. Yeah, fairly straightforward. Stephanie, would you mind bringing up the site plan just so that we can see exactly what's being proposed? Yeah, just bear with me a second here. I can also share it if it's easier. I have it up. Oh, I've got it. Either is fine. Oh, I've got it if you don't, so here I'll. Okay, so if you wouldn't mind just kind of walking us through what we are looking at, that'd be appreciated. Of course. Just want to make sure. Can you still hear me? I can't see the mute thing. Yes, you are good. Great. So this like a round line here is kind of a representation of the road, which is seen here in the lot details. And so that's what that's what this round line is here. And then this is the house. And this straight line is where the proposed this straight right corner line here is where the fence is proposed. And then it'll go around this back corner and then the wetlands is back here. Leroy came and saw it this morning. So we're setting it back another like 15 or 20 feet roughly from the edge of the where our lawn ends. And then there goes over an embankment. And then at the bottom of the embankment, which is maybe another 15 or 20 feet is the wetlands, we believe, which is back here. Okay. And so the fence is going in an existing lawn right now. Is that correct? It's all existing lawn. Yep. And it's going to stay lawn on both sides after the fence is in as well. Yeah. Yes, it's going to be set back from the perimeter quite a bit. You can roll around. And is there clearance? So it's like a traditional split rail fence. So there's like clearance underneath the fence except for where the fence are. Yeah. There'll be some sort of fence. There's going to be a mesh wire at the top. And then it'll, I don't have a little bit of an opening at the bottom, but not so much that our dog could get underneath. Does that answer your question, Jen? Yeah. Okay. Stephanie, do you have anything on this? No, actually this meat setback requirements and pretty minor it's buffer zone. So no, no real issues from our end. I don't think Aaron felt it was pretty straightforward. Yeah. It looks like that to me as well. Yeah. So do any commissioners have any other questions on this one? No. Yep. And it's great to keep the dog out of the wetlands. So that's a good thing on all ends. And thank you for the time spent to make this easily understandable. Of course, do the best I can. And let me know if you need me to share anything else. No, I think we're good. So yeah, we'll go ahead and vote on this. And then it will be in Stephanie's hand. So she'll be the one who will communicate. And if you need any additional paperwork. So if there is just checking real quick, I don't think there is, but if there's anybody from the public who'd like to make any comments, you can just raise your hand. Okay. So looking for a motion from the commission. So I move that we issue a negative request for determination for Robin Oaks for installation of a split rail fence within BVW or within 50 feet of BVW at 26 Hopbrook Road in Amherst. That's good. Excellent. So looking for a voice vote. Larry. Aye. Roy. Aye. Jen. Aye. And I for me as well. So you guys are all set and good to go. And yeah, thank you for sort of following all the protocols. Yeah. Much appreciated. Okay. Bye-bye. I can leave this then or? Yeah. Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much. Have a good night. You as well. Okay. So move in right along. So we're going to go on to our 740 hearing, which is a continuation of a notice of intent. And so our friend Meredith is back with Joseph Ayamu for construction of a single family home. Well, Enceptic House on 84 East Leverett Road. And so Meredith, and I don't know if Joseph is here as well. So Meredith, if you wouldn't mind giving us another reintroduction to yourself and giving us an update about where we are at on this project. And... Hi, okay. Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Okay, because I can't see me, but that's fine. So I'm Meredith Bornstein working for myself, Divine Wetlands Consulting, representing Joseph Ayamu that is not here tonight, but he is the site designer. And... Oh, there I am. And so we've been working. This is the third hearing we did. We were able to update the plans again and get a swale next to the driveway, which I think was a really good suggestion. So can I share my screen? Yes, you can. You should be able to. Great. Can everybody see this plan? Yes, we can. Okay, so again, this is 84 East Leverett Road. There it's a proposal for a new single-family home with only the driveway in the riverfront area. And so one of the comments from last time was what's gonna happen with the snow. So we put a little snow storage area at the top of the hill there, basically in the driveway. So that is the plan for that. And we updated the cross-section for the driveway. So first of all, the driveway will be sloped slightly to the north, so away from the neighbors. That was one of the comments before. And it would be a 12-foot-wide, it will be a paved driveway eventually, but it's going to have a two-foot-wide swale. Well, six feet on either side will be a grassy area. So snow could also go there, but then there's gonna be a lower spot. And this is gonna be on the north side of the drive again, away from the neighbors. So that area, so the water, the runoff will drain to this grassy area, which we're gonna put New England