 Hello and welcome to the March 13th, 2024 meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission. The time is 7.02, all are present. Including Aaron, Jack and Dave Domek, Amherst staff. Let's see. Shall we take off our meeting, but okay, before we do that, Aaron, we had talked about some settings for participants to see number of other participants. Did that get any clarity? Um, let me see. I'm sorry, I completely forgot about it until just now and I'm not sure that I am the instructions I was I was given or not. Hold on one second view participant count. Yes, I found it. Awesome. It should be there. Yes, I got it. Well, if anybody gives public comment, we should perhaps ask them if it's working. So just to fill everybody and this is so that a setting so that other public participants can see how many other public participants there are. So zoom restricts a lot of things about naming of other participants, but this is just a bit of transparency that we can give to public meeting. Okay. Thank you, Aaron. All right, first up chair reports. I have none. So handing it over to you, Dave, go ahead. So for the sake of time, I don't really have any updates. The only thing I will share with the commission is that the town manager will make a an appointment to the commission on Monday night, 318. Michelle, Aaron, myself, and a few others interviewed a number of candidates for commission seats commission seat singular one, and Paul Bachman will make that recommendation, or make that appointment and recommendation if you will to the council I think it's his appointment but he needs to have it confirmed by the council. So that will happen on Monday night the 18th. So you will have a full commission at that point. That's my only update. I know we're going to talk about buffers bond I don't know if we're going to do that now or later in the meeting, but I'll go with the flow. You're muted Michelle. I'm just going to follow the agenda items so next up I have open space and rec plans which I think it's got a question I think it's just spread. I think it's going to be a few minutes before that. Oh, you're right, Bruce. Thank you. Following on the agenda as stated, let's approve some minutes. Okay, looking for a motion to approve minutes from 228 2024. Move to prove minutes from 228 24. Okay, got Jason on the second Andre and motion Jason on the second. Bruce. Alex. Hi, Jason. Hi, Andre. Laura, you're muted Laura. I can hear me. No, I can. Thank you. Okay. I'm an eye. Thank you. All right. Now on to land management updates. Aaron, do you want to just give us the, I mean, Yeah, the survey is still going out. We're just trying to spread it as far and wide as we can. So if anybody knows of any organizations or otherwise that would be good to share this with so that residents of Amherst can can access the survey, please do. It's been sent pretty far and wide by town staff, but it's still open. So we want to just collect as much information and data as we can. We do have a land use application for the Mount Pollock stargazing, which has been an ongoing. Permit that has been renewed. I think this is the third renewal on it. So I don't think it's. If we haven't had any complaints or issues with the stargazers and they've been following their, their permit just fine. So. From a staff standpoint, I would suggest that we just carry forward all of the conditions that have been set from the previous iterations of the stargazing land use permit. Any questions commissioners. When would that be? When is the stargazing? Sorry was was a question. When is the stargazing? Yes. So it's I've got multiple screens open so I can't see people's faces. So it's proposed they do it throughout the summer season. They're proposed or throughout the season as a whole they're proposing mid January. They proposed a start date and they It says event end time 11pm. They usually do it in the evening. Let me just see if Kathy Buckley is here from the Stargazer group to tell us a little more about it. I think she did join. I'm going to let her in so that she can answer a little more about what the stargazing experiences like at Mount Pollux. Hi, everyone so it kind of because it's dependent on whether in cloud cover and what it kind of comes together pretty fast. But I work for a program that serves boys who have had a lot of abuse and neglect. And it's myself and one or two other staff. I take usually it's a maximum of four kids with us so we have six or seven people. Two vehicles. We get there around dusk and we're kind of there as long as their stuff to see and but we usually we're usually done by 11. We park two vehicles in the available parking lot. Usually one to two telescopes couple folding chairs. We're obsessive about making sure any trash gets we bring trash bags with us and they're logged out. We're also obsessive about making sure that you know the kids aren't rowdy we don't allow them to bring music or anything so that there's nothing that would disrupt the neighbors or other people. Thanks Kathleen sounds like you know the drill and the rules. Yeah, I think the other thing that we ask is that you let the MRS police know and put a sign in the car is that generally something that we say because they do patrols up to the Pollux after sunset. I usually just the only time the police have actually ever showed up was the that that was actually how I discovered that Mount Pollux closes at dusk now. I think that we needed this permit, but I carry the permit with me. I can certainly make, you know, phone calls to the police to let them know or, or if there's something you would recommend that I have so like do I just keep the permit with me so if they do come. We can just, we have it to show them. I just copied the police department on the permit last time so they were copied on the permit to know that this was going on at Mount Pollux periodically. Just as an FYI. Thanks, Dave. Thanks, Michelle. I think this is all good. Copy the permit on on, you know, keeping it with you, letting the APD know. I would just tape a small sign to your window too because that's what they're likely to do is look in make sure there's nobody in the car having an issue or they're doing things they're not supposed to, but many times they, they may not have the time to walk all the way up to the top of the hill. So it's great to just put a sign saying, you know, who's up there, you know, while you're doing it and just just to have backup. Yeah, maybe just tape the permit to your window so they don't have to look up the hill. Okay. Yeah, sometimes we don't need sometimes we don't actually even go up the hill sometimes we just stay in the parking lot. Okay. Yeah, I think having a permit on the car is generally just good practice. I can leave it in the, I can just leave it in the window. Yeah, perfect. Alex is first Andre, so I'm just going to ask him. Go ahead, Alex. Kathleen, I was just curious because you need a permit and the place closes at dusk. Have you had problems with people coming into the parking lot and some I wanted to join you. Has it happened? Yes, I wouldn't say that it's ever been problem like it's, it's not at all uncommon for there to be people who come by and who are there or up the hill or whatever. Sometimes they will ask if they can look, but they, they've always been polite, respectful, pleasant. The telescope is also computerized. So it broadcasts on my phone and my tablet. So you don't actually have to look at the telescope to see what the telescope is seeing. So it's easy for people to, and it moves on its own. So people, it looks cool. Hey, Andre, but no, but nobody's ever been belligerent or problem problematic with us. Good to know. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, Kathleen. The last thing that you that that you're going to want is for to be disrupted or interrupted by police coming up there or whatever. I also recommend that you actually call their business number. The evening of and let them know they'll just, when they see your vehicle, they'll just recognize it and leave instead of going up and talking to you. That gives them a proper heads up that they don't waste their time as well. Okay. Everybody's happy. And you know, I mean, people see my last name and it rings certain bells because my dad's picture is hanging on the wall. And the reason we go to Mount Pollux is I am an Amherst native. In fact, I, Dave, I went to school with Andy and John. Right. Laura, go ahead. Yeah, no, all I was going to say is that we have done this successfully well with us. So, I don't think there's, there's any issues. So, Kathleen, thanks for thanks for adhering always to what we set for. In the permit, which is not always the case. So we appreciate it. Yep. Okay. So call Amherst PD in the evening of and keep your permit in the window. Just tape it on there and everybody is good. And I think we're all good to make a motion to approve this one. I don't know. I don't have a, I don't have a motion drafted, but this is permit number. CLU 24-1. So, just to approve permit CLU 24-1 with the noted conditions. So moved. Second. Hi, everyone. Andry on the second Bruce. Hi, Alex. Hi, Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Laura. Hi. I'm an eye. All right, thank you, Kathleen. Have fun up there. Thanks. Okay. Poverst pond. See, we have a PowerPoint. Yeah, Dave, do you want to jump into that now? Yeah, so the question is how much time do we have before your first hearing? We have 15 minutes, so plenty of time. We can do this quickly. This is kind of a first look. So maybe Erin could tee up the first slide and we're going to go fairly quickly. I know you saw this in the packet, I believe. Is that correct? Yes, just today. Just kind of saw it. So, um, I just wanted to check in about expectations for the conversation tonight. Is this sort of like a preliminary presentation of this? Yeah, this is a very preliminary conversation. I'd like to allocate some additional time, obviously. You know, any time of the next couple of commission meetings, but this is really, the expectation really is. Because the commission is very, very soft. It's just a first look at some of the work that we've been doing behind the scenes to begin to think about a new vision for buffers bond. So, um, very quickly, I'll move quickly and Erin, you can jump in, where you'd like, but as many of you know, we've been working on buffers bond and we've been maintaining buffers bond. We've owned buffers bond for decades. We've done as much as we possibly can through the years from dredging to dam and dike improvements to beach improvements. But the pond clearly is getting, you know, a tremendous amount of use in the summer. Increasingly so, particularly as we get more days over the 90 degree conditions. We're also seeing, um, you know, great challenges with water quality. We know that the dike at buffers pond needs significant work. It is, um, currently, um, um, rated by the state in poor condition. The dam is in better condition. It's rated in fair, fair condition by, by the state. Um, but, um, so Aaron, Aaron and I did some brainstorming, you know, in the past six or eight months and we, we came together, um, with a small amount of funding that I had in the capital plan. And we pulled together a group from fuss and O'Neill, uh, engineering firm and, uh, began to do a little, um, staff, um, um, outlining visioning about a, some of the challenges that buffer spawn faces and be some of the potential, um, solutions or approaches that, that we might take up at buffers. Um, again, this is clearly just a draft. It's to get us all thinking about what buffers pond could be. If we had the funding, if we had the design, um, how could we make buffers pond, uh, a place to celebrate and to bring more people safely, uh, to the pond while at the same time, safeguarding the resources there. So next slide. I think. So this just is a quick intro slide. Um, you know, this is the, the internal team we pulled together. Um, next slide. I'm going to go fairly quickly. Um, we really had three major phases here. We're just going to talk about phase one and phase two tonight and investigate and engage and initiate and explore. Um, obviously investigate and engage was an opportunity to come together and look at what are some of the challenges and opportunities out at the pond. Next slide. We'll keep going. Um, I think we've gone even beyond that, but Aaron jump in anytime. Clearly this is just one slide illustrating the issue of sedimentation in the bond. Uh, you know, the, um, two major sources of sediment coming into the bond. One is the Cushman Brook and two are the beaches eroding on either side and then bank erosion, uh, on the north, north, um, west side, I guess. Um, but this is just an interesting slide illustrating the, the, the evolving Delta, the growing Delta there as the far side of the pond, uh, fills in with sediment. Um, next slide. So we've talked a little bit about purpose. Um, you know, I'll respond is a is a multi-purpose resource for the town. In fact, years ago before my time with the town and, and I think everybody on this call, um, you know, I'm probably a little bit confused to answer this question, but um, a little bit. Um, I think what we saw was the cover spot at one point was the beaches there were managed by the recreation department many, many years ago. Um, that switched over back to the conservation department, uh, through the commission. Um, some probably 30 years ago. And here we are the challenges. Uh, each year that we face with more and more people at the beaches. These slides just kind of illustrates some of the overcrowding Parking and lack of parking, but also the kind of unorganized nature of the parking and then, you know, some of the other slides here just show some of the erosion into the pond and how the pond is filling in. Here we have some of the current conditions at the pond. This is mostly the main beach. The South Beach showing erosional forces of rain and water just eroding all of the sand into the pond and creating unsafe conditions both at the beaches but also at the perimeter trail. Next slide. I think we've kind of covered this. We're going pretty quickly here tonight. We'll have plenty of time at a future meeting. I did want to also mention that some years ago, I