 Okay. So I think we are live now and I think we are recording. Today is September 23rd, 2020. This is the Amherst conservation committee meeting. So starting off with comments for me and I have none. So. Dave, do we have anything that you want to add at this point? I do not tonight. I know you've got a really tight schedule and a full agenda. So unless there are any questions from the commission, I think I will pass tonight. Okay. So hearing none, Aaron, would you like to kick off? Sure. Can you guys see my screen? Yes. Okay. So I will jump into. We have a land use application. Okay. So Dave and I reviewed this earlier today and. Our recommendation would be to allow it. It's 10 people for a. Plant and tree studies walk on October 3rd. It is on the Robert Frost trail. Between Pratt corner and Weathersfield road. 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. That seems, That's a lot of work. I think that's a lot of work. Pretty benign. And this is from a organized group. So dear paths, nature programs. So do they have insurance and all that sort of stuff there? I don't know if they have insurance. People for this. Can I jump in? I presume they are charging for this, but we could certainly check on the insurance issue. But it's one of those things that. To be honest, I'm, I'm. I'm glad they did reach out to us. I think. Events happen and on trails and conservation areas all over. Massachusetts and. People don't really check in. So this was kind of one of those borderline cases where I'm glad they took the high road and checked with us. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. It might be the type of thing. If the commission is comfortable with it. You could. One option would be to approve it with the condition that they show us that they are. Uninsured organization for this type of event. I agree. I agree. If anything bad goes anything bad happens. I mean, I, I agree. It looks benign. Looks great. And I'm going to say, yeah, this looks like the kind of thing we should be encouraging in terms of like learning about the natural spaces that we have. Yeah, I agree. I agree with Dave though. My initial thought was how, how, how courteous have been to reach out to us. Because I can just imagine this happening very easily without even our acknowledgement. Yeah. I will say some years ago, and this is one of the reasons that I encouraged members years ago of the commission to kind of institute a more formal policy is that we found that there were groups using the trails and the conservation lands. Really, you know, in ways that we didn't even know were happening. And so it got a little bit out of control and didn't feel good when you found out about large events or. And so it got a little bit out of control and it didn't feel good. And so I, I think that was the reason. When you found out that people were doing this for Ducky races, you name it, we're happening all over town on conservation land. And he didn't know about until after the fact. So I agree. I think this is a good thing. We want to encourage people to go out and learn and teach about these, these natural areas. But at the same time. As Brett said, if somebody gets hurt. We are on the hook. To some degree, And most of these organizations are, but I think you could approve this contingent upon them demonstrating to us that they are insured. The only other thing I would add in that note to them is just, I mean, it's like the tiniest little thing but just they mentioned, sorry my dog is making a racket. Yeah, and at this point don't we also have a policy in general Dave about COVID related stuff so might want to remind them of that as well. Yeah, Aaron and I talked a little bit about that so she could reach out to them if the commission is comfortable with that. Yeah, Aaron and I talked a little bit about that so she could reach out to them if the commission is comfortable with the event. Adding the, you know, the requirement of insurance and just making sure that they're taking all precautions to be socially distance and wear masks etc etc. So in generally speaking, I would ordinarily invite people to attend the meeting this application came in really late and also I'm kind of unclear myself regarding kind of the COVID policy, because I know, like when it first hit we were kind of, you know, discouraging use group meetings in public, particularly on I think we've come a long way since we're having baseball games and softball games now with masks. I think we've come a long way in a couple of months. Okay, so I'll just from this point forward if somebody submit something rather than kind of being cautious of it I'll just invite them to attend and we can just review it as a group with where we can ask them any of these questions. And I feel bad for asking this but that section of the Robert Frost was actually on concom land. It doesn't feel like it is to me. Because it's going from Pratt's corner. I mean, I'm just saying if it's not in our land. This is a move point. The proposal doesn't say which section I'm having a little trouble reading. It was down below so from Pratt's corner to Weathersford. I don't know where Weathersford is. Pratt's corner is definitely shoots berry. Yeah, they may be beyond your stream on the trails between. Yeah, that makes it easy. Next item. Yeah, this may be a new point. He does say somewhere in there if you if something about recommending other sections of the trail or something like that. But yeah, I think if this isn't on Amherst land then they he should be in touch with the shoots berry concom. Okay, well I'll verify. If there'll be an Amherst or shoots berry. So, but do we need a vote or anything because I think in general what I'm hearing Aaron is that we're supportive if it isn't Amherst land. We just like to check on insurance. You know the COVID stuff and also what Anna was saying. So do you want to vote or are we good to go. Okay, I would prefer just to have a vote because I think it's one clear where they want to be and if you're okay with the event happening with those with those requirements then you could vote to to authorize it if they want to use an Amherst section. That sounds good to me. So anybody else have any questions or comments on this. Okay, so looking for a motion then. You want to do it on. All right. I make the motion to grant the deer paths nature programs. Access to conservation lands for an event that they're having on Saturday after a third. Assuming that this is in fact on Amherst conservation conservation land. A motion to approve that event. A little botch sorry, but that's my motion. And do you want to add the caveats that we said before. caveat being that prior to no approval approvals conditional on deer paths nature program showing evidence of insurance covering the event itself. And practicing COVID and no open fires practicing COVID and no open fires. Sorry, Laura. No, good. Okay, so I heard Anna has a second. So let's go ahead and vote Leroy. Hi, Jen. Hi, Larry. Hi, Anna. Hi. Oh man, everybody's like jumping around on my little list here. Laura. Jen to the UFO. Did everybody. Somebody didn't vote. Besides me, I for me. Larry. Larry. I got it. Okay. I think we got everybody. Okay, my little zoom list was like going up and down. So very confusing. Okay, good. So we're all set with that. Okay, so Aaron, did you want to move on to the seven 10 item? Or something else you'd like to hit. Um, So, um, We did have a, um, an item on at seven 10 for an informal discussion for Joe, So I talked with Dave in advance of this meeting and just because of the amount of business that we have on this agenda. Um, we think it would be a good idea for us to table that for a meeting or two until we have a more quiet agenda and we can really focus in on it. That sounds great. And so there's no big youth. No big rush on his end then. Um, no. And as a matter of fact, um, we think, you know, that, uh, there's somebody who's representing Joe for the project and we'd like to have, Maybe have him prepare a little presentation. Um, Just to kind of, um, Get you guys acquainted with what they're discussing on the land. Um, Sounds great. Yeah. Okay. So it's all about 15 minutes before seven 30. So what would you like to hit next? Um, so I would like to, um, Most of the items on our agenda tonight are. Hearing related things that we can't discuss until the actual hearing occurs, but, um, we did get a notice for, um, Aquatic vegetation treatment at the UMass pond. Um, And that was completed this past week. So just as a heads up about that. Um, There is a lot going on sort of behind the scenes. Um, as far as open space related things. I've been meeting with Brad and, um, where we have a site visit in the works to look at some items. We have, um, some permitting on the horizon for some work on conservation lands. And, um, I've been kind of working behind the scenes, uh, with Dave. And, um, Basically looking at some, some things like Jen had mentioned at the last meeting, um, The trails map needs revision. And so, um, I've been working to, um, Simplify that, break it out into sections of town, recreate it because the old map was pretty obsolete. Um, And kind of bring it up to be more readable and, um, Also update it with, because the last time it was updated was 2018. So, um, bring it up to speed with our new acquisitions or any new trails that we've, um, Created since that time we're parking areas and stuff like that. Aaron, I want to let you know that, uh, in my department over at UMass, we have a GIS class every semester and they're always looking for projects. So if there are things that you think would be appropriate for undergrads, you know, gotta be careful what you give them. Um, you know, let me know and I'd be happy to facilitate that. I'll let you know when the call comes out for the next round of proposals. Yeah, that's great. Um, We were approached by somebody who may or may not be interested in an internship this fall. Um, I met with them and they were going to get back to me. I haven't heard from them yet, but, um, That's really good to know. And, um, what department is that? Um, Brett. Environmental conservation. And one of the people who teach that, um, I don't know if forest teachers fall or spring, but he's also in geography. Sounds good. I don't know, Dave, did you have anything you wanted to add since we have about 10 minutes before our first hearing? Uh, filler. Usually I'm quite good at filler, but I'm, I'm, I feel a little under unprepared tonight. Um, yeah. No, Aaron, you and I didn't get to chat about maps. But yes, I did have a long conversation with Mike Warner, who is our, um, one of our, our main GIS coordinators in the IT department today. And, um, yeah, I think Aaron has a lot of great ideas about mapping. And, um, I think we're all in agreement that, uh, the trail map that the town has been using for a long time, the trail and open space map needs. Needs a real refresher from, from top to bottom. So I think that's kind of in the works. Um, in about. Five minutes online. I realized that, you know, I was not