Conservation and Wildlife Seed Mix in, so not just snow, not just regular grass seed. And there, so that'll be a little grassy swale that will treat any and absorb the runoff from the driveway before it goes down and enters a catch basin, which goes across the street, under the road, and then down a rip-wrap swale into Cushman Brook. So this will be, this is what it's gonna look like after construction. I think I can go over and the whole plan again. We also just to refresh, we did add some like leaders off the house to get the drainage from the house itself back in the upland over here, again, away from the neighbors, away from just to infiltrate everything on site. So I think I'm pretty confident that's gonna really keep any stormwater on the property. Yeah. One other issue was that there was a deviation between the plans where one plan showed some additional, I can't remember if it was a driveway or some other feature within the 200 foot just by a little bit, but then another one didn't. And I was trying to look this morning, I got a little confused. Yeah, I think they fixed that. I mean, it was, yeah, so there's nothing, they're not even showing it there. It's hard to see. They pulled or he pulled that little, it was a tiny little sliver out of the riverfront area. So it should be the same on all, oops, hold on. Well, should be the same on all the plans now. So yeah, so he did the calculation based on a 12 foot driveway. And I sent Aaron and Stephanie the updated DEP form. That was one of the other requests. Okay. Yeah, the grass soil was definitely the big one. So. Yes, yeah. And that is on multiple sheets. Okay, so Stephanie, do you know if we have anything else on this one? Any notes from Aaron? Yeah, no, I think Aaron said that all of the outstanding issues were addressed and we did receive the updated DEP form. So she should be all set. Excellent. So commissioners, any comments or questions? I think we've been around the block on this one a couple of times. Seems like everything's addressed that we had. So yeah, thank you for all of that, Meredith. So I will open it up to the public. If anybody has any questions, they can raise their hand. Okay, not seeing any. We are looking for a motion on this one. And Stephanie, do you have any guidance on any specifics for the motion that we should add here? Other than to issue the order of conditions, I think things like just a condition that I would add is just the environmentally friendly snowmelt material. I would add that as a special condition, but I think everything else was addressed in the application and just the usual boilerplate conditions. Sounds good. So looking for a motion. Yeah, are you on this agenda? Okay, hang on. I was so deep in the plans. I lost the two seconds, the agenda. Okay, here we go. I move that we approve the notice of intent for construction of a single family home at 84 East Leverett Road in Amherst, Mass with the standard NOI conditions for the town of Amherst Conservation Commission and the addition of environmentally friendly snowmelt treatments. Second. Excellent. So a voice vote, Larry. Hi. Roy. Hi. Jen. Hi. And I for me as well, Meredith, we are good on this one. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a great night. You as well. Bye-bye. So, Stephanie, what if we go on to our other enforcement order for 526? Does that make sense? Sure. Okay. I was trying to find all Aaron's files here. So if you are here for the enforcement order for 562 South Pleasant Street, the tree cutting, if you could raise your hand and we will promote you to a panelist. I can't remember the names of those people. I don't know. I'll close up that. Oh, no one's raised their hand yet. If Janie Denja? Nope, I don't see them on the list. Is there another person or? Okay. I'm looking for names. Let me just open an email here. Yeah, so if you are here, there's a little, raise your hand. At least for me, it's down on the bottom of the screen. If you could just hit me. So people go by different, they log in under a different name. So, okay. Do you have a suggestion, Stephanie? I mean, can we move forward on this one? Do we push this to the next meeting? I know that they have a plan for this, but we definitely need some discussion about that. I think if you need discussion, you may wanna wait until you can get them before you. So it just makes sense to sort of put this off to the next agenda. If they're not here to speak to it. Okay. So as long as we don't have to act on it tonight, I would, let's go for that. Okay. So with that, should we move on to our solar project, Stephanie? Yes. Okay. So I know that there was at least one person here from that. Yes, I know Cam Littlefield. So if you just do the little raise your hand thing. Yeah. And Evan Turner is also, actually, I'm assuming that one or either of you have the plan set. Yep, Evan should have that. Okay. So I'll promote you to a panelist, Evan, so you can actually share that. Okay. So Evan and Camille, welcome. If you can introduce yourselves and give us a little bit of background. My understanding is that this is a informal, informational discussion at this point. So no formal hearing is going to be opened tonight. Yes, sir. Go for it, Evan. Why don't you jump in first and then I'll pick it up with the site narrative. Oh no, it's all you, Evan. All right then. Oh, thank you. So for everyone's familiarity, my name is Evan Turner. I