pulled together a group that put together a plan that some of you may have seen which is called Puffer's Pond 2020. And that group identified many of the same things that are still a challenge at the pond. But of course, back when we were doing that visioning work, climate change was not in the forefront of any of our thinking. So, clearly for us, for Aaron, myself, Stephanie and some of the planning department, climate change is a real factor for us as we thought about this plan. How is climate, how is climate change affecting impacting water quality at the pond? How is climate, how should we plan for climate change and think about Puffer's Pond? We are thinking of it now as kind of a cooling center for the town. So much of the day is when we will have many, many more summer days over, as I mentioned, over the over 90 degrees. This is in fact a cooling center for many of our residents who aren't able or can't afford a backyard pool or to go to the Cape or to go to Maine. This is a place for thousands of people to recreate every summer. Aaron, you want to jump in here just on guiding principles. And just as we start to look at the upcoming images, you know, I just want to make sure that it's clear, you know, the sort of principles we had in mind with all of the suggested infrastructure changes that you're going to see. And again, these are just conceptual ideas. These aren't not all of these things are going to happen. These are just theoretical. Like if we were dreaming how we would, you know, all of the potential options we could come up with. With the idea of ecological restoration in mind, how to restore a lot of the degraded riverfront and, and, you know, beach areas that have erosion, enhance wildlife habitat, restore a lot of areas of wetland that have been trampled by like the sort of desire lines that have been created at Puffer's Pond. The public health and safety elements, you know, improvements for folks to have, you know, you're like, you know, toilets that function or potential for like improved safety. I don't know anybody who's brought kids on a hot day to Puffer's Pond knows it's dangerous walking down that road. So making sure folks with disabilities have equal opportunity to come to the pond. Potential for future educational opportunities there and then improvements to the way that sort of the operation and maintenance of the of the pond. Yeah, so these are like all of these numbered stations are all sort of adjustments or areas where we've, you know, recommended making improvements from water quality dam and dike repairs. You know, we have on our mind repairing the dam and repairing the dike. We know those are top issues here. We also have on our mind dredging the pond and for reasons of water quality because there's so much sediment and because of the deposition that's happening there. It's really causing a lot of water quality issues in addition to obviously upstream impacts that are contributing to the pond. So enhance enhancements to pedestrian access, parking, improving the trail system, etc. And you guys can look through this. Again, this is more of a just an intro so I'm going to keep moving so you can see some of these sort of ideas in play. So like wildlife viewing, improving the beaches to the point of, you know, re grading them and improving them so that they're not eroding into the pond. Some water quality infrastructure improvements areas of like complete restoration and mitigation on the site itself is one of the big issues that has come to us are issues between swimmers and. Fishermen or Fisher people. So like bad interactions that happen between swimmers and people who are fishing. And so here we're trying to basically create sort of designated areas to try to help separate some of that to the degree that we can. Yeah, so and then one really interesting thing here you'll see is this this potential boardwalk coming across from the main beach to connect over to sort of the existing sort of fishing area. And this is because right now we have this trail that comes in off State Street going through a wetland and and this whole area has been impacted by human use. So the idea would be to restore this area. And sort of have a concentrated area of of for traffic and pedestrian use that would have less impact on the surrounding beach area. Potential area of a comfort station, you know, for like say composting toilets or otherwise, you know, right now we use porta potties on a seasonal basis, but we're not quite sure what's causing E. Coli impacts yet we're, you know, hoping to explore that but a potential comfort station might help with that. And then again, you know, repairs to the beach. Let me jump in for a second to Aaron before we go on. Just so the Commission knows and any of the viewing public note knows there is no dedicated budget for puffers pond. There's no staff budget, there's no, the town has never had a dedicated budget just for puffers, when in fact, you know, I would argue that in some summers, the visitation to puffers actually out numbers or our numbers are greater than those that visit the public pools and more memorial. So part of the reason for putting this plan together is to bring people together, the Commission, the recreation Commission, the community to say, What do we want this this pond to be like five years 10 years 20 years 30 30 years I'm often quoted in the newspaper as saying we're loving buffers bond to death and I think generally we are. It gets the visitation is too high for the resource to to absorb and to maintain so the idea is, how could we create spaces how could we as Aaron said make it accessible, while at the same time, protecting some of the natural resources. You know the comfort station here and again this is just conceptual on the comfort station could be anywhere on the main beach set back in the woods. But just to give you an idea we spend on average seven to $10,000 a year just on porta potties. So where does that money come from it comes from a combination of of my creativity with our budget but also a small fundraising effort by the friends of puffers pond. And they do a tremendous job every year on the, the pancake breakfast. And again they raise between six and maybe $7,000 a year. But this plan a plan would really galvanize the community to come together so that we can do some private fundraising, as well as write some grants to try to seek funding for some of these initiatives. I should also say that dredging, you know, is a decision that town will need to make it's probably the largest ticket item in this entire plan it is larger than dike improvements it's more expensive than dike improvements more expensive than dam improvements. It is the big, the big, the big nugget and all of this. And it is, you know, clearly over a million dollars we don't have cost estimates yet, but we're part of this plan is to develop cost estimates or dredging. Next slide. Again, giving kind of an overview of the North Beach with some potentially improved parking on the North Beach the idea at least the concept of a small pavilion on the North Beach, where people could get out of the, get out of the sun. And making the North Beach accessible to people with disabilities. Again, looking at dike repairs and safety improvements to the dike, and then re grading the beach so it doesn't erode on an annual basis. Next slide. Kind of more the same a little bit of a close up more of a close up of the North Beach. Moving on. This is a conceptual idea for a trail part of the trail around the perimeter of the pond to make that trail accessible to people of all abilities to allow anyone to experience getting out into the water over the water to fish to to sunbathe to do yoga to enjoy the beauty of buffers pond and do it in a way that doesn't degrade the resources the bank resources the wetland resources, etc. Next slide. And I think that's kind of where we're at. I will say that Aaron and I have worked with fuss and O'Neill on some implementation phasing and we're happy to talk with you about that at a future meeting. This is a short term endeavor. This is many years of work ahead of us. We are preparing right now to submit a grant proposal to the dam and see the state dam and seawall program to at least get started on some of the design work, particularly for the dike, dam and dredging at least to look at the sedimentary. How much sediment do we have in the pond? We don't know. Are the sediments in the pond in any way things that we should be worried about. There is an industrial history, a mill history of the Cushman brook above buffers pond. So we need to look at those sediments and get cores and see what's in those sediments. So here with imagery work and cores did indicate that some of those sediments may be compromised and we need to get those out of there. So a lot of work ahead of us and we're hoping to get some funds from the state to address some of the dam and dike issues as well as look at what it would take to dredge the bond. So we'll stop there and if we have a couple of minutes we can take any questions and continue this at a future date. Thanks Aaron. Yeah, I do. But do you have time right now, Michelle? I'll just make a quick, yeah, quick question. You know, you compared it to the Mill River pool and, you know, we live so close to Brenna, but we live close to the Belvedon beach. Is there been any consideration for like charging people an entry as a way to sort of control numbers and generate revenue to continue? It's one thing to like, I think the plan is beautiful. And like, I wish it was happening in like right now. But I think about like the ongoing costs and costs of maintaining toilets and, you know, all of this and so I don't know if I should consult. Thank you for that question. And it's part of our kind of the planning that we're doing, Laura, and again in the future we can share some of that with the commission and with the community. Really, this is the first, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is the first public viewing of these slides and these conceptual ideas and the ideas to hone them with you, working with you, working with the Recreation and the community. We'd like to go out and talk with the friends of Buffers Pond. We'd like to talk with the neighbors and neighborhoods around the pond. But to your question, Laura, I think the short answer is we don't think we can charge. We can't charge people to enter a public conservation area, unlike Belcher Town Beach, which as far as I know is not conservation land. I think that's owned by the town of Belcher Town. We, however, can do systems of say parking passes or State Street or parking, think of Lake Viola. Lake Viola charges a very modest fee to park I believe at one point it was $5 a car or something like that. There may be ways for us to come up with a permit system where Amherst residents could buy a permit for a very reasonable rate and park say Memorial Day to Labor Day on State Street or an improved parking area there. Non-residents might pay X plus Y, because in fact, non-residents, their tax dollars are not maintaining anything at Buffers Pond and they're taking advantage of this incredible resource. So we may look at something like that. I think that's part of the funding future of Buffers, but nothing obviously has been decided. But we can't charge to enter a, and we can't fence it either. Nobody would want to fence Buffers Pond. But we'll look at all of that as some sort of a funding package. Those are interesting considerations. We should keep them on the table, I think. Alex and Kieran X, but we're running over into our 730. So please just keep it concise. Am I usually long winded? Go for it, Alex. If you were talking about a grand plan, would you consider putting a fish way on the dam that would pass eels, trout, and other fish, because the dam creates, it fragments the river. And there are eels in Buffers Pond they can get around, but it's not easy. And there are trout down below in Mill River and up above in Cushman, Brooke. And it would be nice in the grand plan of things to have continuity upstream and downstream. So without discussion, I would suggest you consider putting a fish way on the dam. I think that's an excellent idea for all of us to consider, Alex. I second that idea. I see a lot of like natural sediment movement, but it's all dammed up. So it'd be nice if something was moving. Go ahead, Bruce. Looking to see if there's any member of the public that has a comment. I see no hands raised, but if there's anyone in the public, please raise your hand if you have any quick comments on this one, we're going to continue this conversation. This was a preliminary of the grand plan, but go ahead. Seeing none. Well, I'm very interested to hear about the dredging plan to Dave, I feel like it's sort of the big ticket item that's going to solve the big problem which you don't see on those pretty plans is that you can't swim in the water, because the water is not safe. So, to be continued. If there's nothing else, let's move on to our 730. This is notice of intent for SWC on behalf of the University of Massachusetts for the construction of a gravel parking lot associated stormwater structures in the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated block 13 Olympia Drive map 8D lock 1563. I realize I need to open the hearing procedures. So each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda. The hearing structure is five minutes of comments from staff, five minutes for the applicant. Five minutes of public comment are two minutes per person and then five minutes for conservation commissioners. And now require that all submitted and revised materials are submitted by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting at close of business. And for all presenters, please state your name address who you're representing as well as preferred pronouns. Okay, so Aaron, do you want to give us an update on SWCA? Yes. I would like to receive a request to continue this hearing until the March 27 meeting. I also took into consideration sort of our policy discussions that we had at the last meeting and framed up a a motion for for your consideration as far as requesting a comprehensive response to the outstanding applicants and required revisions and to