seeing at least five acquisitions. That the town has made in the last year, year and a half. That are not even on the map. So yeah, there's, there's quite a bit of work to be done there. So, Dave, could you, could you, do you know off the top of your head, which ones those are? I do. I sent them to Mike and Mike is going to update them with the assessor's office. Uh, ASAP. Oh, okay. So he will. Typically the assessors has to get involved in that process just to confirm that, um, they have that information as well. So. Okay. So that is in process as of about three o'clock this afternoon. This is really minor Pidley, um, filler, but just to let you know on the concom webpage, Aaron. Uh, the upcoming meetings are in April 8th and April 22nd. So I'm not quite sure who updates that. Oh yeah. Um, So yeah, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be updated on that page. And I'm not sure who's going to update that. Um, so, um, Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be updated on that page. And I don't have the, um, Authority to go in and edit it. And I know that the last time I talked with Briana about some of those items, they were in the process of launching. Um, a new, new website pages for the town. I mean, it's been kind of a while, but I realized COVID is kind of thrown at everybody. So it could just be that, um, You know, our plan to do that, uh, had to get pushed aside for more urgent things. But, um, I've been meaning to actually talk with Dave about that as well, because, um, there are definitely some other things on there that need to be, um, updated forms and things. Um, that still have Beth's contact information. So. Yeah. Why don't you reach out to Briana and just get an update on, on where we are with kind of the overall changes to the website, because I think at some point it was kind of decided, don't invest too much time, energy in the old website, because we're going to have a pretty, pretty dramatic new site. And that may go. Exactly. Yeah. Briana who does a lot of that work for the IT department. Yeah. No problem. And if we're looking for more filler, I just want to say thank you, Aaron, for forwarding that video on Amethyst Brook. Um, I kind of skipped through it, but it was definitely cool to see that and lots of neat stuff in there. Yeah, that was really interesting. I was actually looking at, um, an aerial image. Um, and I was like, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. As we kind of Google Earth image. And I had no idea there's, there's like a huge agricultural field or something right behind Amethyst Brook, right behind the Amethyst Brook property. Yeah. It's really interesting. There's a lot going on in that area. Yeah. I think that's, is that Kellogg babe or somebody, Dr. Kellogg or. I don't remember who owns that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Dr. Hess is a large animal vet. And he farms, uh, To the east of, uh, Northeast street after the Amethyst farm. And then the next farm over is Dr. Hess. It's Hess McWilliams is the practice. Cause my friend is Rose McWilliams. One of the things that I found interesting on that, on that watching that video was that. I happened to have a, or at least I gave it to my son. And it's a very different story. I was there for about 15 years, and I just went to the Amethyst farm. And we had a company called, um, a farmer's fly ride corporation. And which no longer exists. And so forth. They were talking about where, where it actually, where the place was and so forth. I found that very interesting. The other thing from the video, the video was done by a friend of mine, a colleague, Brian Yellen at UMass. And, uh, for those of you who watched Brian did pose. I happened to live fairly near Brian and bumped into him yesterday or the day before and we think we might have come to a conclusion on that mystery which is there are some ice ponds back in the woods north of Pellum Road adjacent to the Amethyst Brook and I'm thinking the canal might have fed those ice ponds so we're going to do a little more research on that but if you're out there hiking check out that canal that leads from the Amethyst Brook it's pretty amazing it's very long it's very well engineered so quite quite astounding what was done by hand back in the day. Yeah I've seen it for a year that it was draining something I didn't realize that that was actually being used to feed something so it's crazy that the hydrology works that way. Yeah we're not sure we we just we're gonna take a hard look at that but I know where the ice ponds were and I've I've walked them I've never followed that canal the whole length to see if a a meets b but we're going to check it out. I have heard of digging canals. We need a lighter to float ice too in the winter so that could be another reason Dave if they were trying to get ice from the ponds back towards Amherst Center. Sorry Larry go ahead. All I was saying is we need we need to light our study. Another where we could just go hike in the woods. The hike is cheaper last time I checked. And more fun. Yeah I'm a data geek but I still think that the hike is more fun too so okay so we still have a couple more minutes anybody see anything interesting lately on any of our town lands or I'm still waiting for the big overhang on Amethyst Broke to fall down but it hasn't yet it's amazing it's still staying there. There seems like there are more bridges at Elf Meadow is that something Brad and Tyler did recently not bridges like like plank mud crossings they're not really streamed crossings. I will say I just read a report from Brad this morning um Brad Brad and Tyler and and we we had a couple of seasonals two seasonals come on late given COVID but they've been they've been getting a lot done and yeah they um they have been re re-planking a lot of um Bob bridging. Yeah yeah thank you. What you you saw we you know as you know we have this this fairly large grant with the Castro trust to improve the Robert Frost trail and COVID again through it through a monkey wrench and that but they're trying to get as much work as they can done on that grant before the snow flies because I think we have to finish it by June 30th of 21 um so yeah it was yeah it was rough out there in in March and April it was so muddy and people were still so determined to go outside that they were just ignoring it and and wrecking it and so it was really nice to I hadn't been out there in a while and I went back out and everything's bridged or or planked everything is like protected it looks really good it did. So we have somebody from the public who has our hand up so um Tara uh you should be able to talk now if you want and if you want to add some filler we have a another just another couple of minutes and we're going to get going here. Oh thank you I just wanted to let the um let Erin know that I was here I was I've never done this before and I didn't see myself so I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I was here. Thank you. I think this is a first. I usually I usually try to compile a lot of other business for us to talk about but we have such an intense agenda tonight and I figured we'd be busy talking. We can all take a really deep breath before we get into our busy agenda it's all good. In general Erin why do we start at seven thirty? Could we start earlier if we so desired her? I have an idea. Yeah I mean we could schedule hearings earlier it's just you know typically for reporting purposes just gives us a little extra time in advance to cover things before everybody's tired but um not something I'm opposed to for sure. Brett is anybody representing to Fino here? At least one person is so yeah so why don't we get them set up? So if you're here for Tefino so Ted I assume that you are so I'm promoting Ted you to a panelist. So is there anybody else here for the Tefino 730 who's part of the applicant or representative of the applicant? No. Okay. Okay so I have 730 on my clock so why don't we go ahead and get going and so this is a continuation of Tefino Associates construction for single-family housing. We have a bunch of different ones a lot one two five six seven and eight. We have different pieces that have been submitted at this point and we always know new at some point we will need to separate these these are separate no why so there's no doubt about that. Okay and so Ted would you like to start off by giving us an update about where you're at? I know that there's different progress depending on which parcel we're talking about as well. Yes so lots one and two we would like to table for the moment. I don't know what the term is. Erin used the term in the last meeting about having putting the those NOIs in a state that would require when we want to address them again that we would have to do a butter notification again. But one and two are clearly a little bit more challenging so we need to think about those. But we are prepared to talk about five six seven and eight which we had Berkshire design prepare plans with grading on them and with the PVP with the vernal pool buffers shown and what our proposed buildings are. So I'm prepared to talk about lots five six and seven eight tonight. Okay thank you and can you also just give us a quick update Ted about what work has gone on on five six seven and eight since we last talked and then we'll have Erin go and then we'll take a look at the plans. We have done no work on five six seven or eight. I mean planning work not actual site work. Well we have the only planning work that we've done is we've had a house plan put on to each plan. We've shown the grading around each of the plans so that we can see that we can resolve the grading without needing to go beyond the 100 foot without violating the 100 foot vernal pool buffer. You've changed the where the houses are on the lot. You've changed from what they were. Yeah you moved the buildings. Yeah we moved the buildings you know the the the statutory front setback is 25 feet in this zone. The the setbacks by covenant in the neighborhood front setback is 40 feet and all of these houses are now between 25 and 40 feet from the front lot line and the plans indicate each plan indicates how far the front of the house is from the front lot line. Okay and Ted can you also just remind us I think I know the answer but can you just remind us of how the vernal pool was treated how you made the buffer and how you added the yeah how you made the outline and how you added the buffer. So the vernal pool was identified by Kristen McDonough from SWCA and those points were were plotted and then given to Berkshire Design and Mike Lou from Berkshire Design then took those vernal pool points and to create a buffer you swing an arc from each of the lines and then the intersecting arcs 100 foot arcs from those lines form the buffer and he then superimposed that buffer that PVP buffer onto the plan while leaving on the the the bbw buffer that was already on the plan and the bbw buffer shows a 30 no disturbed the 50 building setback and the 100 foot bbw wetland buffer. Okay thank