work with AMP Solar, who is developing a solar array on the properties off of Shrewsbury Road in Amherst that you guys went through the and rad paces on this last summer and fall season. We have progressed our design concepts internally since then. And as we got into the real design process, we wanted to talk with the conservation commission about a couple of things regarding your bylaw originally and how that's played into the thoughts we have around our design options. So broadly speaking, we have about 50 acres of upland on the property that are out of about 99. And I think about 40 acres is what we're thinking is gonna be dedicated to solar, which is somewhat synonymous with we have to take down those trees. Some things that we wanted to ask you about specifically was buffer use. Your bylaw, you know, sets some standards by which I believe the presumption is X, Y, or Z from A, B, or C distance from the wetland proper is presumed to be an impact. But that is not the same thing as saying doing less is not presumed to be an impact. So one of our original questions to Aaron that we'd follow through with you here is if we were looking to do some amount of vegetative clearing, you know, cutting the trees, lowering the height of those trees in the buffer and it's done over several thousand feet across this acreage since we have so many wetlands that are in and around the site. Do you think that is an RDA territory or an NOI? I think it's gonna be an NOI based on your previous discussions and the size of it. But I've had every commission and my experience has their preference. I'm assuming none of that we're never gonna be in the wetlands proper is a rule we can follow on that. Thank you, Evan. And yeah, you are right. We tend to go more on the conservative side here. And do you have any more specifics, Evan, on what sort of distance within the boundaries you're talking about? Are you talking within 30 feet, within 100 feet? Yes, sir. Give me just one second before I share my screen. I sent Aaron a little blurb to explain this and then I'll show you a map but I wanna pull that up without you guys having to run all the way through my inbox. I can pull up the map if you need me. Well, that would be perfect. Yes, ma'am. It was just a little diagram. And then I can show you the map and we can be familiar with the other, the types of things that could happen in and around a buffer that do impact our design thoughts. Okay, can you see that? Yes, ma'am. Let me know if you want me to go to another page. And I believe I sent Aaron some images. Do you have those by chance? I probably do. Let me see. I can take over the screen here. I think I've got him handy now here if I can drive. Sure, absolutely. All right. Yeah. Yes. Screen two, gotta get this right. Here we go. So for, this is a little, just a little cut out of an item there to show us like the various things we're talking about. So the green line would represent the wetlands proper. And then layers of less impact going out, you've got between the green and blue is a no-touch area. Nothing cut, nothing stump, nothing, nothing. Trees or not trees, but in this case, all trees as they exist. Some amount of distance, that is some amount of distance from the wetland. Then we've got what I think of as outside the fence closer to forestry territory. We might selectively cut trees for shading based on height, but we have no need to use the area proper for the array. It's mostly shade reduction. So no stumping, no roads, no modules, no stormwater, just more or less getting the height gone so it doesn't shade. And then the next layer would be, and then the fence happens after that, then there's a layer inside the fence line with the modules, but before you get to the modules, that is typically a grass access lane for driving around the outside of the array in a truck. Typically not graveled, but where you need the gravel access road, it could be, but no modules, but not quite the array area itself, which is past the red concept here, where it's wildflower meadow and no regular tromping of the grass. And it just becomes a field at the elevations of the property. So just so we're talking about that, that's the idea and the depth of those is what I guess we're trying to figure out. We'll look at our relative design options. Of course, a full no touch is 100 feet of no touch. You know, a 50-50 might be 50 feet of no touch and 50 feet of outside the fence forestry with a fence line at the wetland buffer or at the buffer line at 100 feet. By example, with some of the terminology. So here is a rough desktop design program where I've overlaid the ANRAD with the wetlands onto the site on top of a big old Google Maps. And for the moment, I have the array not shown, but this is just a perspective layout. No roads at this point, but just for acreage sake. The, as you saw in the other picture, let's see the Pratt West, this one, I got this up here somewhere, I'm on to you. Anyway, the array could take place outside the wetland buffer. We're looking at, you know, a setback on the West from some houses, a setback on the Northwest. And something that came to mind, and this is just, you're getting a little bit behind the curtain while we're making the sausage, is that I'm sure these neighbors would appreciate additional setback to a solar array. You know, there's, I need to hit about 40 acres if it's possible, and it is on this