allow a little bit of time. Basically until April 2, which is our submission deadline for the first meeting in April for the applicant to provide the outstanding information that we've been waiting for since basically early November. So I have that framed up for your consideration. Obviously, you don't, you don't have to do that. You can just think about it now or talk about it now. I did talk to Kristen, who's the representative for UMass and what she let me know is that the intention is for them to be prepared for the meeting on the 27th. This motion is basically an insurance policy in case they're not prepared or in case they only come back with a partial response. So that we can try to get responses by the first meeting in April. So their intention is to be prepared by the meeting on the 27th, but you know, they're not certain that they're going to have everything revised and submitted to us by that time. So this gives them an extra a little bit of time if they need it. And they said at the very least they should have everything ready for April 2. So just to for your discussion as you consider a continuation. Sharon. Bruce is your hand up. Yes. So the deadline for the materials, if we stuck with the 27 is March 20. The week before, correct. Right. If we if we change it to the 10th of April, then the deadline is, is April 3. Not the second. But so the real question is, do you think based on what you know from them that they actually would be able to get everything to you by the 20th of March, or are they going to have another flood of materials on the 22nd or the 25th or even the 26th of March, expecting that it can all come together. I just don't think that's very likely. So in talking with Kristen, I know she's meeting with you mass tomorrow, but she didn't have a firm response that they would definitively have everything to us on the on the 20th. So she was unsure if everything was going to be ready for that submission deadline on the 20th, which is why I had suggested pushing to the next meeting because that gives a couple, a couple more weeks to prepare. I did talk to her about this discussion and let her know that, you know, the commission was getting was starting to feel that there were some sort of due process issues with the fact that this has been continued 11 times and that they would like to see the next time that you mass comes to them for there to be some something to talk about and some some responses. But she was not certain that they would have everything by the 20th. So that's why I allowed for some extra wiggle room. So Bruce, if they did have a flood of materials on the 23rd and whatnot, they still would need to continue to the April the next April meeting and that's when we would can be they would have to continue one more time and that's when we'd hear them. So I feel like this is giving them a bit of a buffer and it's a fair offer. Andre, go ahead. Yeah, I think if there's, you know, it's, it's starting to become apparent that what we really need to do is, is wait until the is give them an extra, an extra two weeks after that. In other words, to, to, to just go ahead with the suggestion of April. 20 or April. What is it 14th. April 10th. Thanks. Any other commissioner comments. Public comments. If not looking for a motion. No comment. Sorry, Alex, go ahead. Okay. It occurs to me that the commission has time has trouble finding time to talk about issues and discuss them amongst itself. We had a discussion last time about continuations and it was at the end of our agenda everybody was tired. And we have two other issues that we wanted to talk about. And I would, if we're going to get a flood of information from them, I would rather put them off a little bit more and old make room on the agenda for our discussions. And take care of the business and that would give them a little extra time to get this work done. So I would favor giving them as much time as we possibly can. And so put our issues on the agenda for maybe the next two meetings. And put them at the top of the agenda. I mean, no matter what they give us flood or not, and sometimes we get floods and sometimes they don't get not that we still have this one week buffer to our meeting. So that's pretty standard. I don't think we're going to get any last minute anything and if we did then, you know, I'm sure Aaron has made it apparent to them what our new standard is for submission of materials and maybe just reiterate that to them since this has been long enough that maybe it's changed since they were last involved with us but so that they know that we need an entire week before our meeting to review anything that they've given us. All right. I mean Alex, are you are you okay with this motion or can we move on with it is. Did I address your concern. If we can make time on the agenda and the next couple of meetings for us to talk to ourselves. Yeah, I'm fine with it. Yeah, I think that's probably a separate discussion then that we can also bring up today is what those items are. Okay, if there's nothing else looking for a motion on this one. I will motion to move to require comprehensive responses to outstanding comments and required plan revisions from staff correspondence data 823 2023 with the exception of comment number one where work was already found to have been completed in 1970. And this is a prior to WPA concert comprehensive responses and plan revisions are expected to be submitted to the conservation commission no later than April 3, 2024. These are responses and revisions. These responses and revisions are necessary to determine project compliance under the wetlands Protection Act and wetlands Protection Town of Amherst general bylaws. Bylaw Regulations at the end of April 3, 2021 regulations, if responses and plans revisions are not submitted by the April 3, 2024 date, the commission will issue a denial for lack of information under 310 CMR. 10.05 subsection six C wetlands Protection Act regulations and three E seven. Okay. So we're going to move on to item number seven. Subsection two town of Amherst by law regulations. Hold on Jason. Second that, but, but I think the date was April. April 2nd. No, is that. Correct. So it's good. Yeah. Okay. Just corrected you. All right. Jason on the motion. On the second. Question. Yep. Okay. So we're going to move on to item number seven. If the material in the. Are we only doing the first motion? We're canceling the second one on the, there's two options here, right? No. I'd, I'd like to do both. But so, so now that the first motion is, is made. I think we should take a vote on it. And then we can talk about the second motion. So they've asked for a continuation to the 27th in the April 10th meeting. And if they don't have everything completed by the 20th, they would request another continuance to the April 10th meeting, but that would be sort of the final continuation. Date that we would allow for this. And that's kind of the idea, but if the commission's uncomfortable with that, we could just continue to April 10th and not have it on our next agenda. That's another consideration here. I mean, I don't see why we, if they have everything ready, they're not going to have it on their next agenda. So we're not going to take either way. And really this is about whether or not we deny on the basis of not providing the information in a timely manner, or we continue. As we would any other hearings. So we're not, we're not off script in here, except whether, you know, based on our consideration of other matters. We're giving them. We're letting them know that they need to provide some due to the fact that we can take it back up. Go ahead, Laura. Yeah, I just have one question. So if we put them on next meeting agenda, they don't have the materials to the 10th of April. We have to have this exact same slide again. I think about this exact same issue and then saying, we're moving to continue again to April 10th. You know, I'm just, you know, like, it's not the exact same slide because we've already decided that we are not prepared by April 10th and we deny the permit. So we're giving them basically a buffer to do this and they've said, we'll be ready by the 27th and we'll, but maybe not. So this is like a last, this is the last opportunity. And if they're not, if they're not ready by next week's meeting, we have to then vote again for a continuum. And that would be the last continuance before denial of the permit. So we have a motion. We have a second. We have a question before we vote. Yeah. I got confused. You said that the way I saw this is if they do not provide, then we will issue a denial. And what I think I just heard you say is that we have to give them an additional two weeks before we can issue the denial. Can I try to address this? So we have two meetings before the 10th. We have a meeting in two weeks, which is on the 27th of March. And we have another meeting on the 10th of April. What this is saying is we're, we're, we're giving them notice right now that if they don't have the materials to us by April 3rd, it's going to be denied on the 4th of April. The permit is going to be denied on the 4th of April. They've indicated to us, they're going to have the materials to us by the 20th and they're going to be prepared for the 27th. So that's why they've requested a continuance to that date. It's at the commission's discretion whether you want to continue to the 27th right now. And if they don't have materials ready, we would, you know, they would have until April 3rd to get them to us. If they do get us the materials by the 20th, we could hear it on the 27th. So this is offering that flexibility there. But if the commission would rather just continue it to the 10th and get it off next agenda in two weeks, that's also an option to consider. Go ahead, Jason. Supposing that they do get us everything on the 20th. And then we hear it on the 27th. And then we're not moving forward. We like, we don't end up approving it or like we, we, we decide that, oh, we still have to meet again and we need more information because I believe one of the. Outstanding things is that we were going to potentially have a third party review of their wetland delineation. Correct. And so we do that that if we ask for that, then that's going to kick this down the road. You know, however many more weeks. And then we're coming into the summertime. Yeah, you know, we're coming in the spring, right? But. You know, I don't know when potentially a third party reviewer can get out there. So I. I'm just curious. If. We get to the 27th. They get everything just by the 20th. Are we going to make a determination? I know we can't necessarily say we're going to make a determination that day, but. I think. If they respond to the comments in good faith and give us the information we need and provide the revisions we need, the commission then can take the opportunity to review those materials and decide. Do we need a peer review? And if so, we initiate the peer review. Or maybe the revisions are adequate for the commission to consider issuance or maybe we need additional information. And at that point, that decision would be made. And what we're saying is if they continue to not. Submit responses and planned revisions. We can't keep continuing because we've already had 11 continuations. Yeah. And I, I guess when I read this motion, I thought that. I kind of was reading it as. Rather than. Issuing a continuation to the 27th. We were basically saying, no. Just get all of your information together and come back on the 10th. We'll have everything to us by April 3rd. So. What you're saying is we're. We're telling them April 3rd. You don't have the stuff to us where we're denying it for lack of information. But you have the opportunity to come to us on the 27th. But you have to have all of that information to us by the 20th. Yeah. Okay. You don't have to have, if they choose to have the meat, if they choose not to continue on the 27th, all that information is available on the 20th. So, I mean, this is consistent with whatever I just said is consistent with the conversation we had about. How many continuances have and what's our policy for allowing them. And really like when Aaron and I talked, we, we thought 2 weeks, if we're going to give a hard deadline for a denial that that seemed bare. And then the applicant really wanted to shoot for the 27th. So that, that is a. Allowance that we're giving them is that they are hopeful of the 27th and we're saying hard deadline is the 10th. Okay. I mean, I see what you're saying about getting into the season and the third party review, but really like what we wanted from them with some good faith effort to address all the comments in. I mean, I think that's part of their entirety. And so what if they do and we don't want a third party review, like that's part just part of the hearing process. So I think that's where we want it to be 11 hearings ago. I guess if people wanted to, we could say, we're just continuing it to the 10th. And not give them the 27th. If you feel like that's better use of our time. Okay. Bruce. My preference would be to only have one motion tonight. Don't pass. Yeah. It's too confusing. Okay. Andre. In somewhat in agreement with Bruce. Essentially. I think we just. Stick to the April 10th so that they have enough time and. Yeah. For sure it's a make or break on the 10th. And then we don't need to be, we don't need to schedule them for the 27th. We don't need to. Have to, you know, to take that time and move it forward again. We just. Get it, get it all in one shot. And I do see that it's somewhat confusing to have two motions at the same time. So, yeah, no, I'm, I'm all for. Letting them have the full, the full time and. See where it goes. Yeah. Yeah. If not, it's, it's a little bit confusing. I agree that we're the commission is a bit confused. But I, and I favor having one motion. And I favor the first motion. But I, I really, I, to tell you the truth, I, I really want to have them come forward because there's a whole lot of stuff that we are interested in, in that project. Which, and I'd hate to have the opportunity to go away. So. But it's time to put up or shut up. Okay. I think I've got the sense from you guys, but can we do a hand vote on. Who is in favor of. Okay. I'm sorry for this. Extending. Including the ability for them to present on the 27th. Okay. I see no hands. Okay. Who is in favor of. Continuing to the April. Michelle. Our screens are, I can't see, but half the screen for everybody. There we go. Okay. And so nobody raised their hand. Okay. So the second motion is. Who is in favor of continuing to the 10th only. And not the 27th. Okay. I see a majority there. Okay. All right. So. I think we need to edit the motion or do we revise the second motion? Go ahead there. So, so we need two separate motions. On this, because on one, we're saying. We're setting a deadline. If you don't submit this information by this date. You're going to be denied for lack of information. That's one motion. We need to vote on that motion. The second motion is the continuance to the date you guys decide on. And I am completely fine with us that date being. April 10th, but we do need two separate motions. Cause if we neglect either one. We're not going to get the desired result. Okay. So. Just real quick. And I think this might. You know, you've just clarified it from me. Quite. Clear as can be. The first motion that we've already read. Is giving them an ultimatum. The second motion is when are we going to take this up? Right. And we take it up either on the 27th or on the. On the 10th. And it's. Quite apparent from our conversations that we're looking to do. So I think what we need to do now is vote on that. That one motion that we've read already. And then move on to. The second motion and put in place the. For 10. For that date. Oh, okay. I'm looking at my, my old copy here. I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. That's correct. So you just explained it and Aaron has put out the motion. So everybody was, we had a majority on that one. So now I'm looking for a motion. No, we didn't have a vote. Yeah. We did the motion. Now we need to vote. Oh, right. Okay. All right. You're up. Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Alex. I'll move to Laura. Hi. Alex. You there. We can't hear you. I'm an eye. Do we need Alex? Nope. There he is. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Now moving on to the second motion. I move to issue a continuation of the public hearing for a lot 13 Olympia drive DEP number. Eight. Zero eight nine zero seven one eight to seven 30 p.m. or seven 35 p.m. On four 10. Two thousand. 24. I second it. Andre in the motion. Bruce on the second Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex has a thumbs up. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. Well, There's that. Okay. Next. All right. This is of a notice of intent. This hearing, this public hearing is now called to order. The hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. And this is notice of intent for Berkshire design group on behalf of Emily Dickinson museum for the construction of a historic carriage house and associated site work in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 214 main street map 14 B lot 26. So I realized some of you went on a site visit and thank you for those who are able to attend. Bruce, is that a question? I was decided. Sorry. He said he was the site. He was the commissioner who visited the site. We appreciate that Bruce. So there is an issue with this one in that the butters were not notified. So because of that, we are. We ask them to please continue so that there would be proper a better notification for this. I don't think we need to discuss this tonight. If there's any public comment, please raise your hand. But I think other than that, we're looking for a continuation. I move to issue a continuation for public comment for public hearing or 214 main street. DEP number 089 dash 0733. To 327 24 at 730 p.m. Motion by Alex. I think that was a second by Bruce. Bruce. I. Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Hi. Right. And I'm an I. Okay. Next up. This public hearing is now called order. The hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands protection on their town of Amherst general bylaws. This is a request for determination of applicability for cold springs environmental on behalf of Charles and Anne. For the instruction for the construction of an addition to existing family single family home in the buffer zone to an intermittent stream at 23. Ash Lane map 18 be love. 112. And I think we have some representatives. I'm going to bring them in. Thank you. Hello. Hello, Alan. Meetings Alan here. Yeah, I'll just make one quick. Change there and that it is cold spring environmental ink. Not cold springs, but minor. I just make the record. Show the truth. So yes, this is for a sing. A small addition on the back of the single and existing single family home. And I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. So I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. So I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. 23 Ash Lane. And map a 18 be lot on 12. We have submitted all the paperwork for. Butter notification. We have submitted all the plan. Description of project, the forms. FEP has been copied. We've been out to the site a few days ago. And we've been able to do that. And I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. And I'm going to go ahead and bring it up to the commission. I defer to the commission. Thank you, Alan. Do you want to give us a background? I would just add there's a 50 foot offset as required. For this with no work zone, delineated. And the square footages of the work zone. Square footages of the entire lot. And square footage of the total. Disturbed area within the buffer zone are all noted on the square footages. Thank you. Thanks Alan. And if there's any public comment on this, please just raise your hand as we talk so I can see that in a timely manner. All right. Erin, can you give us a summary? Sure. So I, I did. Provide the commission with a memo. Which kind of summarizes for all of the. Hearings tonight. My staff comments. But. I did have a couple of comments on this one. They were relatively minor regarding. Well, I was concerned as to whether there was any BVW on the bank of the stream. And I can show you site photographs that they're there. The bank of the stream is very steep. And there was no BVW on the, on the banks. So that was satisfied. There were, I was concerned about the drainage. Coming off the structure, how it was being handled. They're going to be putting in gutters and downspouts. There are, I was concerned about the. Stockpiling of material and, and if it was going to be done on site and where they're going to be taking the material directly off site. I think those were my core comments. I don't know if I missed any, but I felt pretty comfortable with the proposal. Just going to share some photos here. So this is facing the back end of the house where the addition would be placed on the back of the garage with sort of a slight overhang coming out towards where I was standing. Looking in this direction towards the back of the house. Towards the road. And then if you walk directly back from the house. You come, you go up a berm. And then there's a very steep drop off down to this river and you can see it's just, it's a, it's a straight drop down to the river. But there is this berm in between the river and the proposed addition, which I, I do think. Provide some, some. Potential protection to the resource because the runoff from the addition is not going to be flowing uphill towards the stream. The other question that I did have was about whether there was going to be any dewatering necessary for the foundation. And Alan seemed to think that the groundwater table was high enough at the site location that dewatering was not going to be necessary. I mean, low enough. I'm sorry, low enough. So based on this, I drafted a motion for a positive determination under a local wetlands bylaw and negative determination under WPA with special conditions, which were pretty standard for a single family home. I'll pull up the plan so that folks can see that as well. I apologize. I'm jumping around on multiple screens. So it's a little confusing going back and forth. I'll pull this up so you can see, and I will zoom in. It's just going to take me a second. Well, she's doing that, Bruce. Do you want to ask a question? No, I was just going to concur with what she said. Yeah, I saw that picture and was concerned, but Aaron explained the berm and the separation of hydrology between the proposed addition and that slope. So that was. If I could add. That is why I asked them for a complete topographic site. By the surveyor, as you know, once I did the review of the, the resource boundary. The other piece that I just asked Alan for was an accounting of the total buffer zone alteration and association with the addition, which Alan calculated as putting the site at 17%. So they're undecided. 20% threshold in the well and regulations. Thanks, Aaron. Okay. Commissioners, any comments? Questions. Seeing none. I'm seeing no public comment. I move to close the public hearing and issue a positive determination of applicability and checking box five by law and regulations, jurisdictional and a negative determination of applicability, checking box three, offers own only under WPA with conditions. Second. Bruce on the motion. Alex on the second Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Hi. All right. Thank you, Alan. Thank you. Good night. Later. Good night. Okay. Next up. This is our NOI for Karen environmental consulting LLC on behalf of. LLC for NACS. LS. LLC for NACS LLC and WD Coles incorporated for the construction of a battery storage system associated access road improvements and stormwater management within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands on Montague road route 63 map to a lot 18. And I see we have. Eric, there he is. So if it's okay, I'd like to do just a quick staff update. Please go ahead. Okay. So. I initiated a prepermitting meeting with the applicant as well as multiple town departments so that we could all get on the same page with permitting requirements with other departments in town. That meeting went very well. I think Alex, excuse me, Eric got the guide. That he needed in order to basically, you know, move forward and proceed with his other permits from other departments. I think the, the one area that we arrived at, which Eric would like to get some guidance on before he proceeds with the other permits and revisions that are going to be necessary for the town of Amherst. That he get a read from the conservation committee. About whether they're willing to consider waivers to the 50 foot no disturb buffer and the 75 foot no structure zone that is in our wetland bylaw regulations. And so we were hoping that the content of the conversation tonight could be discussing specifically those waivers and whether the commission is willing to consider them. And if it's okay, if the commission is willing to consider them, then Eric will know sort of what revisions he needs to make moving forward. And otherwise what, what sort of the plan will be moving forward. So that's kind of where things stand from a staff standpoint. And if I missed anything, Eric, please feel free to correct anything or add anything. Thanks, Aaron. Eric, go ahead. Thanks for the summary, Aaron. I appreciate it. Yeah, we had a productive meeting. I think since we last spoke, we also had this site visit. Or I guess. Aaron, maybe you and in the, in this play here at a site visit, just to get other commission members to visit the site. And then, yeah, we're really looking for, you know, it's a tricky situation as you guys know, because we're involved with the commission and the fire department and the zoning board of appeals. I don't think it's, you know, really necessary to kind of rehash the process that we've been through. But of course we went to the ZBA first and they directed us to come here. And now concom has, you know, is asking for input from the fire department. So, you know, I don't think it's really necessary to kind of rehash the process that we've been through, but I'm just asking for input from the fire department. So, Aaron's correct. We're we're looking for guidance from the commission on, you know, what, what the anticipated ruling would be. Just because it's one of the more subjective, I think, determinations that we would be pursuing with the zoning board of appeals and the fire department, I imagine it's a little bit more of a technical analysis. And we're in a little bit of a catch 22 where we don't want to go through a whole blown technical analysis with those groups if we don't, I guess, have the approval to site the project in the location in the first place. So, I'm happy to speak to the project in a capacity that I can and basically kind of inch forward here. Thanks, Eric, if there's any public comment on this, please raise your hand. I'm going to keep an eye in the room commissioners questions and comments. Are you asking for a show of hands. From you guys. Yes. Just if you have a question or comment. Could I just add one quick, a couple quick pieces of information before we go to the next step in your folder. There's a couple additional pieces of information that Eric has submitted to us since the last hearing. One is ever sourced documentation basically that identifies that ever source would not allow them to put the battery storage facility within the existing solar previously determined location within the solar facility. So that basically documents what the issue is with the point of interconnection and the battery storage facility needing to be within that line of sight. The other piece of information, which was clarified by the applicant is, and this is something that's kind of been, I guess, confusing as we review this. My understanding is that the, that this battery storage facility and the solar facility are tied together. They are not completely separate projects. There was a an engineering diagram that was provided by a load star to our electrical inspector and based on that diagram. The electrical inspector does believe that they're tied together. She wants to spend a little more time. Evaluating it, but that was the initial got the initial response I got from her just confirming that it appears they're tied together and that's