you Ted. Okay so um yeah we have plans that we can definitely look at but Erin I know you have some stuff that you'd like to add as well before we move forward. So I guess just on lots one and two I know Ted you had mentioned you'd like to re-notify a butters and republish the legal ad. Do you have some idea of how much time you might need just because kind of leaving an application in a limbo is not something I'm like to do but you know if we could kind of come up with a a date or a proximate window of time how long you might need then that will help me to make sure that they're tracked. I will um I don't have an answer for you at the moment uh the I was instructed by the owners to resolve these four and then once we see how these resolve to get back to them and then they'll make a decision about how they want me to proceed on the other two. So I can give you an answer relatively quickly but I'm just not prepared to give you an answer in this meeting. Okay but we're not continuing the hearing for those two at this point. No we're not going to continue the hearing because I think can you remind me of the term that you used last time? It was you said that they need to be suspended or I just don't remember the actual goal. I was just suggesting because we did we were still continuing I was just suggesting that if we if we go up to a year on continuations that we just republish and re-notify um a butters because I think a lot of a butters may have and the public may have just kind of lost track of it because it's been continued so many times. But and I and we're happy to do that for one and two. Okay. I just don't know exactly how the owners want to proceed but I will I will find out and have an answer for you Erin quickly and for the conservation commission at the next meeting. Okay so we won't continue for now we'll just await when republication will be if it happens. That makes sense and maybe by the next meeting you could give us an update on that or something. I'd be happy to. Okay so just technically for tonight Erin um what should we do with one and two? I wouldn't do anything I would just take no action and just have Ted get back to us and if we're not continuing those hearings then we'll have to a butters will be re-notified and a legal ad will be reposted for those and they'll basically um we'll reopen the public hearing at that point for those. Okay I didn't realize we could just do no action. Okay great. I did send the plans the revised plans that we received to the board and to town council um I just haven't had a chance to look at them because I was busy with site visits yesterday and today and meeting prep um and I was trying to issue that ever source permit believe it or not still trying to issue that which got out today um so I just didn't know if the commission had a chance to review the plans um if anybody wanted more time but I can pull up the plan so that we can take a look at them in case you know anybody wants to take action. Now I know I've had a chance to look at them I think Larry said you said you had a chance to look at them. What about other people are you okay moving forward or do you want more time? I mean I'm I can tell you I'm not really prepared to um offer orders of conditions you know recommended conditions tonight but if the board wants to you know take the bull by the horns on that it's totally your call. Yeah sorry for the silence Brett I was just opening them up and looking to see like if I feel like I can digest enough um now in in real time or if I need more time so um I was looking hard sorry for the silence. No problem I mean most of them are relatively straightforward I think the other ones are more complicated. These are these look pretty clear yep so I appreciate that. I mean some of these are very far from the um from the vernal pool so right I'm not quite sure. What I find confusing about these plans is I thought that the vernal pool boundary started at the edge of the bvw that the vernal pool was in. I thought that was in our bylaw I thought that that was brought up or something at one point. I think I'm the one who brought that up and I was corrected at the last meeting. I thought we looked it up in the bylaw and actually found it. So can you just reiterate Ted what you I know you did this earlier but uh exactly how the the boundary was where the boundary is coming from so somebody was out there and at one point it was just up the center of the vernal pool but now you have a boundary around the no Kristen McDonough when she did the survey she shot gps points um of the limits of the vernal pool. Those gps points were then um plotted and and um and given to Berkshire Design who then put they were the Berkshire Design did the original plan for the original um overall development uh notice of intent you know so long ago and so they have all the data so he uh Mike Lu then plotted the vernal pool data from Kristen McDonough onto the existing plan and then added the 100 foot vernal pool buffer around the vernal pool that Kristen McDonough plotted does that make sense that makes sense to me yeah I'm just confused because the vernal pool looks square and the buffer looks round um and we haven't really seen I I mean I thought I thought that we had figured at the last meeting that the in the bylaw that the boundary of the vernal pool was coincident with the boundary of the bbw but I I mean um I guess I'm just confused because the vernal pool looks like it's in a square shape and I've never seen I mean I don't know that that's only because that one point do you have I also sent you an overall plan Erin do you have that plan I you know I don't think we've seen that overall plan with the vernal pool identified boundaries before that's new for us yeah I I don't I think I just got a set of four plans um but let me no there was one that had the overall thing with the vernal pool on it but I I had some questions about that because I mean I wasn't sure that we had seen that before and whether it was actually valid you saw it in the slight you saw it in the slightly different form because it was included in the report that Kristen submitted with her that that we submitted for uh at the last or the prior meeting I got the impression it was primarily the wetlands rather than just identifying the boundaries of the vernal pool if you if you see on this plan if you can zoom in a little more you can see that the vernal pool is actually separately delineated I've seen that and I look at your plan but I didn't realize we had seen that before in a in a slightly different form it was included in the in the uh report that Kristen McDonough that we submitted that Kristen McDonough prepared and we submitted at a prior meeting it was like on it was there was a series of diagrams and that was one of the diagrams where she plotted the vernal pool the vernal pool report Ted yes okay and if anybody wants to view that that's under the current applications um under the conservation commission web page that vernal pool report and so Ted or Aaron what is which line actually demarcates the vernal pool on here is that that solid purple yes what's large it is large I mean I've never seen a a vernal pool be distinguished from the bvw around it like that like to say that only portions of that wetland are vernal pool and the other portions are not when I guess I'm wondering what are we just saying that that within that polygon are vernal pool characteristics and outside of that those characteristics don't exist is that kind of or maybe the the limit of standing water is that kind of what that boundary is defining I believe Kristen described it in the in the report how she went about determining that the the the southern end of the bvw is never wet I think it's with the lineated and based upon plant and soils but not the presence of water I realize we might not want to read this whole thing I just wanted to see if we could take a quick look at it if anybody wants me to look at something else please stop me I just yeah and I'm not trying to you know railroad this through Erin I just want to see if we're ready to vote that's cool and if not that's fine as well but we've been dealing with this one for a while so I want to see if our exhibits here real quick and so what you were suggesting Erin was that the vernal pool is not defined by the standing water but I mean I would assume that's what it would be granted that's hard to tell different times a year um going down it's a little bit lower when you're going yeah I think it's there it is there's one you know one of the things I notice about that too it says the subscript down there says it's potential vernal pool and I always had the question then about whether that was really the vernal pool or whether the whole wetlands was the vernal pool I'm I'm it's not clear to me what the result yeah and that was one of the questions I had too about how we want to demarcate that and I think that the applicant is doing that so you know I mean they're being you know it's being treated as a vernal pool but it's not necessarily going to be listed as vernal pool on the plans and so I don't know if we're comfortable with that or not I have another concern as well about the layout and some of those and that is that uh that uh what happens when the owner comes in and builds that property in terms of his encroachment on the vernal pool boundaries yeah I mean that's what we're I mean they're not going to get within a hundred feet of that the Larry so I'm not quite sure what the so the lot line the lot line extends so it concludes a lot of the the area with inside that vernal pool boundary what's a lot are we going to impose that they can't go into that zone they cannot build in there definitely correct are they what they you know they could put a shed in there that's so how is that going to be defined they want to put a shed in there they have to do an NOI and come in front of us sorry I was reading while Larry was talking Larry are you talking about if the app if the individual who buys the house wants to then put in shed or some other item in their backyard exactly you know yeah I mean I think we would have to come up with some kind of um monumentation or you know something that would be a strong indicator to um to them for example in lot eight half the over half the property is outside of what they can get into right but I mean that's not that happens that people can't expand onto parts of their land because they're protected by well in the protection act I realize that but I this is over half the property being outside of where they could use it that's an interesting issue yeah I mean boulders I mean it's definitely in my mind and that kind of takes care of that so I mean they just they're not going to go past those lines that we demarcate I think that if anybody wants who lives in these houses wants to do anything beyond within that 100 foot journal pool buffer they're gonna have to do what's required in the wetlands regulations which are required that they file a requested determination of applicability if