site with the upland for the solar array. So when pulling back from those sides in a conceptual design, you know, process, the only place I can get some of that acreage back is to reduce the shading from the wetland buffer. Largely, we do not need to use the wetland buffer for array, but the shading becomes very significant when you have, you know, by example, this 3000 foot wetland right here, if I were to create an entire keepout and the shade it requires and the setback it requires becomes a 135,000 foot area that doesn't have to work for solar. So the shading on the wetlands gets significant. So the concept that we were thinking about, and one of the things I just wanted to get a feeling about here, I know you guys can't make decisions by any means at this point, is we were looking at that setback, we were thinking, oh, your bylaws say, or your guidelines say, you know, a type of work that we think might be a no-touch line is presumed to be an impact at 30 feet and closer to the wetlands. And maybe that means, and I just, I'm not sure of this, that our no-touch line would be similar where we might stump, or your cut, but not stump up to 30 feet from the wetlands, and then a fence line might start at 75, trying to interpret some of those regulation descriptions. Of course, complicated significantly by the fact that we have about 4,200 feet of boundary of the wetland that I'm talking about this around. So that's a large amount relative to what those regs may have envisioned, as well as hyper aware, especially right now of the size of the site and the potential for erosion into wetlands and water systems, given the Williamsburg Array, where the DEP recently appropriately laid down the hammer on an array that appears they made a maybe an okay plan, but definitely failed on the actual enforcement and operation of their stormwater features. So, we're looking at this, this is just one aspect of the design. We're certainly thinking phasing of the clearing and the installation. We're certainly this, obviously there are stormwater features here yet, but for the most part, the site is reasonably flat that doesn't provide any exceptional stormwater challenges besides of course, just the acreage involved. So I'm gonna take a second and stop the monologue, ask Camille if she has any thoughts and then I guess open it up for questions, comments, guidance, thoughts, et cetera. Great, thank you, Evan. So Camille. Yep, no comments from me, that sounded good. Okay, Stephanie, do you have anything to kick us off before we start batting this around? Well, the only comments for me really, this is such a large scale project and I think the stormwater is gonna need to be calculated very carefully and examined very carefully by the commission. And I would even recommend peer review for a project this size of the stormwater calcs. Oh, absolutely for us. I don't think I have video up. Sorry about that. Okay, yeah. And so I strongly agree with you on that, Stephanie. So that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, and then the other piece is related to what Evan was talking about, our setbacks. As sort of a general rule, the 30 foot is our no touch. Obviously we do have jurisdiction anywhere within 100. So that is all within jurisdiction. In general, again, 30 is a no touch. And then after that, that's when it gets more into a negotiation at that point. And so, yeah, maybe not negotiation. That's where we have. Your balance. More of a judgment call based on the impact to the resource. Yeah, it's under our jurisdiction and it's under our, not purview, our mandate to protect all of that. So, but yeah, so 30 no go within their, usually within 50, we get kind of a little antsy. And, but then a little bit further from there. Again, the size of this does make a difference. This is a big thing you guys are doing out there. And yeah, given some of the stuff that's happening out there, it's a little even scarier than usual. So, yeah, we're gonna be fairly careful on this. And so you're also asking before about NOI or no and not or an RDA and yeah, NOI makes a lot of sense for this. And that's what we thought it was. I've seen conservation commissions also look at jurisdiction outside the hundred due to potential for stormwater. So I think our general plan was to submit to you guys in the ZBA concurrently, give everyone plenty of time to chew it over, give you boards time to talk back to one another. Yo, and I expect you guys will be effectively sort of the first end of most of the design. Yo, as we may hash through what the buffer looks like that'll pace us with the ZBA a little slower, a little in the back end. We can talk about big site stuff, but I don't have final design, of course, until you guys would give a sign off on what we'd end up with. Some thoughts I missed just on the first time around. My thoughts on designing this array is that the stormwater installations would be outside the hundred foot buffer and the line we'd probably consider as the, you know, the peak, or the peak pre and post flow calculations probably is at the hundred foot line or shortly inside, not any further to try and keep all of it, you know, as if we weren't touching the buffer at all. You know, so kind of a concept. Again, hyper aware of like looking at how they, I'm studying how they screwed up in Williamsburg. So badly because, you know, land use in forested land is solar has a