coming from the applicant as well. So I wanted to make sure that those key pieces of information were in front of you. And also the other key piece of information was the applicant did attempt to submit to ZBA, but they were told not to submit to ZBA until they had already come through conservation to get a read on whether the project was approvable. So that's why there's not a tandem track filing going on with the zoning board. Sorry. Thank you. Thanks, Anne. Alex. Yeah, I'm not sure why it's relevant whether they're tied together or not. It was my impression from the site visit and talking with Eric at the time that there's no connection between the solar project because what they're going to do is take electricity off the line, store it and sell it back. Nothing comes from the solar project to the batteries. I don't need to get into a discussion about that, but that's my understanding. And if we're going to be asked if how we stand on the waiver, I just want to ask for those who were not on the site visit if they understand the project and where it's located and at some semblance of what the fire department would require. And I'll just review that the access road that currently exists is fine for ever source to turn around their trucks, but it's not fine for a fire truck. And the fire truck needs a two point turnaround. I'm not sure whether that's allowable under the, in the ever source easement where the existing road is or whether ever source would require it to be outside the easement. And maybe Eric can address that. But if we're going to be asked where we stand on the waiver, I hope that those who have not seen the site are clear and understand it. Thanks, Alex. Eric, I see your hand up. You probably really want to answer that. But specifically, can you address the easement and the potential of citing the turnaround in the existing easement? But go ahead. So I want to take those two, but first kind of address. I didn't accurately describe how the solar facility and the battery facility were tied in together. And I'm not an electrical engineer at the end of the day. So I was taking my knowledge of how batteries operate and trying to explain that the best I could. This project is really interesting and not to, you know, dive into this too deeply, but there's really two main types of batteries. There's DC coupled batteries where a solar facility will charge a battery directly before it's inverted to AC power, which the electric grid uses. And then there's AC coupled batteries, and those batteries often charge from the grid and then sell back to the grid without ever entering into a different phase of direct current for DC. What this battery does is it actually stores power generated from the facility in alternating current in AC. So it's a little bit of a unique scheme of charging the battery. Generally batteries that store AC power aren't charged by solar facilities because there's a bunch of technical reasons why and it's a little more complex than it needs to be. And also just the physical location of it. So that I'm kind of responsible for knowing that and that's my fault for not explaining that properly, but it is an AC coupled battery that is charged from the solar facility directly and it doesn't charge from the power lines or the electric grid. So I just wanted to clearly state that. And the second thing about the fire department's turnaround. So I don't believe that we can use ever sources easement for emergency access. However, I was reviewing the plans and any need to increase The access road turnaround that we're currently showing in the site plan to change the angle of the turnaround. Any of that is actually outside of the hundred foot buffer for From the wetland. So, although I understand the commission's desire to Get approval from the fire department before making a decision. If there is a modification to the access road that we're currently proposing, it likely wouldn't be a modification within commission's jurisdiction because it's not within 100 feet of the wetland or the wetland itself. Good to know. Thank you. Laura, go ahead. He didn't answer part of my questions. Okay, I'm sorry. So in terms of why is this relevant to the decision that we have to make? Why is it relevant whether it's connected to the solar project or not? I don't think it is and I'm not sure we should spend more time on it. It's interesting to know though. So it is relevant because when we received our special permit for the solar facility several years ago, the battery storage project was approved via amended special permit. So that is it was approved as an additional use to what was approved at the site. In a different location. Correct, but it's essentially an amendment to an amended permit, which initially allowed for the battery to be cited in co located with the solar system. Thank you. Thanks, Michelle. Yeah, thanks for clarifying that. Right, Laura. Go ahead. I think Jason, Jason, were you next? Do you want to just go? Okay, so I'm going to go. So my thoughts are first of all, I appreciate you guys coming back here. And, you know, recalling the presentation last time, you know, I can certainly appreciate going through the pains of getting something cited and going the entire process and then have utility sort of change the goalpost on you after, you know, all this work has been done approval. So, you know, they're basically ready to go and based on our last meeting. It seemed as though that the impacted area was minimal. I have to pull up my notes was was minimal and then I think the question that you asked, Alex sort of indirectly about fire approval, if there was any changes to the easement access area, it would come back to this commission for approval. So, I mean, I think I can, I can appreciate why Lodestar, it seems as though everyone in this community, because battery store just fairly new wants to push it to everybody else to make a decision. And I think the question is, you know, appreciating that this group has, you know, gone through all of our processes and amateurs that they are more that they were not responsible for the changes by ever source the interconnection point. Which is really important. Do we feel comfortable saying you're going to go through all the rigor of all the other committees? You know, you're not going to get hung back up here unless there's further changes to the, you know, the impacted site. So I would be comfortable saying that. But, you know, that's just, you know, I just want to put that out there. Thanks, Sarah. Jason. Yeah, so I know we just talked about the whether or not it's connected and is the connection like a physical connection? Is there a trenching? Is there underground utility from the actual solar panel farm to the battery? Or is it through the wire? Because if there is, and I ask this just because I don't see any kind of physical connection from the battery towards the solar array. So is that work that is not currently shown? Is that a connection that's already, like, is it stubbed out somewhere? Or would that be a new physical connection? Or is it connected up at the pole and then coming down wires that would be in that underground trench that we've discussed previously? And that's how it's going to be connected? And then secondly, you mentioned that if the access road were to be widened, it would not be within the 100 foot buffer. I don't really see too many other places where it potentially could be. Just looking at this site point here. Is that something that you all have already figured out where you would widen that and how you would do that? And if so, can you describe that now? And if not, I would just say, I repeat, I don't see very many places where that could occur outside of the 100 foot buffer. And I am looking at a sheet four of six. But Jason, can I just ask, are we, is there a plan, are we revising a plan at this point? Or are we just thinking ahead to the future? Well, I mean, for the physical connection, if that's the access road, for the access road, no, it was a statement and I just, I'm seeking clarification on the statement. I'm also interested in that because they're asking for a waiver and I'd like to know the holistic perspective of this project. And if they're coming back, which sometimes happens and we've already made a decision based on certain criteria, everything becomes sort of moot. Go ahead, Eric. Sure. So I appreciate you following along in the site plan. I like the aerial. It just is such a busy site plan that I don't think it is going to show you what you're looking for. If you go to sheet three of six, I can speak to your question about a physical connection first. And then part of me, again, if I managed to forget to answer all the questions, but I'll do my best to keep track. So on page three of six, you'll see where we are showing a proposed new PV customer poll. It's, it's kind of the first poll in the, yep, in the kind of like top or I guess middle right of the screen. There's a call out for it. And just to the west of that in kind of a very small font, there is a underground line which is running from the existing solar facility northbound to the existing interconnection equipment and utility poles that are on site today. What is happening is we are proposing to have basically the powers being routed from the solar facility on the eastern side of the parcel through this underground electric line that already exists. What is happening is before it actually hits ever sources meter, it can be sent via the mid span junction pole to the ESS meter pole. And then the power would be routed southbound along or I guess across this overhead electric line from the ESS meter pole to the ESS customer riser pole. At which point it goes underground and that's the trenching that we were discussing to the actual battery battery facility. So this is kind of the complexity with the AC coupled nature of a battery, but also being behind the meter. So the AC power is routed from the solar facility and the battery has the ability to catch it right before it spins ever sources meter. So I just kind of want to pause there and ask if I addressed that question. Yes. Okay. And then your second question was on the flexibility with the access road and if we needed to change it, how would we So sheet four of six in the site plan best shows this just because we're closer to the actual turnaround and what I was trying to describe was not the actual location of how the access road Starts heading southeast to the battery, but I'm saying in the event that the fire department requires a different angle for that hammerhead turnaround. I know that they have to do a turn study and I don't know the exact name, but if they needed to widen the access road, it would likely be a marginal increase into the disturbance within the 50 to 100 foot wetland buffer zone. And the actual end of the turnaround where there's a call out for a proposed parking space. That's that blue line is the hundred foot buffer. So I'm saying if we needed to take a different angle if we needed to widen The turnaround in that location. It wouldn't necessarily impact. It wouldn't be an additional impact in the weather. And we wouldn't get into the 200 foot riverfront. No, the 200 foot riverfront is the, I guess, teal. I know my color is correctly the light blue. So we have that kind of like a separation there. So you'd really have to like, I guess, double the width of the access road to really encroach on that area. Not, not saying that I know what the final result is going to be. I'm just trying to point to the flexibility that we have without increasing disturbance. Okay. Okay, that was question two. Did I answer all the questions you had. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Okay. I've lost track. Andre. Go ahead, Andre. Yes, I know that. Well, thanks for, thanks for the explanation so far. I have to apologize. I'm Not clear on what it is that you are looking for in terms of waivers. Okay. So we are looking for a waiver of, I think there's a no, no improvements within the 50 foot buffer of the wetland itself. And then I believe there's also an additional requirement on page 53 of your wetlands regulations that there also has to be a setback for new buildings. Although I'm not sure how this is defined to be defined as a utility. And then I wouldn't be asking for that second waiver because there's not an additional setback for that use. If you're defining it as a building, then I'm also asking for a setback waiver being within 75 feet of a wetland. Thanks, Eric. I'm going to let Eric, Erin, just confirm that one. Yeah, so Yeah, I kind of had a quick follow up. You said the 50 foot buffer. Can you show me where What part You're looking for the waiver for Sure. Erin, can you help me again? Thank you. So there should be a kind of like mustard yellow. Yeah. So that that yellow line is the 50 foot buffer from the wetland, which is Tugs its southwestern portion of the site. And just so you know, there is we quantified how much of the project is within various areas from the wetland. So only 11 and a half percent of the proposed project is within 50 feet of the wetlands. And the vast majority of the project is actually within the 50 to 100 foot Buffer area of the wetlands. And that's 70.6% of the project. All right, thank you. Erin, do you want to step in for a sec? Yeah, so something that Laura asked just made me want to to comment on this. So I and and Eric, please correct me if I'm wrong here. But my understanding Sorry, something that Laura asked sort of triggered me to want to To bring this up, which is We're not looking to approve the orders of conditions tonight. That's not what we're being asked to do. All we're being asked to do is whether we would consider a waiver of the 50 foot no touch zone for the installation and the 75 foot no structure area. Now my understanding from our meeting with the group was that if, if the commission issues a waiver to load star for this project, they would go back and they would do further evaluation and further design changes and they would come back to us with a revision. At that time they would file concurrently with the zoning board of appeals for their additional amendment that they need to their permit. And then the process would essentially begin