they want to do a fence or or an outbuilding in that area I think that if you're allowed to do things in the buffer zone but you just you have to appear before you guys and have you guys check up that you don't think it's going to be doing it having it you know a negative effect the following activities in the buffer zone are presumed not to alter a resource area but still require a minimum of a filing of a request for determination in order for the commission to determine whether this presumption applies construction or installation of fences or structures not requiring a building permit but but when we when we approve this if we do can we make sure that those kind of limitations are indicated on the deed so that this is actually a matter of record I don't know if we can do it on the deed I mean again that's why you know the monumentation out in the in the field is my preference because I'm not even sure a lot of landowners read their deeds I can confirm that virtually none do but there will be a recorded notice of I mean excuse me a order of conditions but yeah I mean your issue is very valid Larry and yes I'm going to definitely need to deal with so Erin you're still hunting for the renal pool definition um I am because I think that's important and I remember that we found it last time while we were in the hearing and presumptions where a proposed activity involves removing filling dredging otherwise altering seasonal wetland sorry I was just trying to find it um I thought that that it was we had defined that it was coincident if it was within a bvw that the boundaries were coincident with the bvw that it was located within but I I mean it's hard to put your finger on it in the middle of a hearing to locate that so if you have a vernal pool in the middle of a giant wetland then the whole wetland becomes vernal pool but it doesn't quite make sense to me I'm just saying that that's what I recall being in the regulations I'm not stating whether that's uh for sure or not I'm just saying I think I thought that's what I recalled the regulations saying um I mean from my perspective it's difficult to say if you have a wetland system or a um an identified wetland unless there's a very well-defined basin within the wetland you know that it's difficult to identify the boundaries of the vernal pool within that bvw and that might be why that language was the way it was in the bylaw but um what boundary right now has been certified as a vernal pool well I don't think it has been certified at all in the literal sense can we take action on it if it hasn't been certified yeah I mean it's not like a vernal pool has to be certified in order for us to um file a permit we can assume that it's a vernal pool whether it's certified or not yeah that might be the other way yeah I don't mean to put um words into your mouth Larry I don't think whether or not it's certified is a thing um because that's another level but just whether or not it's demarcated on the map and listed you know the boundaries are approved I think it's a bigger issue I think certified is something that the state actually has to do yeah I agree on that that because the piece that I remember last time about the bvw was related to what you guys were doing Ted where you were just going to presume that that outer boundary was the same that's right I think I suggested that and I was and I think I was corrected and I'm looking at page 29 2d and it says the boundary of a seasonal wetland which is contains which is vernal pool falls under that category uh is the is defined as one of the following and I Kristen um identified the borders as being from the presence of water stain leave which is the third criteria criterion page 29 sorry I'm just looking because we have a whole section on it to 2d like in delta that seems fairly straightforward not easy but so it sounds like it's one of those one of the following so it could be defined by the hydroxyl on the site if there's a if there's a vernal pool you could say the limit of the vernal pool is where you're finding hydroxyls or 100 year flood extent or the presence of flood of water stain leaves or ponding presence of ponding once again it's really difficult for us to confirm this I mean I I went out there and took pictures with Ted late in the season took a lot of pictures um right around the time that we got the report from um Kristen or you know from Ted through Kristen um but I didn't necessarily feel like we were verifying the boundary of the vernal pool at that time um so I think that it's really it's really up to the commission whether they're comfortable taking that you know report and the extent of the vernal pool within the bbw as they've defined it based on the definition that we have here so just to be clear who was Kristen working for the applicant yes okay yeah I mean so we have a fairly easy solution to this I mean um I mean if we have any doubt I don't see why we're why why we don't just do a third party review yeah I mean certainly we could um it's difficult to do that in the fall um for a vernal pool habitat but as noted in our bylaw there's other things like the hydric soils that could be used um I mean I think this is a pretty uh liberal definition so I would defer to the commission on on you know your feeling I I don't really feel prepared to you know to offer a recommendation on this tonight um without having a little more time to review it yeah but I mean if we want to do a third party it'd be good for us yeah that's easy for us to I think vote on tonight or move forward on I agree with Brett so how are other commissioners feeling at this point um I mean so we have a couple options one we can definitely keep on talking through this one we can simply continue so be well more time a third is that we can ask for additional information personally you know a third party review seems to make perfect sense to me I said that too strongly third party review makes sense to me and again I agree and so a third party review is going to help us decide how we interpret this boundary of a seasonal wetland I think they would help us confirm where that boundary is I don't know how they're going to do it Jen um I don't know we're going to do it any better but you know they're wetland scientists and I mean that's what they do yeah so I would even if they but if you go out and confirm the the border of the the vernal pool which and the you know surrounding wetland which is great don't we still have to decide like which of these ways we're going to decide the bound like determine the boundary of the seasonal wetland slap you know vernal pool in this case I think we're legally bound by what's in there yeah and so yeah I mean it's up to interpretation to a certain extent but again they're going to have granted Jen you're you have an unfair advantage you understand this much better than the rest of us um and teach us oh yeah no no I yeah I just um I think that a third a third party kind of a third an independent opinion on the boundary of the vernal pool makes a lot of sense I don't know how we're going to do that in the middle of a severe drought in the fall so um we're talking about a long delay in order to achieve that goal and at the end of it you know chance you know there might be some discrepancies between this third party review of the vernal pool boundary and the one that we already have but we're still going to have to decide as a commission if we're going to how we're going to interpret this bylaw definition of a seasonal well and so um I guess I would say if we do a third party review we should also do our homework on on how we want to define this have we decided that vernal pool boundary is what we're agreeing on well I'm hoping Larry that that's what the third party review would help us do I agree with you that's what I'm saying I don't think we've we've decided that that's really what the boundary of the vernal pool is yet correct and part of that's related to what Jen is saying we we're having issues with the damn definition right yeah our definition is very different than like the state definition yeah I was just looking at the state definition and it's does it makes it a little easier for us well if you go further up on page 29 in one c it says vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that can find water for a minimum of two continuous spring months but lack vertebrate predators such as adult fish etc which would suggest that the vernal pool in the middle of a bbw then the the the border the limit of the vernal pool doesn't that automatically extend out to the edge of the bbw right and that and that it has to contain water for a minimum of two continuous spring months now in this case the reason that we got to the vernal pool discussion in the first place was because there was the presence of albic species right so we kind of we were kind of backing into the vernal pool discussion from a different cause but now that we have identified that there's a habitat here that is supporting these albic species what is the resource that we're trying to protect we're trying to protect the habitat for these albic species which is by the definition of the local bylaw a vernal pool or are we trying to protect the vernal pool which is a state uh there's also a there's also a you know a definition by a a wider authority and that's i think that's where the the the rub is here yeah we're legally bound to enforce both of our both of those right so i mean sorry i didn't interrupt no please go i was just saying like for example lot six is almost entirely out of the 100-foot wetlands buffer with the exception of separating both both five and six are that way well five five is a little more in the 100-foot buffer i was just thinking like let's say we assumed that the edge if we assumed that the edge of the bvw was the edge of the potential vernal pool um then that would mean house five was partially within that 100-foot boundary but like lot six is almost entirely out with the exception of the patio i agree lot seven is almost completely out with the exception of the patio yeah lot eight is almost completely out with the exception of the patio in the garage and a small sliver of the house yeah so even if we did a very conservative you know definition of the vernal pool right even if we assume right then we're still talking about yeah there's the issue is patios for most of the properties yeah i agree that's super super conservative i'm i i don't think that's what a vernal pool is yeah that's the other thing is like yeah i would fret yeah that being said i mean yeah if we wanted to take a super conservative approach we can definitely move forward with that that'd be it's one way to move forward um but you know i mean apart from that i would i'm leaning towards third party and we did have that wetland boundary that bigger boundary that was that was approved a while ago right and that was continued um in the spring of 2019 that boundary was continued i believe for three years well in boundary well so should we since these are independent you know