future there. It's got to be done. We just need the acreage. So we've got to make sure we do it right. And I'd rather overkill it than underkill it. The nice thing about the big projects is you have the budget to overkill it because you've just got the area. You know, my thoughts on the acreage, you know, it's are on the buffer use is we wouldn't be using the outside. I'm still sharing, right? Share screen. No, you're not. Let me, let me pull that back up. And this is just putting you guys inside my head, which is not the only head that, you know, needs to think about this, but I was, yeah, I look at it as, you know, it's less buffer on the project side, but in this case, we wouldn't be using buffer around other parts of the wetland system. So in this case, you know, we have a smaller buffer over here, but we end up with, you know, an untouched wooded buffer of 500 feet on the other side. So it's, you know, it goes from being a little more ballast, I think to maybe a little more of a big buffer, small buffer. And I can tell you, in general, we do not have any ambitions of sneaking our way around this wetland or through it and getting to this upland area over here. So I see in general, this being about a 60, 40 split of a site, you know, it's 40 acres, solar 60 acres will remain wooded pretty much as is, because why would we go out there if we don't need to? And, you know, in some, you know, I'm looking at designs that maybe get some of that 40 closer to the neighbors and you'll keep this thing out of their backyards to use a phrase that often makes me a little grin a little bit. And, you know, solar's a little weird, you know, it's got real big acreage, but relative to some other things, real small impact. We are, it's talking, you know, because it's effectively turned into a big meadow that's kind of like a farm if you didn't farm it, hopefully in the long term. And that's one reason I was really excited with Mike's, I didn't know Mike was doing that this on the front of the meeting that we're doing a pollinator meadow out here where the program has us doing at least silver. I don't know of anyone in that program who's done gold and platinum certifications. And one of the challenges with that level is that it requires you to install clear water pond resources around the site. So we, but we may have, I mean, obviously you might as Amherst is our hometown here. So we're looking at ways that we may be able to do that within the wetland, you know, not maybe within the wetland systems, that's a step too far. Perhaps you guys would have to tell me, but you know, maybe in and around the site, but of course we have to be hyper concerned as a developer of creating a wetland, you know, in a property. And I'd expect that to be like a well and a, you know, make a pond out of it, but it's just things that we've got the opportunity here and we've got the acreage to do so far as what our array area looks like and how that plays into the wetland area. So I couldn't have been more excited about a far as be conversation to start the meeting. So I guess with that, you know, I'm just trying to introduce the project to folks and we talked with a bunch of the town staff in the last week, one yesterday and then I believe one group, one group yesterday and one group the week before. And then I just wanted to get this in your brain so let it marinate a little while. Yep, much appreciated. And yeah, obviously there's gonna be a whole bunch of more discussion about this as we sort of move forward. So Dave, you have a comment or question? Yeah, I appreciate the brief overview. I missed, I had to step away from the computer for a few minutes, but I missed the introduction. I wondered whether you covered, you know, how much of this site is estimated in priority habitat? I presume that's one of your considerations. The site is not in any NHSP priority habitat. Okay, the other piece you mentioned, you know, this is like a 60, 40. So the site is about a hundred acres, you're proposing about 60, was it 40 acres of solar? Yes, there are about a 60, 40 split. Is there any consideration of putting the remaining 40% of the property in some sort of permanent preservation? That's a question I know I absolutely can't touch for WD Coles because I know that, you know, they take care of their land and they manage it, you know, all in-house. I will say the only possible thing, and this is not something we're offering at this point, my rights to the property only go so far as my lease option and a special permit attached to it. So I think I'd wanna pull in WD Coles for that conversation and let them lead because in this design where we only use like this 40 acres a little further away from the neighbors, by example, you will lease what we need and we won't lease what we don't. So that's a, I know it's come up, I know it's been in people's headspaces, but I think I've gotta let Cindy and Coles take the lead on that for now as we figure out the right balance of this property. Well, it might be nice if you had the conversation with WD Coles. The other thing I was gonna mention and perhaps it came up earlier is, you know, for the commission, certainly in a broader scale for the ZBA impacts to neighborhoods and abutting property owners are a major concern, but I would just remind you as I'm sure you're aware, but for the Conservation Commission, giving the neighbors a larger setback or buffer