concurrently with concom and and The zoning board of appeals for their their joint approval of the project. So I just wanted to clarify that because the way it was made was that we were looking for an overall approval of the permit tonight and that they were going to have to come back to us to like amend the permit and They're they are going to have to make some revisions to this plan before they get their order of conditions. I think that that's their intention here because they don't want to have to come back to us to amend this permit later. They would like to make all the required revisions that the town is looking for get it on a final plan and then get it approved. That's my understanding. So I just wanted to clarify that point. I guess my question was similar to what Bruce speak up. I think my question had to do with what Aaron just said, but I'll say it a slightly different way. Assume that we give this with these two waivers under what conditions can we revisit it or at what point in the process. Do we have further jurisdictional control over what happens. Do we have further jurisdictional control over what happens if we give these waivers or does it stop them are and it doesn't stop our involvement, but it prevents us from doing anything down the road. No, we still, you know, we still approve plans and discuss the plan. So I think this is just us giving a go ahead or here's what we need on the waiver tonight. Yes. Yes. So what I thought I heard from Eric was they were just trying to get an understanding of whether we would be inclined to give them a waiver down the road, not tonight. Correct. Thank you, Bruce. Alex to move us right along. I'll just say that I don't favor the waiver. And the reason is precedent number one. I think it's, it's, it's unfortunate at the position that the project's in, but I'm concerned about the precedent. We got the 50 foot line being involved. The project is one almost 100% within the 50 foot buffer. I mean that 100 foot buffer. Our wetland regs say that anything inside the 100 foot buffer causes damage to the wetland. And I would not favor it. Thanks Alex, Laura. So I think this is an interesting point that I had a different comment, but the Alex brings up. When we approved the original project, Aaron, I think it's interesting, you know, when we talk about precedent, I think it's going to be important to really look at precedent. It's not just the precedent we're setting, but the precedent that we've done in the past that had, you know, actions that we've undertaken in the past. When in good faith, people, you know, do their best, follow the rules, and then things change that are outside of their control. And I would really be interested in knowing in the past, you know, because I certainly have examples of my time on the commission. When certain exceptions have been made within reason to allow certain projects to go through. So, and I think Aaron, you might not have the answer for this right now, but Alex, when I heard your comment, it was more like setting precedent for battery storage in the future. And what, or when anything in the future, as opposed to looking back at what we have done before, and where we have or have not given approval in similar situations. So that that would be something I would also be interested in, but I certainly have sympathy for the developer after having given after having gone through the steps and getting approval. I just think we need to, you know, I mean, I think it we owe it to, and maybe we can't make the decision tonight, but we certainly owe it to, to the group to be able to say, hey, if you come back to us again and your design is exactly the same. We're not going to let you through, you know, because that's it, you know, as opposed to, hey, we'd consider it. So, anyways, thanks for your patience, Michelle. We're like way over. I know. Andrea, go ahead. I do have my own comments. So this is, this is it before I talk. Okay, go. Yeah. Well, I, you know, I just going to point, point to the purpose behind the regulation and the purpose behind the regulation is to protect the wetlands and it just seems like within when you're within, you know, so in other words, the we have on one hand we have the precedent and the precedent and the fact that, as Eric mentioned, we this was and so did Laura. This was approved previously. But you know, on the other hand, though, we have, we have the 50 foot no disturb zone and the 100 foot buffer that that are going to be affected and so I'm not, you know, I don't, I think I just don't think that the fact that we approved it previously with with it under a slightly different plan is a good enough reason to, to approve it now. That's just my opinion. But that's where I'm, I'm on the fence as far as a, approving a waiver but I, I'm not convinced. Can you clarify it's like the difference between the previously approved plan. Where is the previously approved plan coming from because there was no previously approved plan for this. This is the first time this is coming to concom this battery storage. I just want to, I'll give you another snapshot of the history. Yeah, there was a solar facility that was permitted by the Conservation Commission. There were, there were, there was an order of conditions that governed that that solar facility. There was a certificate of compliance issued on that so that facility was constructed. The applicant went to the zoning board to get approval for this, these battery storage several years ago that battery storage that had been previously approved by the zoning board was approved outside of concom jurisdiction so there was no, no decision of the concom associated with that because it was out of concom jurisdiction. Then they got denied by Eversource for the interconnection of that proposed project, which is why they had to relocate it closer to the interconnection point on Montague Road. So the commission has not previously reviewed or approved this battery storage. I just want to make that clear that was a different body. Well, can I just say something now then I would appreciate not having that misrepresented in the future as having been approved previously by us. Because that's what it sounded like. By Eric and Eric did and I think Laura might have. Yeah, I think so. Let's not let's not let's not mix apples and oranges here. Yeah, I agree, Andre. Okay, thank you. We did we, Aaron I thought we looked at this as a solar. I thought we looked at this site before this there was a solar just solely solar facility that was there was an order of conditions issued. The solar facility was constructed and there was a certificate of compliance issued for the solar facility. There was no battery storage associated with that that came in later outside of jurisdiction and that was reviewed by ZBA and approved by ZBA. That is this project, but it did not come through concom. Okay. All right, clear. Thank you for working that out. Go ahead Eric, but perhaps quickly. Sorry, I just, if I misrepresented misrepresented the project, that's my bad. I've been referring to the town as a as a proper noun pretty widely. Aaron has explained it correctly and I wasn't trying to do anything other than what she was saying. It was never our intention to cite a project in the wetlands. I think that would be a pretty terrible thing to do from the get go is to try to develop a project in an area that you don't have express approval to do. We cited the project outside the wetlands receive it and we received an agreement with ever source saying that we could build the project constructed and connected. And it was only a year later that after we received our approvals from the town, not from the concom but from the ZBA that they broke their agreement and it was a year and a half that we went to the Department of utilities of public utilities and actually had a case about this because you can't approve a project and have an agreement and have a developer go through all these steps, just to backtrack. So that is the reason why the project is in this location it was never our intention. And I understand that we're requesting waivers just to know, you know, I'm not coming in here asking for, you know waivers and thinking I'm going to leave I'm trying to also propose mitigation that would be sufficient to the commission to consider on the basis of granting the waiver and that's the invasive species management that we're trying to propose. I think what my company is trying to do here is we're trying to we're in a tough spot. And we're trying to come to the commission and say what can we do we understand that we're in a weird spot. What can we do to make you feel that this what we're proposing is sufficient in order to grant us the waiver and kind of approve this project that has been years in the making. So that's all I wanted to say. Thanks Eric, and it is unfortunate that it's come to our table and that now this has become a concom issue and we appreciate that hardship that you've gone through our, our charges the wetlands and it's to uphold that law so it's not necessarily about how we feel about it's a bit of an evaluation about what the impact the wetlands is going to be if that's acceptable under our bylaws. And so I unfortunately are our site visit didn't work out. I really wanted to get out there because one thing I haven't been able to see is what is the current wetland function is it completely degraded by ever source I mean what, and I would appreciate some input from anyone that was able to get out there. Is it native in functioning and like what is the proper that what is the impact and then we've very briefly touched on what the mitigation would be. And for me, even to consider personally a waiver I would have to see some sort of very serious mitigation plan that would be in place in perpetuity that would basically lift this site up onsite and compensate for any perpetual impacts to the, to the area that you're going to be would propose to build on and a three year mitigation plan in a place that has like constant invasive species seed mobile and constant disturbance from ever source is a challenging is a challenging site and I just really want to get out there and see what the proposal is what you know I think what I, I can't find it but I think that the current plan is sort of a donut around the site and that's just not. It's not a great design for mitigation. That's in a in a way that's going to, for you know, years and years and years out that's just leaving it open to a lot of fragmentation and a lot of impacts and a lot of disturbance. So personally for me as far as evaluating the wetland impacts. I'd really like to see a more comprehensive mitigation plan to even think about that. And I'm also thinking about that in the context of like an alternatives analysis like where else does the battery go like do you cut down forests and put the batteries up or is this an ideal site to site something like this which not in our jurisdiction but important to have as far as you know climate change sustainability alternative energy. So that is something I'm thinking about and then back my mind is the alternatives. But I do really want to get out there and I am interested in commissioners perspectives on what you saw. And I would like to see more of a comprehensive and thought out plan that and in you know, something that we have some back and forth on for the mitigation. So that's just my perspective that I've been holding back this half an hour. I see some comments. Go ahead Bruce. So, I was on this I visited my concern is less about what I saw then the discussions with the fire captain, because it seems to me that the issue about their access and then the kinds of road that they are going to require is. I feel is very unclear on certain as to what that end point is going to be. And given that, then I don't feel reassured that the limited amount of engagement with the resource is would hold necessarily. So, you know, leaning one way or the other I'm, I'm, Eric is asking for an understanding of where we are so he can figure out with his team, what to do, and I'm leaning, not very happy about the way the uncertainties involved here. I can't be more specific than that, but that's the road keeps coming up and it doesn't seem to be getting resolved, but I'm wondering if we could continue this discussion pending another site walk. I don't know Alex. Okay, well, that's I personally would like to see it, but go ahead. There's plenty of opportunity to swing by and, you know, maybe Aaron can join you. I'd join you. There is actually not that many opportunities. I'm available if you want to go see it. I can tell you that the access road that ever source has goes right down their, their easement. And it's wide enough for a truck or a vehicle not to passing each other. It's fairly narrow. And at the end, there is Rome for a typical ever source truck to turn around in a three point turn. It doesn't go off the easement down into the wetland at all. So I don't think that the development by ever source is terms of the access road has degraded the wetland at all. But with all due respect, Michelle, he's asking for a thumbs up or a thumbs down. He wants to know whether to spend more money or not. And what you're proposing is for him to spend more money. I'm not ready to say yes on a waiver until I have more information. And one of those things was a site walk, which just scheduling didn't work out and our visit was canceled, but I don't know it doesn't look like you're ready to move forward with a yes and a waiver either. I am. You are. Yeah. Okay, that's a change. Wait, just to clarify, the question was asking Alex, if Alex was willing to issue a waiver. I'm not. Right. But I am willing to put the question to the commission. Right. Okay. Eric is asking. And what appears to be happening is a postponement of a decision, which is not what Eric came here for. So could we do a poll and just see who's in favor of the waiver and who's not, and, and just do it that way to give Eric some read of the board. And then maybe Eric can make a decision if he'd like to do a site walk and have that offer more information to the remaining commissioners who haven't been to the site. Yeah, so the question being if we are to vote right now, are you willing