individual excuse me no why is could we hold could we try to figure out lot five like i'm trying to think if if we want to do a third party review could we apply that to like mostly lot five or is there any way we can move any of these forward if we're going to hold some of them for a third party review because we really are talking about the spring right that's that's exactly what i was kind of getting out with yeah i'm with you erin yeah well i would also like to it's not that i disagree at all with you gen but i would also like to get a third party person on board and just get their opinion on that as well so like on the definition essentially yeah is this something that they can do now i assume they're going to say no but it would just be good to yeah i would just feel a little better so we'd have them lined up we'd get their input now and then they'd be able to do their stuff whenever it is they can do that so and just so that i'm clear the third party would be a field-based review as well or would it mostly be reviewing the plans and the by-law no that's another thing brett is we could do like a review of the plans and the by-law as the primary role of the third party review and then if they felt that a field additional field verification was necessary then we could hold it to the spring you know what if we put a decision point in there that gives us the option to not to decide whether we need to do a field verification or not can i make one other suggestion please that that in addition to reviewing the by-law and the plan that they also review um christin's report right to see if the science that she's using to arrive at her delineation is sound okay and yeah i just want to note that um different people in the public have raised their hand or put down their hand and we definitely will get to you so keep your hand up please so okay yeah so we have a bunch of different options on the table at this point um yeah and again each one of these is individual okay so um obviously we're going to keep talking but um is anybody any commissioners want to say anything we'll probably open up to the public then i'll come back to the commission okay so okay blake you should be able to speak now hi good evening blake spirco uh 53 conquered way i put my hand up before you guys mentioned the third party review we i just wanted to remind the group we said in the spring when the butters wanted the third party review we were saying we really didn't need it at that time because they're already determining it was a vernal pool and they were going to use you're going to use the wetland border as a vernal pool border and this is a big change to us uh you know listening into this that we're trying to change the borders and that's when my hand hand went up so i agree with let's someone who's uh not yes a third party who's more independent that's what i needed to say thank you yeah thank you blake and that definitely rings true in my mind too that's what i was trying to say before where there was something about that wetland boundary but we're just kind of being conservative as a way to move forward so thank you and so john um you should be able to speak at this point as well i'm coming in late i was actually uh here for a 7 40 p.m meeting and i was having a lot of trouble getting into the zoom bridge i couldn't get to the town website and then eventually i did not receive any more errors and i was able to access it so i'm late to the game but better late than ever potentially so i wasn't sure if i would be able to have my couple of minutes maybe towards the end okay so you have nothing so you're not related to this talk here um but to a to a separate issue a later hearing he's he's this seven oh okay seven we have a quick on there yeah we're still on our 7 30 so i'll just hang out until uh you kind of yes please so we will definitely get to it so i'm not sure when but we will yeah we do have four additional hearings after the tofino hearings just to kind of put in perspective there's a lot of people that are on the call okay um and yeah and i know that we're losing at least one commissioner at nine so and i just want to inform so we're okay as long as nobody has to recuse themselves and on this one i know laura you have to recuse could i make a recommendation to the board um back back when we were discussing this in the spring i had been in touch with um a colleague uh art allen he works for echo tech in wister um extremely experienced with vernal pools and i feel like he would be a an excellent peer reviewer to review the bylaw the plans and the report and give the commission some guidance with regard to if field um additional field verification is necessary to further define the vernal pool boundary within the bbw um i just feel like that would put a lot of people's minds at ease and also just give us a second opinion on how we're approaching this so that sounds great to me erin with the only caveat being assuming that there is something still within the 100 foot bvw boundary if everything is outside the 100 foot bvw boundary i'm good um but if we're but if those boundaries start to get crossed with the new uh lines that we're talking about that's where yeah i would definitely want to and are you talking about grading as well because i mean the plans show the houses outside the 100 foot but grading within 100 foot for for all of them portions of all of them yeah and so can you remind me on i mean so is it 100 foot no touch or is it 100 foot no disturb around vernal pools in the town of amherst yeah so i would want to be with that so okay okay so ted are any of these that you are proposing at this point are any of them 100 no touch outside the 100 foot wetland bvw buffer they're all they're all 100 foot no touch outside the vernal pool buffer as defined by christin okay okay in that case yeah i would say i would be much more comfortable moving forward with third party review as you're suggesting erin i don't have preference on any on any individuals i fully trust you but basically a desk review i think would be very helpful in us moving forward and they would help determine whether or not we need to do a field some field work as well so other commissioners thoughts i would concur with that i'd feel comfortable with the third party desk review and then possible follow-up field depending okay so it looks so our next meeting isn't until october 14th am i right about that so do you think that i don't know if there's any shot at having having that result by then by the next meeting i think that would be really great i mean everyone's really busy but yeah i mean i can definitely do my best um the the biggest um hold up will really be the funding so like we'll have to set up a contract with um a peer reviewer and in order for that peer that contract to begin we'd have to have funds to pay that individual so really be i'd get a quote the applicant would provide the funds to me so i could set up the contract and then as soon as we had that check deposited the individual could start the work so it's really based on like sort of the procurement process as to how fast we can move but if we can move if the applicant you know if i can get a quote before friday and the applicant can get us to check early next week we can try to make it go as quickly as we can and as part of the contract the third party will present in front of us whatever you want but yeah certainly we could have that be a um a condition of the peer review i'd prefer a written in a verbal report be perfect and so yeah anything else that we would want as direction for our third party review um i would just recommend that we make a motion and i recommend that we do that while jen is in the room because right now we have four people on the commission who can vote on this and as soon as we lose one of them we don't have a quorum anymore on this um item right so this predates laroy yes oh man it's this been going on for a year laroy just started hey i think in the spring right laroy yeah um so the only further i'm like racking my brain for any other kind of guidelines for a peer reviewer and the only other thing is i haven't checked recently erin but have there been any additional state guidelines with whether or not we can even do these delineations during the drought conditions do you know i haven't seen anything as far as i know it's pertaining to um overcoming the presumption of um if upstream is perennial is the only yeah that's what i saw too i wasn't sure i mean that was maybe a month ago and it's only gotten worse so i didn't know if they made any more stringent um changes but yeah that's the only other thing i can think of is if it's well i mean i think a peer review this time of year would not be appropriate anyway right oh yeah of course if the peer reviewer came back and said we need to their field verify this boundary or that's my recommendation we would have to wait yeah okay yeah so that should impact the desk review though so we should be okay okay yeah just racking the brain thank you yeah and so we'll ask Fletcher um to review this the notes from today so i'm sure he'll love that and then he can be fully up to speed as well okay um yeah so we can since we need to continue one we can just continue all all of these so that hopefully the applicant can come back to us next time for a date for the one and two uh and then or i guess oh we can just do no action so i guess that doesn't really matter on that one but um basically we're continuing all of these till next time so um do you have a preference on that i'd say we just continue all so oh sorry i didn't know who you were asking i have no preference okay so looking for a motion for continuation i'm just going to say for all of these um with the recommendation that we have a third part of your review with those um with those guidelines on if you want to restate those or have yeah uh i can i can attempt it um Aaron what time on the on October 14th should i say oh you're muted just saying one second um i would suggest uh 740 on October 14th okay so let's let me give this a try i move that we continue the notice of intense for Tafino Tafino associates for construction of single-family homes and assist with associated driveways utility landscaping within bucker zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at lot one conquered way lot two conquered way lot five conquered way lot six conquered way lot seven conquered way and lot number eight conquered way um with the condition that we initiate um a peer review on um the existing uh vernal pool delineation and associated report and the um town amherst town bylaw definition of a vernal pool especially relative to the surrounding wetlands um and uh guidance on how that should be interpreted in the context of um the formerly mentioned lots and conquered way and amherst mass um and i move that we continue these hearings to October 14th um at 740 p.m. second that was a champion that was fantastic i think it was great amazing no hey so voice vote larry oh wait did someone yep was seconded uh i seconded and