at the expense of wetlands and other buffers is really not a trade-off that the commission really looks at. So the job of the commission, the job of conservation staff is really to protect the resource areas. So that's a fine line you're gonna have to walk, but as I heard you describe, hey, could we give the neighbors a larger buffer? That's really not something that the commission generally considers in their authority to protect them and their job is to protect wetlands and resource areas. So just a reminder. Yes, sir. Evan, I was just gonna, in my head, when you said that solar is fairly low impact, that generally may be true, but in this case, when you're removing 40 acres of tree cover, I would point out that that's not minimal. That's quite extensive. I agree, yes, ma'am. And those trees sequester a lot of carbon. So I actually normally am doing sustainability work. So I am very much a supporter of solar. However, I also feel that there's a lot of value to carbon sequestration of trees. And so I don't know, and this is maybe not specifically relevant to the commission, but I do think it's relevant to the project. I know that you were asked, you all were asked for some of the data in terms of how much carbon offsets there were from installing renewable energy, but I'm wondering in terms of what you're losing from that amount of tree canopy, what you're trading off, because I don't think that calculation was done. At least I didn't hear it. Do you want me to jump in, Evan? Sure, if you want to, yes, ma'am. Yeah, so, Stephanie, I was curious about that right after we had our meeting. And so I went ahead and did those calculations and was working on that today. I did run the numbers that includes forest clearing and that initial release when it's cleared and calculated the net solar lifetime reduction. And there still is significant. It's still much more carbon is still sequestered through the solar project. The net solar lifetime CO2 reductions would be roughly 100,000 tons of CO2. And in terms of forest acres preserved, that's equivalent to 685 acres of forest preserved. So compared to 40 acres versus 685, that would be the comparison I would draw. Thank you, yeah. Yeah, and while I too am interested in that general topic because it's definitely an interesting debate about where solar should get sighted and all of that. Yeah, kind of like what Dave was saying, we have our certain purview here and our specific purview is related to the wetlands protection piece, regardless of what our feelings are on if this is an appropriate trade-off there. That being said, Stephanie, I am very sympathetic to those discussions. Yeah, and I think, I mean, it's hard. We almost have to put blinders on in this situation and really look for the wetland, protecting the wetland, which is difficult, so. Yes, ma'am. And I would say, I don't expect that to shade your judgment on like, we're not gonna do anything that's gonna threaten the wetland. Like that's never a line we approach or cross. But I do like to, when I go to a conservation commission and I ask for any buffer use at all, I do it out of some kind of need. If it's a crossing, obviously that's pretty obvious, but I won't ask for it for no particular reason, just because it would be nice to have the acreage back. So I do, I just, I just try to demonstrate there's a reason to ask for it rather than just more acreage is better for solar rights. I'll never turn down acreage, but generally won't ask for it if I don't need it. If anyone have any, I guess other questions, I'm happy to stay here all night, but I do thank everyone for their time. Yeah, I mean, need is an interesting word because yeah, I mean, smaller is always an option. And so there are, yeah, some projects are too big for sites and so, but that's not necessarily our purview either. Yes, I will say, I will admit to some fusing of need and want in that gray territory. Yep, but for us it's, yeah, wetlands first and foremost and all of that, so. Okay, so I do see at least one person from the public has a comment, but do any of the other commissioners have anything they want to add at this point? Okay, so not hearing that. So Kate, you should be able to speak at this point. You might have to unmute yourself though. Hi, thanks. Can you hear me? We can, Kate. Great, Kate Sims speaking as a resident of Amherst now, just putting on my hat as a member of the public. I was just wondering if you can specify what the parcel number is for this project. That wasn't really clear from the presentation exactly where the project is. And then I also had another question. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yep, I'll just jump in. That's nine B11, nine B12. And nine D27. I just had it pulled up, Evan. Okay, great. It's very rude and it's behind a number of other, of current residences. I can't remember more specifically, Jeff. Before we do any, like Kate, I know you have another question, but just before we do more public comments, Brett, do you want to clarify that this is not an open hearing and that we are expecting an NOI and open hearings up on this? Do you want to just clarify the process so that people understand where we are? Yeah, I mean, so as I think we started off, this is just an open discussion that we're having. And so comments from the public are perfectly welcome at this point, but yeah, there's no decisions. We actually don't even have anything formal in front of us at this point. So until we get that, there's not really much that we can do. So anything else, Jen, or is that about it? That was it, thanks. I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Sorry, Kate, go ahead. Okay, got it, got it. Yes, I understand that this is not a public hearing. I just had a question about what the trails and conservation use are currently on that land as something to also think about, just because it does seem that that's part of the mission of the Conservation Commission as well. It's not just as a commission, right? It's not just limited to wetlands. It's also protection of trails and public use. And so I was just curious as to what the current public use of that is. And then I guess also I was surprised that it doesn't overlap with the critical habitat or priority habitat. And so just wondering what has been mapped in terms of species, even if they're not endangered on those properties. Thanks. Yeah, and Kate, well, we obviously do have a strong interest in broader conservation and recreation, all of that. These are private lands that we're talking about. So that is outside of our jurisdiction. We can definitely provide suggestions and thoughts on that, but we have no purview over that specifically. But Evan, what about that last piece that Kate was talking about, but the potential of other species? So no NHSP maps on the site. I believe it's in the Biomap critical natural landscape layer. That's pretty expansive, but also it was based off of, I believe, and maybe the core habitat layer due to the large forest over in Pelham. But otherwise those aren't particularly regulatory layers. They just come up in the solar program in the regs there for styles of work you do in those areas. Otherwise it's a, I mean, private property with coals, as you said, and otherwise working forest like much of their land. Yeah, but it is currently open just through the generosity of coals. So it is an important recreational area. I'm sure the neighbors use it on a regular basis. Yeah, I guess if Mr. Shane Vajano is on the call here, I guess I would ask him to describe the land use, but I think you've got it down pretty well. It's private land that does, I'm sure, occasionally be used by the community. More than occasional, but yeah, it's used. There's a lot of trails and I know the neighbors use it a lot. But yeah, again, private land and coals is very generous with their allowing a lot of public access. So, but yeah, I don't know if Shane, if you have anything you could raise your hand or if there's anybody else from the public who has anything else they'd like to add. So and Tim, okay, Tim, you should be able to speak when you so desire. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. A question and actually two questions. First of all, what does NOI mean exactly? That's the easy question. The second, isn't Adams Brook considered core habitat? So yeah, the easy one, Tim, is notice of intent. And so it is a couple of the different processes that we have within the general wetlands protection laws of how we can enforce and approve activities that are happening that could potentially be impacting wetlands. And so notice of intent is our stronger one and RDA is another option. Request for determination of activity. Lookability. Lookability, damn, that was close. Yep. And then Jen, do you know about the, looks like you were nodding about Adams Brook. Yeah, so Adams Brook is a great clear cold water stream with really high water quality and great both existing and future habitat potential. And it is under the jurisdiction of all the protections that we've kind of been both skirting around and kind of cutting to the middle to without like a broader discussion during this conversation. So when we're talking about buffers, that's really like how far away from all of these wetland and water resources, including Adams Brook, we're going to be doing any disturb, like making any disturbances. So that is 100% both protected and we are very aware of the value of that resource here. Yeah, and all resources are valuable but some are more valuable than others. And so we do have different levels of protection time depending on what it specifically it is. And so we'd have to get into details about that, which won't be tonight, but that will come. For your comfort there at the Brooks and moving bodies of water, typically have a 200 foot sacrosanct, no touch zone. The Brook is generally about 250 to 300 feet to the east of the property, functionally fully protected in the interim. I don't think the panels will be anywhere closer than 250 to 300 to that Brook. Yeah, and also as it pertains, I mean, I don't know Tim, how long you've been listening, but Stephanie mentioned somewhere in this conversation that we'd really be looking closely at stormwater runoff calcs calculations. And so that takes into account like when you remove the forest cover and you have, you assume more water flowing off the surface towards Adams Brook, depending on where you are on the site. That's something that we take into consideration as well. So not only are we protecting like any disturbance in some buffer from the stream, we're also considering how we're changing flow to the stream. Okay, so anything else, Tim, or do that address your questions? No, that address them. I've been here since seven, but... Thank you, I'm sorry. My primary