to issue a waiver? And that is with no further information. And so if yes, you're able to issue a waiver with the information we have, please raise your hand. Sorry, a waiver of the fifth so the to build within the 50 foot no disturb. And whatever other waiver is required. So I think it's building within the 75 and impacts within the 50 encroachment in the 50 no disturb buffer. So before we have a hand raise if I could. I just want to be clear that I'm trying to be courteous to Craig coming to Eric who came to us with a question and so my saying what I what I did is trying to be courteous to why tonight. That's it. I think if you my gut we can take the poll is that if you're asking people to vote, if we give you waiver tonight, you're going to get a hard no from everyone without more information. But if you if you. So if you want to push it, I mean, I think we can all mean, but that's my sense, but you know, I don't know was that your intention to say this is just a hand vote. So this is the mood of the crowd. We're not going to make anything official. But if you'd like to know where we stand, we can do that. Yeah, I'd like to know where you stand. And I've heard some concerns that I'm hoping to address in the event that I don't get enough thumbs up tonight. Okay. All right, so the question to the commissioners with hand vote is. Are you willing to issue a waiver for is it the 75 foot no building Aaron and then encroachment on the 50 foot no disturb buffer for this project given the information we currently have hands up if yes to the waiver. Okay, so there you have it. I think we need some more information. Do you feel like you know what you need to come back to us on. I think the road is a big one. I think the site visit is going to be one and I'd really like some information on mitigation plan. Is there anything else that we can guidance that we can clearly give him so that he can be productive in this. Yes. This is related, which is where is a motion to continue the public hearing for another two weeks, and there's no way in two weeks that all these activities and further information are going to be achieved. So, my, at least at a minimum, we should figure out if we're going to continue the public hearing to what date are we doing that. Okay, we'll get to that first from commissioners. Can you give him some specific feedback that you'd like to hear to help you make a vote on this at some later point in time. Alex. Yeah, I was unclear on the question. That's the way the question, the motion has nothing to do with waiver. But you asked show of hands, if people would be willing to issue a waiver given the information. The other side of the coin is where do members stand in terms of denying a waiver based on. That's the vote that will take probably next time. I mean, I'm not ready to vote on that. Maybe I misunderstood Eric and the way this whole thing was presented. I thought he was looking for clarity tonight so that he can tell his people where they stand and they can make a decision whether to spend more money or not. And again, I'm just trying to be courteous to him as a business person. And not cause him to have to spend more money if we can make a decision tonight. Yeah, thank you Alex and I'm sure that's what Eric wanted to walk away with, but I'm sorry Eric, go ahead Laura. I would say the other thing so I think a site walk I would like to be there too but, and then Aaron, you know, because I, for some reason I must have. Like, thought we had discussed this project before in a previous version of the concom so I would really be interested in knowing Aaron have we given waivers like this before in past business. And we can, you know, we can talk one on one about that and then you can present to the group but that's that's something I really would be interested in knowing. So, I can just just very quickly where do we know that please let Aaron just answer the question Alex. I wanted to add to it. Okay, well, go ahead Aaron. So, In June on June 22 of 2022, we updated the wetland bylaw regulations. And so, since that time, I don't believe there's been a formal request for a waiver. There have been some some areas where the commission has has granted some some leeway various small little ways here and there for various projects kind of discretionary. But I think that the scale of this one is a little bit more pronounced and so that's why the waiver request has been submitted but I can make a list of you know where Just even like with Beth, I mean, I'm maybe actually I maybe I'm asking for a data request that's like a mess and which I also appreciate so but I like even under Beth's term when Beth before the previous wetland administrator. You know, like little things but like what has been what has been issued I just want to make sure we're being fair. That's my point. I was under a previous bylaw where the setbacks were different. So that's why I'm saying like previously we had a 35 foot no setback and here we have a 50 foot so it's kind of comparing apples and oranges unfortunately. Okay. All right. Alex, go ahead. I close out. I'm not going to what Aaron just said is Apple that we're comparing apples and oranges. We're just kind of where I was going. But the information from 2022 till now would be relevant. My feeling is we should be looking forward not back. We've got climate change is a big issue. We've got a new set of rules. And if you look at the impact on wetlands because of development in Amherst, it's tremendous we've lost a huge percent. Yeah, but so Alex in balance with that is if we've given people permission before we have to it is important to act to act with fairness. So I just it's data I would like to see. I think that data would be useful ahead. And also to keep in mind that every decision we make at every meeting is setting precedent potentially and so having that history with us would be useful. And also to see how much wetland we've lost. Okay, so everybody, I think, sorry Eric, I know you wanted to walk away with more than this, but here we are. So I think we're looking for a motion to continue and as Bruce mentioned, we might need more time. Eric, do you have any thoughts on a time period that would be manageable for you or do you want to shoot for the state. I mean, so my resources are at the disposal of, you know, the commission. So if, if, you know, if it works for everyone schedules to have a site visit within the next couple of weeks and we feel like we can have a productive conversation with the remaining members following that. I wouldn't mind continuing this for a couple of weeks in the event you believe that it would be more difficult to schedule a site visit with the commissioners within that period of time. Or you don't think that a follow up meeting so soon would be productive then I would recommend that we we continue the meeting a little bit further. Okay, since a number of commissioners would like to get out there, I'm inclined to think that we might need more than two weeks. Alex, I see your hand up. Yeah, well, are you. I'm not clear on the question. Are you asking if we want another site visit. I mean, I know I do and at Laura expressed interest in going. So I think if there's another site visit, I'll go. Okay, great. The question is, when should we continue this to and I think that maybe we need more than two weeks just to accommodate that. Whatever. What does Eric think he needs. What he'd be flexible, given the limitations of the commission's needs. So is this acceptable to you for 1024 Eric. Yeah, yeah, that's fine for me. Okay, thank you. All right, looking for a motion on this one. I can move to continue the public hearing from one of you road battery storage project D P 0890731 to April 10, 2024 at 740pm. Second. Hey Bruce on the motion was that Andre on the second. Yeah. Alex. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Andre. Hi, Laura. Hi, Jason. Jason. And I'm an eye. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Thank you. We'll be in touch. Okay. Next step. Okay. First code. Every V8 notice of resource delineation for pierce guide development incorporated on behalf of wd coals incorporated represented by Goddard. Consulting for the confirmation of resource area boundaries on site, So folks can catch up on what's going on offline. Um, there's been some back and forth, but for right now, we'll save time and just continue and we can update at the next meeting. Looking for motion. I move to continue the public hearing for shoots very road and read and read to 730 PM on April 10, 2024. I second that. Bruce on the motion Jason on the second Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Laura. Jason. Hi. Laura. Hi. I'm an eye. And Alex is an eye. Sorry, Alex, your camera is off. It threw me for a loop. And Alex is an eye. Um, is off. No, it's not. Okay. Sorry. I just can't see you. All right. Notice of intent for Wendell wetland services on behalf of Kevin and Mary O'Brien for the construction of a new 1200 square foot single family home and associated site work work. In the riverfront area of Eastman brook at 260 lever road map 3A lots 50. This project is proposed as a riverfront redevelopment project replacing existing garage and chicken coop structure. So. Another continuance, but they have submitted. A plan as Aaron's shown. So in good faith. They provided materials and they're asking for a continuance and we need to schedule a site walk before we hear this too. The site walk is scheduled. For March 22nd at 3pm, just so everybody has it on their calendar. But yeah, just looking for a continuation and the materials are in the folder tonight. Um, they were just submitted on Monday. So we didn't have an adequate time to review them prior to tonight's meeting. Looking for a motion. I have a question. Oh, sorry, Alex. I can't see you. I believe March 22 is a Friday. It is. I'm going to be out of town. Is it I really want to go on this side visit. Is it possible to hold it on another day? Yes. Um, do you want to. Send me some dates that would work for you and you could either meet separately with the landowner or we can reschedule to another time. That works for you. Can you join me for explanation? You mean have two separate site visits. Yeah. Yeah, I don't. That's fine. I just assumed on me with the landowner by myself. Yeah, I think either way, we can work with you. If you just send me a couple of dates that you're, you're available in that that end of that week. We can figure it out. But it has to be in that week. Well, so I'd like to see that. I'd like to see it so I can get comments for the following week. But if, you know, if it needs to be the following week, that's fine too. Yeah, so that's so not this week, but next week. Okay. It's the end of next week. Right. I'm just, yeah, I'm just trying to figure what. Yeah. Okay. I will let you know when I'm available. Okay. But I can pretty much make myself available whenever you are. Except Tuesday mornings. Okay. Um, thanks for being available for the site visit. I appreciate it. I'm looking for a motion to continue this one. I moved to continue the public hearing for. 263 Leverett road. DEP 89 dash 07 to 8. The 745 PM on 327 24. Second. Alex on the motion Jason on the second Bruce. Hi, Andre. Hi. Laura. Hi. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. Um, now we're on to other business. So enforcement order. Um, who was able to visit this one. Just curious. Got Bruce. Me and Bruce. Yeah. Thanks Bruce. Thanks, Aaron. All right. Aaron, do you want to give us an update? Yeah, I'm going to try to sum this up really quickly. Um, materials are in your folder. You can see the enforcement order. Um, you can see the photos. I can pull the photos up if you'd like, like for me to flash them on the screen. Um, I did a little, um, uh, figure to demonstrate the work I'd like to see completed out on the site. I'm happy to pull that up as well. The bottom line is the site is worse, a lot worse. Um, the measures that they installed. Um, I'm not going to stabilize it. It's, there's rills and gullies going down into a, um, Uh, a ravine, essentially, and the material is, is flowing directly into a stream. It's, it's not a good situation. So I'm basically laying out, um, a series of measures that I think are necessary, including repairing, replacing existing silt fence, adding additional silt fence measures, adding additional blankets, um, and hand removal of a significant amount of material, um, that was placed there illegally, as well as the material that's washed into the resource area. And that all of that be completed within the next 30 days. Um, and that if it's not completed in the next 30 days, that there'll be fines assessed and that we'll be seeking DEP assistance on resolving it. Um, the reason that I'm kind of taking a hard line on this one is I think it can be completed easily within 30 days. I think it needs to be completed within 30 days. And the damage that's occurring right now is so substantial that we need to have an immediate response action to address it. And, um, a Band-Aid is not going to work. We, we need like, um, full, full site, um, work to address the situation. Thanks Aaron Bruce. Um, what I also observed was, um, Aaron using the power of the persuasion of the applicants, personal interest to try to get this in conflict, because there is erosion of other parts of the site that have nothing to do with our resource that are also eroding away. And he and I, I tried to talk about the potential that we're going to get additional heavy rainstorms and that the sooner this get done, the better for the entire property, not just our part. Wow. Thank you for the outreach Bruce. Yeah, that looks terrible. Okay. Yeah. I mean directly into the stream it's flowing at this point. I think the other point that Aaron made on the site was that the part that's going into the stream is off the applicants property. It's actually flowing to someone else. And this is a great example of how impacts that are outside of our jurisdiction flow into our jurisdiction. So in this particular case, the entire site was graded towards the resource area, which was not part of the site plan. There was supposed to be like a 50 foot buffer in between the resource area and the home construction. And they basically came in