then i went right into like gold stars which yes okay anna yes i jen hi so i for me and just for the record laroy hi oh no no uh you can't yep you can yeah so and then laura you recuse as well that's right okay okay um so ted i assume you and erin will be in communication um so obviously the sooner that we can get all of that paperwork set up the quicker we can move forward we'll do look forward to hearing from you erin and i look forward to seeing you all in the middle of october take care you too bye bye and for those from the public just remember um yeah you can always check in with erin about how things are progressing um hopefully things are done in time and we can move forward on this on the 14th okay so now we are moving on to our 740 oh wait nope uh our 735 i'm sorry um and this is a request for determination and i am just pulling up my my script here so one second the little icon is still bouncing okay i got it now this public hearing is now called order this meeting is being held as required by provisions of chapter 131 section 40 the general laws of the commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended it in the town of amherst protection by-law this is again a request for determination um for tara tara acker for construction of in-ground pool and patio over 50 feet from bordering vegetated wetland at 36 weaver circle this project is only jurisdictional under the um town of amherst wetland protection by-law and this is map 8b parcel 132 and for those who are here if you are the applicant so tara obviously you are i'll promote you to panelists and tara is there anybody else here with you that should be a panelist hello tara hello okay so um so if you wouldn't mind if you want to give a introduction to the project and then we'll turn over to erin for some additional information sure happy to thank you um so i am interested in installing an in-ground pool in a developed backyard at 36 weaver circle um i contracted erica cross to do a delineation per erin's guidance she did the delineation for us and showed us the 50-foot no-work line and then i contracted a landscape architect to see what we could do in terms of utilizing the rest of the yard to do a possible in-ground pool the landscape architect did a rough sketch of where we could put an in-ground pool that's approximately 75 feet from an intermittent stream away from from the delineation that erica cross had identified and so i'm here tonight to see if the conservation commission would allow me to move forward with an in-ground pool um i have four summers left with my daughter and then she's off to college so that's my motivation understood oh i would also add that um the landscape architect um is very familiar with projects like these i'm working with rick miller from rj miller construction and uh he would put in if if granted permission he would put in all the erosion controls straw wattles and a silt fence um at the line where there's no work permit permitted okay sounds good erin yes so i went out um and did a site visit um today so this is uh basically coming in from the driveway um and looking back at the driveway this is this fence would come out and the contractor would be accessing through this area to come into the backyard and then you can kind of see the steps coming up to this deck that deck is on the left here in this picture and this the pool is you can not really see it but it's they had it staked out in the middle of the lawn here in this area um where the pool would be located they also had an area strung to identify where the 50 foot boundary was located and um as part of the application there are three trees um this one this one and this one which are if you're looking at their fire pit sort of to the far right of the fire pit so again about 50 feet from the wetland and then there is um this photo here in the middle is standing in the same location but turned around um facing the wetland and there is one tree one or two trees there that were identified as hazard trees that are within 50 feet that they like to take down um so under the wetland protection act deck sheds patios and pools are exempt from the wetland protection act as long as they're located over 50 feet from the mean annual high water line of an intermittent stream or bordering vegetated wetland so the project is exempt under state law just um applicable under our local bylaw because we don't have that exemption under our bylaw um i would recommend as far as conditions um that erosion controls be installed at the limit of work um and that there be an erosion control inspection prior to the start of work an erosion an erosion control inspection once the site is stable prior to removing controls and that i would have the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance and then one additional um condition that didn't make it on here that i would recommend is that we not allow the pool to be drained on site that it would have water would have to be pumped out of the pool into a truck to be taken off site um other than that i have no issues with the project and would recommend um a positive determination checking box b5 um which just acknowledges that the work is jurisdictional under our local bylaw and then a negative determination under b5 which um defines that the project is exempt as a minor activity under the wetlands protection act thank you very much erin so commissioners any thoughts seems fairly straightforward yeah just one minor thing that i had was from the map that was shown um just to make sure that the silt fence doesn't necessarily need to go through the middle of the woods um but yeah just the wherever um the extent of the work is so nothing that is good so um going to the public is if anybody in the public has any comments or thoughts on this you can use a little hand raising tool okay so i am not hearing anything so at that point we are looking for emotion and erin again can you prompt us on on the specific negatives and that sort of stuff yes thank you do you want me to do it you did so well last time jen no one can compare i don't think so i think we all have we all add something special some of us are more special than others though jen i don't know i don't think so um okay so where are we i move that we were that we make a positive determination checking box b5 and a negative determination under b5 exemption yeah for the construction of an ingrown pool and patio over 50 feet from bvw at 36 weaver circle um yeah it's my motion and the conditions oh and the conditions sorry and the motion are oh they're up there thanks erin um that erosion controls are installed at the limits of work um there's an erosion control inspection um by the town wetland administrator prior to the start of work um as well as erosion control inspection once the site is stable prior to removing the erosion controls um that the wetlands administrator has the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance and that um if the pool needs to be emptied for some reason that it should be pumped dry and water shocked offsite rather than released on site thank you jen looking for a second second sorry that was larry yes okay thank you okay so going through on a vote so larry yes ana hi jen hi maroy hi morrow hi and i from me as ana did we get you so ana i was like second you got me okay hi i i'm off my game tonight sorry so okay and i for me as well um so tara we are in good shape here and um erin will be in communications about paperwork and moving forward great thank you very much thank you okay so moving on down the road um so we are now on our 740 agenda item and i'm just pulling up my sheet again this public meeting is now called 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 the protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of amherst wetlands protection bylaw this is for requests for termination um from jonathan anderson for placement of a eight foot by eight foot prefab prefab shed over 50 feet from bordering vegetated wetland on existing lawn at 30 pailey village place map 21v parcel 88 this project is only jurisdictional in the town of amherst wetland protection bylaw and regulations and so jon i am you should be able to um speak at this point jon and if you would introduce yourself and give us a little introduction to the project that'd be much appreciated i can go i'm gonna think we're playing the mute on mute game here yeah jon you're muted at this point there we go can you hear me okay so thanks for hearing me this evening um my name is jonathan anderson i recently moved back to amherst with my wife and two kids um towards the middle of the summer i have a snowblower and you know lawn mower and that kind of stuff and my wife was looking hoping that i could get some stuff out of the garage to make more room for the kids and their stuff so on and so forth so i reached out to the building department um the amherst building department to see if there were any laws that i should be aware of permits that were necessary i found that there were not went ahead and ordered the shed the prefab shed that you had laid out um earlier on in your kind of introduction to today's meeting or this evening's meeting with myself um shortly thereafter i don't remember his name off the top of my head but the building inspector had emailed me back and said hey i think maybe you should talk to erin jock and the wetlands department or with the wetlands commission with regards to seeing if even though you're exempt from state law to have the dimensions for which the shed that you want to you know put in place there might be some town bylaws or ordinance or whatnot that you need to adhere to the shed was already purchased at that point but erin was you know obviously quite knowledgeable she worked with me very closely to make sure that i was outside of that 50 foot buffer um from the wetlands and in addition i hadn't disturbed any earth there's nothing that would um you know kind of seep into the you know into the ground or what not no concrete's on a tube or anything like that so uh it's about it i'm just looking to see if i can get approval for the shed even though it's kind of a little backwards in the process but again erin can probably shed some light on that as well better late than never so that's what i think erin yeah so i mean i think john's accounting is pretty accurate um i got the call let him know that it is exempt under state law because he's over 50 feet away but it's not exempt under our local bylaw and that he would need to get approval from the conservation commission through a request for determination um you know i've been working with john to get through this process um and luckily he had a survey and the delineation already for his property so that piece was was already done um there was no ground disturbance no excavation he's putting it on existing lawn he put down some piece stone and as you can see some cinder blocks and it was constructed on top of that so i went out today there wasn't even any disturbance to the lawn as part of the construction so the