concern would be runoff from the entire project. I mean, it does all slope down. It is all watershed for Adams Brook. And that's where everything's gonna wind up regardless of the size of your buffer unless you've adequately protected. Understood. And I think Stephanie kind of sliced to the heart of the issue with that and saying that stormwater calcs are gonna be very closely inspected and probably subject. I mean, we still have to decide this, but we will strongly consider having a third party review. There will be a third party review. You guys, the ZBA, everyone will be digging into the details. Yeah, I'd be shocked if there wasn't. So I'm definitely in that camp. Yeah, absolutely. Yep, so everything we can do, Tim, to make sure everything is up to spec we're gonna do. Thank you. And yeah, please keep us honest. I'm sure you will, so I appreciate it. Okay, any other comments from the public or any other comments from other commissioners at this point? Okay, so Evan and Camille, I think that's unless you two have anything else, thank you for visiting tonight. And yeah, we'll look forward to seeing something from you in the future and then we can have further discussions. Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much for your time. Bye. Bye-bye. Okay. Just kind of looking down our list, Stephanie, are we getting close to the bottom here? I think so. Let me just sort of double check. I'm sorry, I'm trying to navigate my, all of Erin's files, the way she has them laid out. We only have 15 more minutes before Jen turns into a pumpkin. So literally, yeah, it's true. Yeah, you're not alone. I think, let's see, what else do we have? I feel like we've gone through everything. Yeah, I know that I saw a... I don't think we have any... We had a report, but that just... There's a monitoring, it's just a monitoring report. You all had access to that. Do you want me to put it up on the screen? No, that looked fine. It's not a very exciting one. That's okay, that's the kind of you like. Yes, exactly. And I don't think there weren't any emergency certs. I don't think so. I don't know that there was anything else. Okay, so... I feel like we've gotten through everything. Excellent. So thank you so much, Stephanie, for helping guiding us tonight and... Thanks for all the efficiency, Brett. I know that's hard work. Yes. Yeah, you were great. Thank you. For the benefit of us all. So, but yes, you're most welcome. So I'm looking for a final motion. Well, we're adjourned this meeting on the Amherst Conservation Commission. Seconded. Excellent. So voice vote, Larry. Yes. Oh, before you all go. Erin had her baby. Had the baby. Oh, so one sec. So, Jen. I got it. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. That's okay. No, that's awesome. It was too exciting not to share. And mom and baby are healthy. They look fabulous. Absolutely fantastic. Oh, do you have pictures? Go, Erin. Well, I have a picture, but I don't know that Erin wants me to share it. Sorry. No, no, no, that's fine. I'm sure she'll get you one. Yeah, so a boy or girl or any details or a boy? A little boy. I don't have any details. Okay. Yeah. So that's her second. Her. Yeah. She has a son now. So her second. Yeah. So she has two boys. Yeah. Cool. Yay. Good for her. So very exciting. Yes. So. And it also puts a lot of things in perspective. So especially right now, my dog is super excited. It's hilarious. It's been like groaning this whole meeting. I keep having to mute myself. That's okay. My older dog is snoring. So I want you to just look at him. And then we got to go, were those real bees that I heard from that? The researcher, what was the bee sound? I didn't know. I heard that too, David. I was wondering. I wondered if it was like something. Yeah, I was like, wow. I thought the same thing. I was like, is this bee static that I'm listening to? He just had. He had it in the background. I know that I was contacted by another faculty member at UMass. So I was going through my phone and I got to find it tomorrow. I sometimes I just can't find everything on my iPhone. It's easier to find it in my inbox at work. So, yeah, Joan Millam is another bee researcher in the department. So it could potentially be her as well. Yeah. That was very funny. Yeah, I thought he was in a hive. That's what it sounded like. I had the same exact thought. So funny. So and I just want to say the only reason I asked that question about the solar project was because it wasn't a formal hearing, because it wasn't a formal discussion and just for my own, because I had to leave the meeting early the other day and I didn't get to ask that question. So I think we're all interested to know that stuff. Yeah. Yeah, so yeah. What was your question stuff? Did I miss that one? Oh, so the trade off, you know, they're installing solar, you know, for the renewable bed. What about the carbon sequestration? So yeah. So that's what I was wondering. Common debate out there. Yes. Yes, absolutely. I'm going for a while. I apologize too. Sometimes I turn off my camera because it's the only time I get to eat dinner because I got home from work late. I do that a lot too, Dave. I feel bad, but I just I'm sitting here with the chips. And a peanut butter sandwich is dinner tonight. So, oh my understood myself. It's quite the cook, Dave. So, yeah, amazing cuisine. Good night, everyone. Good night all. Thanks, everyone. See you soon. Bye.