site's fully stable and at this point um i don't even have any conditions for the permit because everything has basically been constructed already and the site is stable um i would basically just recommend that the commission issue a positive determination checking box b5 to acknowledge the jurisdiction under the local bylaw and a negative determination under b5 stating the exemption um that the work is exempt under the wetlands protection act fantastic so commissioners thoughts ideas on this one even more straightforward it seems very clear just open up to the public real quick if there's anybody from the public who'd like to comment on this one okay so not hear anything from the public nothing from any additional commissioners looking for a motion i'm just so scared to do it wrong all right jump in okay i'm gonna i'm gonna have it's gonna happen all right um i motion to find a positive determination checking box b5 indicating that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw and a negative determination under the b5 exemption that the work is in an exempt minor activity under the wetlands protection act i second that i'm like a silver star please excellent just to reiterate this is for 30 village place yes 30 pali pali oh 30 pali village place correct the jury is still out on the pronunciation we're trying to figure that out i mean it's pali so i'm just gonna like i said i'm gonna be late for supper you live there so we'll go with yours okay um so looking for a vote on this one laura hi ana hi larry hi ben hi laroy hi and i for me as well so john thank you very much and you are good to go and any paperwork will be coming your way from erin right thank you all very much and have a good rest of the night okay so let's keep on trucking here okay so that was our 740 so we are moving on to our 745 this public meeting is now in order this meeting is being held as required by the provisions chapter 131 section 40 the general laws of the commonwealth and act relative to the protections of wetlands as most recently amended in town of amherst wetlands protection bylaw this is a request for determination for margaret nulley the owner for reconstruction of existing barn and 24 foot by 20 foot shed addition the chicken coop will also be relocated to the west end of the addition of the shed addition all work is proposed to be over 40 feet from the boarding vegetated wetland at 657 south pleasant street so margaret i see you and i am promoting you to panelist and can you hear me we can see me we can wonderful here let me get my step back i am margaret nulley and i'm ready to give you my spiel we are ready for your spiel spiel okay i own and reside at 657 south pleasant street and out there in the ether someplace i think my husband john is also here and we are proposing a barn renovation and i see the drawing from our application is on the screen which is excellent we submitted our application on september second and it shows the rebuilding of an existing barn to kind of improve the efficiency of our garage space and to convert some of the barn into guest accommodations the drawing also shows the addition of a 20 by 24 foot storage shed on the west side of the barn our property is across the street from the fort river and our property also has wetlands the river high water delineation in the wetlands were flagged on july 13th by ward smith of window wetland service and the flags were surveyed by etan associates on july 13th and the the drawings from that survey are marked on the drawing all construction for our project is further than 50 feet from the wetland and all construction work can remain further than 50 feet from the wetland the entire barn is outside the 200 foot fort river high water line during her site visit yesterday arin and i discussed the place the placement of a sediment barrier and it too will be beyond that 50 foot line and um yeah and that's that's at that place that's all lawn and grass filtering stuff there so that's our application as it's written and i'll pause for you to talk and discuss but there are two other issues that have come up since our application so i don't know if you'd like me to address that now or kind of get through the application first and then put the caveats on if they're relevant to the application please go ahead now okay um so during the process of construction we might have to do two temporary things you can see in the photograph that's in the upper right that's our chicken coop in our little chicken yard we have a very small flock but we're hoping to pick up that chicken coop and move it to the west side of our farm road that you can see in the photograph and on the drawing and that would be right about at that 50 foot um yes our interest are a little circle where we're talking about temporarily putting that during the construction itself the other temporary thing that we might have to do is get a storage pod that we would put yeah probably there maybe between the two trees that are drawn there yeah and um again we're not even sure we need that storage pod but that's that's it so two temporary things during construction and the other issue is we've been working with our architect and our building our builder on all of our plans and we are kind of prepared to do this within the exact existing footprint of our existing barn but we we really would like to go two more feet to the south so the south side of the barn at the bottom of the drawing there moving it two feet further to the south and giving us some additional space just for structural reasons on the inside so those are my two copyettes that were not on the application okay and so that extra two feet is not on the plan at this point correct correct okay okay um so erin sorry can I just ask one question so um is that if it extends two more feet to the south is it then inside the 200 foot port river buffer no because you can you can see the arc of the 200 yep so i don't i just don't know the scale so it wouldn't be it still wouldn't be within 200 feet correct okay thanks yes so um this was one of those that was kind of on the cusp as far as being you know because she's doing a shed addition and it's chicken coop and they're over 50 feet away at the time the application came through they weren't proposing any modifications to the barn footprint but i'm really glad at this point that we filed it with the state anyways and so it's being reviewed under wetland protection and under the local bylaw um from uh visiting the site the site's very flat there is as you if if you're looking at the top right hand photo looking there's a slight elevation um increase as as the farm road goes around that corner so my recommendation was just to put erosion controls along the edge of that farm road until it gets past that i forget the the technical name for it i always call it burning bush that that bush right there you want to miss if wing do you want to miss there you go thank you um and then my recommendation is for the placement of the chicken coop and the chicken run that they do temporary well that they that's only being placed temporarily but that they also put an erosion control barrier around that um during construction if they're moving it and then relocating it to the new location that that site where the chicken coop is temporarily needs to be stabilized um before that erosion control is taken up um but there was no vegetation removal really proposed as part of the plan it's it's kind of existing lawn or existing infrastructures kind of located in that area already um so i didn't i didn't really have any major concerns with with what's being proposed um i just would recommend that if for for allowing the items that are not shown on the plan um that those items be conditioned in and also that um you know we may want to request just a revised plan that shows those items um even if they're hand drawn in just where they're located and that there's erosion controls around them yeah i like the idea of having those on a revised plan error okay great thank you um so commissioners again fairly straightforward one i think uh any comments or questions so two additional people from the public they're probably hearing or something else but if they have any comments or questions now is the time not hearing any looking for emotion i can do it um i move that we issue a positive determination checking box b5 to acknowledge that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw and uh negative determination under b3 the wetlands estrus wetlands protection act with the conditions that a revised plan oh boy is um provided to the wetland administrator that shows um the larger footprint of their proposed renovation renovated structure structure and the temporary location of the chicken coop and potential storage pod um during construction um further conditions are that we recommend that erosion controls be installed at the limit of work um erosion controls should be installed around the chicken coop and the pod if we end up doing if you end up doing a pod um there should be a erosion control inspection by our wetlands administrator administrator prior to the start of work and once the site is stable prior to removing controls and are the town of Amherst wetlands administrator has the right to monitor the site to during construction to ensure compliance um and this is all for reconstruction of an existing barn and a 24 foot by 20 foot shed addition um in over 50 feet from the vvw vvw at 657 South Pleasant Street in Amherst mass yes I second that Jen okay looking for a vote Leroy hi Jen hi Laura hi Anna hi Larry hi and I for me as well so thank you very much Margaret you are basically all set a couple of things and Erin will be in touch in regards to paperwork so thank you wonderful okay bye bye hey guys I gotta go I think I'm just missing the last one right or Jen you'll be okay well some I'll get through the motions thanks I'll see you guys back to work okay just making sure the okay that looks updated okay so we are moving on to our eight o'clock agenda item this public meeting is now called the order this meeting is being held is required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst wetlands protection bylaw with this request for determination kestrel antruss for removal of existing shed and steps removal of dead trees and creation of handicapped accessible entrance within 100 feet of pond also proposed a fire department turnaround within 200 feet of plumb brook and within 100 feet of pond at 37 bay road and so if you are here for this if you just raise your hand okay tom okay tom so you should let's we can unmute you here yeah so tom can you unmute yourself there we go you are good at this point and so tom if you could introduce yourself and give us a little bit of background that'd be much appreciated sure hi my name is tom hartman principal here at coldman hartman architects in Amherst representing kestrel land trust um christin debor the executive director is my wife so um this has to go well so uh the the land trust is changing the use of this property which is currently a single family house at 37 bay road it was acquired by the epstein family a couple years ago and as you may know there was a deal done with the town of amherst to put the pond and the dam into conservation okay so this is the site um that uh resulted from that acquisition there's 200 feet of frontage um a long driveway that comes up and we determined my office determined this boundary from the survey that was prepared by iser which showed the boundary of the pond the culvert location and plumb brook um we put together from gis so of note is that this change of use to a business use is permitted by right through site plan review so i need to go to the planning board there's some demolition on a building over 50 feet i have to go to the historic commission and then as you can see some of the work that we're doing is within the boundaries within 100 feet of the pond and 200 feet of plumb brook so um erin was out with me yesterday and we looked at at the particular situation where there's a shed which is probably 30 or 40 feet from the pond which is in bad shape to be removed there are steps that go from the house down to the pond that are a hazard that frankly should be rebuilt with handrails but we're proposing to remove them entirely um and then place uh wood chips which we're going to come from some of the trees being removed to make an unpaved walkable path down to the pond um we also also may uh put in the future a an additional path that comes down around on the gentler slope around the site and the steps may be rebuilt in the future as well but as you can imagine um we have some constrained budgets and are deciding what we need to spend the available funding on but we're getting all the permink set up to do that um there are several dead trees around the house on the south side of the house i think six or seven some fairly large that are hazard trees which are going to be removed um and then working with the building commissioner in the fire department i think it's important to know and erin if you could go back to that site plan real quick that when this building changes from a single family to a uh business use NFPA one comes into jurisdiction which is fire department access it requires a 20 foot wide driveway to the building given the length of this driveway um we only have 14 feet at the moment and so we've been able to negotiate with the fire department the building commissioner having a notified fire alarm as a compliance alternative because this would be a substantial amount of work to widen the driveway given the grading that's there um within 200 feet of the brook and you know it it would be a substantial amount of work so that's very very helpful to have that compliance alternative um additionally the change of use requires an accessible entrance which you can see is on that little curve there which is going to come in on the north side of the building just barely within the 100 foot buffer of the pond it's currently a goshen walkway which is going to be replaced um with an asphalt impervious pathway um but no no significant change of area to that and then additionally outside the buffer there's some parking areas that are being striped on existing paving a couple of extra sheds that are coming down and the potential to remove the garage in the future but that's again outside your jurisdiction um any questions erin do you want to kick us off sure um so um the photo all the way to the left is the um the dam uh that goes that um contains the pond and then plum brook actually exits out of the dam there so this is the area where the um fire department turnaround would be placed and my understanding is that's going to be gravel there are a couple trees um that are needing to come down they were flagged um in this general area just to allow the turning radius of the of the the fire truck um this is uh the photo to the right is the goshen stone walkway that they're replacing and making handicap accessible and then there's a fence that runs along that goshen stone and there's a better picture of it all the way to the left here from what i understand that fence is coming out these are the photos of some of the hazard trees there's a lot of large oaks that hang over the house that are completely dead that they're proposing to remove and use reuse some of the wood chips on site these are the this is a photo of the staircase that's got to come out and i had just recommended when they pull the logs that they spread wood chips from the cut trees in this area to stabilize it um this is the the shed that's closer closest to the water that needs to come out that's within our jurisdiction and then there's a a small garden area that's also coming out and that's on the plateau beside the pond okay sounds good so commissioners thoughts ideas questions no i mean overall it seems like some nice improvements um so betterment as far as you know wetlands are concerned so that's all great yeah it won't flood out no no concerns for me can i bring up one more thing mm-hmm on my way up here um after dinner i was asked to to make one more request which i just remembered as plumb brook enters the pond there's a path that comes from the house that connects to the trail system and it's currently very very muddy even in in a in a drought that we're in now and the question is do we need to work with you to permit little bog boards to go across that muddy section basically some logs from the site with some planks should we include that in this or is that something we can we can do yeah i mean i think we can just condition that in we should be fine okay i'm not quite sure you hold up a card but i couldn't read it so i'm not sure what that was that was a little sketch oh gotcha okay that's what that's my reminder so um d e p has a funky policy about bog bridging um d e p western region considers footing for bog bridging to be fill in wetlands so i would just recommend that the board um condition that the footings for the bog bridging should not be located in in a wetland um if you know if at all avoidable they should be um they should be spanning the wetland so that um they're not you're not putting fill in the wetland and also it should be as elevated as possible up off the ground to allow light to get underneath it and when you say footing i mean all i'm talking about is a couple of logs i understand it's i i mean i've seen i've i've permitted throughout the state and never never seen or heard of such a policy on bog bridging but um just kind of some recommendations based on d e p dealing with the e p western region on this issue i think we'd come back to you then given what i just heard so could i chime in bret please um yeah i i wanted to start um by saying just um in the area near the damn the turnaround area um one of the things that um tom may or may not be aware but i did speak with kestrel trust about potentially getting a an easement to access that area an easement over the driveway because i'm not sure we legally have the right to pass and repass over the driveway to get to the dam so that might be something tom just to um i actually forgot to mention to christin but it might be good to take that back to her i just want to make sure that that turnaround doesn't in any way interfere with access to the dam and you know but there wouldn't be any um any significant elevation change there so that uh i don't know an emergency vehicle couldn't get over the dam you know in atv if there was an issue with the dam or some sort of uh health or ems situation uh there yes there will be nothing blocking um someone going past the turnaround onto the dam there'll be signage that says fire department turnaround no parking um the turnaround will be plowed along with the driveway as well um and so it's essentially placing trap rock gravel on the existing grading that's there just so that it doesn't get dug up so much sure that that sounds great and we can you know we can talk um i can talk with christin about the uh the easement issue i'd raise that with um the um with her former staff person um paul gagman um i did just want to comment on the trail issue and i i i'm a little bit honestly i'm a little bit challenged by that i'm not sure how the commission can make a ruling on that if there hasn't been a delineation right well let's just put that on the table and we'll come back if we want something i think that would you know we um the department um comes before the commission whenever we're permitting new new bridging of any kind so it would seem from a consistency standpoint that if kestrel wanted to come back which i i know exactly where that area is because i worked on this project with with christin and staff at kestrel but it would seem to me the logical thing would be to come back with a separate filing for that trail work i agree okay so we will not add that to what we're talking about here so thank you any other comments or questions okay we have nobody left from the public so um so that means we are looking for a motion okay i'll try it um moving to recommend a positive termination box b5 that acknowledges that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw for 37 bay road and a negative termination under b2 and 3 under the wetlands protection act with conditions uh these conditions are that all disturbed areas must be stabilized with mulch straw and seed or wood chips or stone to notify the wetlands administrator at the start of work and when it was complete to notify the wetlands administrator well no to acknowledge that the wetland administrator has the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance and that any changes to the plan in jurisdictional areas require the board's approval there was one additional condition what was that that we just verbally discussed uh we were talking about bog bridging but we rescinded that okay great um uh this is all for 37 bay road second hi hi i beat you okay looking for a vote laroy hi larry hi laura hi anna hi and i for me as well so thank you tom erin will be in touch thank you all have a great evening you too okay so at this point we are through our agenda uh erin are there any other nuggets that are sitting out there waiting for us or are we done no um the only thing i'll just mention as far as monitoring reports is we've been having some problems receiving um applewood monitoring reports from alan weiss though i've requested that he start sending them hard copy he's he's been sending them um electronically and they've been going to my spam box i think um not being delivered and so anyways that's the only that's the only other thing regarding monitoring reports i think we've covered all other business excellent so with that looking for a motion for adjournment i'm home yes second second third anna hi hi heard hi from larry already laura hi laroy hi and i as well so we are done so thank you everyone thanks everyone have a good night thank you guys thank you to erin so great is always thanks erin be safe and have a good weekend and erin i'll stop the recording at this point thank you