there with Phil and graded the whole thing back to the wetland or to the, to the buffer zone. And so everything and it's the whole site is, is exposed. So everything is washing off of this site down into the buffer and they pushed a huge amount of fill and girdle a bunch of trees. You can see them buried here, like several, several feet deep. They need to be hand dug out. Just it's, it's terrible. There are the girdle trees in our jurisdiction. Yeah, they're in the buffer. So this is like the 100 foot line here. There was supposed to be 100 feet or 50 feet between the 100 foot buffer and the house. But you can see, I'll. I mean, you can see the water flowing off the site from, from above, but I'll, you know, they clear cut between the house and, and the buffer zone. And so everything's washing from the site down into the buffer. And also the front of the lot is, is eroding into the road, which goes into catch basins and drains into resource area as well. So I'm telling them, they have to stabilize the front too, because this, these catch basins drain to resource area. So it's, it's kind of taking jurisdiction over the entire site to try to get them to stabilize the entire site immediately. You don't actually know the status of the trees because the, the soil is about this high up on each one, putting a lot of them. And so he and I talked about digging it out by hand carefully to make sure that girdling of the, of the bark doesn't happen while they're digging it out. Okay. I want to come back to the tree part, but go ahead, Jason. Yeah, I just, Aaron, you mentioned that the whole. You've, you've come up with a plan here and you've mentioned that the whole site essentially is, is graded back towards the resource area. Are we within our. Are we able to say, you know, aside from putting erosion sediment controls down, they should have some sort of swell. They shouldn't be grading this all the way. This shouldn't be draining towards the resource area. So my only concern with that is, and there's a couple of ways to go about this with enforcement, right? We could say cease and desist. You need to file a notice of intent application, in which case they'd have to hire someone to put a plan together to come back before us. That's a huge delay to have them do that. My thinking is, let's see if we can get them to stabilize the site and we can, you know, with vegetation and stabilized surfaces, we can stop what's going on here. At that point, the commission can decide, okay, we want an after the fact notice of intent to install some swales, but my thinking is just to get some immediate stabilization measures to stop what's happening. And then assess it again. This is going to be a multi-part enforcement situation. It's not going to be just a one and done. Unless they do these stabilization measures and everything, all of a sudden looks, you know, perfect and there's no other issues. That's the only way I could see it resolved that quickly. Yeah. I mean, we're talking about 30 days and we're talking about hand digging out, you know, however many trees, putting down seed and mulch, erosion control blanket after all of those trees are dug out, right? Right. So we're talking, you know, in effect, you know, a few weeks to do that. Yeah. I know that and it's, the onus is on the home owner, right? The property owner, but it's the contractor potentially that did this. And it's the contractor that's potentially going to come in and fix it. I'm curious, does this project have grading plans on file with the city? Yeah. So you're looking at the plan right now. This is the, this is the approved plan. So you can see where the tree line was supposed to be and where the limit of work was supposed to be. Is that tree line that's representing the 100 foot buffer? This is the 100 foot buffer right here. Okay. It's cleared, clear cut and graded up to this line. The entire site has been clear cut and graded up to this line. And everything is graded back towards this, this rear buffer zone. And a large amount of fill was pushed right up to the, to the top of slope here. And that's what's washing down. And that material was just pushed over the edge sort of indiscriminately. No stabilization measures with one line of erosion controls. This was the site where the erosion controls were not supposed to be, the erosion controls were supposed to be higher up, but they were placed lower down and I asked them to move them. When I did the inspection, I said that erosion controls need to be further from the resource area. And the consultant who was representing the client told me no, that that's where they were going to stay. And what was ironic is when I was out on the site visit, the owner said to me, why didn't you tell me to move their erosion controls higher up on the slope? And I'm like, I did. And your consultant said no. So this is, you know, this is the push and pull that I get caught in. So yeah, it's, it's challenging. Yeah. So, all right. Can, can we move to the, are we through discussing this? Can we move on? I see Andre's hand up. Andre, did you have something? I do. Just double checking here. Carl's excavating is, has some legal exposure here too, right? Yes. Okay. Yeah. That's all I wanted to know. Okay. I had a question about back to the trees because this is the same applicant that came to us for removal of trees, maybe like a year ago, I think some commissioners might have been on that. And we approved the removal of some trees that were nearer to the house. And then they came back and wanted to remove more trees for view purposes. And we denied that one. And now you're saying that there's some standing girdle trees. And I'm just wondering, is there any relationship there are they in an area that they, I assume you mean someone took a chainsaw and girdle the trees. Is that what you mean? No, no, I mean, they're buried. Oh, okay. They're buried like three feet deep. Okay. Good. I'm glad that it wasn't the former. Okay. Were any of those trees. Sorry. Were any of those trees that were previously denied removed? Yes. Well, that's a second violation. Isn't it? Well, they're out of compliance with their permit period. I mean, they, they did not do what they said they were going to do. They went way beyond what they said they were going to do. They did not follow the plan. So they're out of compliance with the. Determination that was issued. I'm sorry. Did I just hear that? Yes. That some of the trees that they were denied before are now have been cut. Not cut, but they've been buried. Yeah. Which has damaged them. I heard that the same way Andre did. So, so they did. Well, I'd like to see what's on what's under that buried area too. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. That's the thing I was trying to say is that we don't know what's under there until it's in those soil is removed carefully from around it. You won't know the damage or not. We'll see. Okay. Jason. Yeah. Given. So I know that there's a motion out here. But I feel that this is a particularly egregious. Violation. And I am not in favor of. Giving them 30 days. Like I think personally that. Some sort of monetary. Fine should be issued. And the prior to the, that 30 days. If at all possible. So. Binding is not ideal. It's, it's not ideal. And I would be happy to have a conversation Jason with you offline about it for to explain the reasoning why. We can issue fines, but it's not as easy as, you know, as it sounds. So it's, it's very complicated. It's got to be done every single day. It's sent to superior court on a daily basis has to be postmarked as well as to, we have to keep a copy and send a copy daily to the applicant for every day that the violation exists. And then. Ultimately, if they don't pay, we have to go to superior court and there are ramifications to that as well. So if we can avoid it to the degree we can, I would highly recommend that we do just for resource allocation reasons. But I do think that we need to tell them and make them aware that if they do not follow this exactly as we've outlined that that's going to be the next step. Again, you guys can do whatever you want. I just want you to understand the complexity of finding. Okay. All right. So do we. This has been ongoing. I mean, this started last. In 2023. This sat over the entire winter. With snow melt with the heavy rains that we've had. You know, there's definitely been impacts to the, to the resource. And like I said, I feel like this is a particular egregious. Egregious violation. So in lieu of a potential fine, you said we can do a season to the cyst. Is that essentially a stop work order until all of our. All of the conditions are met. No, a cease and desist means they can't do anything on the site. Including. Restoration mitigation activities. So I don't recommend a cease and desist at this point. Yeah, that doesn't cheap anything for us either. No, it doesn't. I mean, so there's, there's multiple options. You tell them what you want them to do and give them a time period to complete it. You make them file a permit or you issue them a cease and desist or any combination. I don't think asking them to file a permit at this point is the right move. It's going to take too long. We need to immediate stabilization measures. I also don't think cease and desist is the move because. If we issue a cease and desist, they're not, they're not going to be able to do anything. Yeah, so then what is the purpose? What is the point of a cease and desist? And we can talk, we can take it offline. I'm just not sure why. It's if they're in the middle of doing work. It's like, in a situation like this is not a good example, but it's like, if they're in the middle of doing work that where they're, they're going out of bounds, you could issue a cease and desist and make them file. And after the fact permit, as long as there's no resource area alteration happening as a result. It's a just an immediate stop. Stop measure to make them just cease any work on site. Okay. Laura. My question was around the cease and desist. Is there any scenario? So interestingly, this is an area that I'm really familiar with. So my kids grew up playing in the stream right down there. It was like, so I'm very familiar with what it used to look like. Is there a scenario where you can do a cease and desist and then we bring in contractors to fix the damage and they pay for it? I guess my concern is, my only concern is we're going to wait 30 days. Things are not going to be done to the level that we want them to be done to. And then, you know, hopefully something's done. But I mean, is there any, is there ever a scenario where we have the authority to bring in people who could, you know, dig out the trees and, you know, do all of that and they put the bill. No, I mean, at the end of the day, this is private property. So we don't have any rights to enter on their property and work on their property. It's, you know, ultimately they are liable for what's going on, but we don't have any rights to take over the site now. If DEP gets involved, that could be a different scenario. But for us, it's not. And again, you know, I would, if there is any lack of cooperation here, I would not hesitate to involve DEP immediately. And I think that's an important resource for us to keep in mind in our toolbox. All right. Is there a different vehicle other than the finding scenario? Can I just say, can I just say, can I just say something? I've been doing this almost 20 years. This is my recommendation. I, we can talk about it all night long. I just really, this is the solution. This is the best solution we have before us. I think we're going to go to fines because of the same reason. And that seems like a problem. And here we are getting this, this problem that's worse and worse. And we have nothing to do about it except the same thing over and over again, which is, you know, hope for compliance. And we all hope for that. But like there has been impacts over like a six month period to the resource area. Is there any way to have a fine that's structured around like a mitigation. You know, not a donation, but like a mandatory mitigation. So my recommendation to the commission is once this is done, like this is just step number one, get the site stable. Once the site is stable, my recommendation would be require this applicant to file an after the fact notice of intent to restore and replant and do a mitigation area to compensate for the adverse impacts that have been caused. But I think that's sort of a step number two as part of this enforcement order, which I don't think is appropriate at this step. I think at this step, the appropriate thing is immediate urgent stabilization measures with the firm deadline and a firm, if this is not done, this is going to be the next step that's spelled out clearly. Because I think at this point that's our best chance to get them to comply. And once they have complied, I think we have more leverage to require additional things of them. Well, should we tie in the mandatory NOI to this motion? I would keep them separate. If I was you, there's nothing that stops us from amending and updating this enforcement order. Once they have reached the benchmark of completing the stabilization measures, it doesn't mean that we're done until the commission says, you're in full compliance. They're not in full compliance. They're not in full compliance. So there, the commission has a lot of discretion here to continue to monitor this and add additional requirements until it's. To your satisfaction that it's been resolved. Okay. Thanks. Well, I think we should keep that in mind in 30 days. Andre. Erin, you mentioned this before and I'm sorry that I didn't, that it's, it's not, it's not a good idea to do this. I'm sorry. I don't want to see. Properly in my mind. Tell me again, what the recourses. Through the DEP. And. If you ask. If you ask the EP to get involved. You're essentially turning the enforcement over to DEP, which is not my first choice. Any permit that I have, I do not want to turn over to a state agency. I just want to be sure that. I don't want to be at their disposal. I don't want to have to. I don't want to have to be in control to respond to visit the site to interact with the landowner if additional measures are necessary. You know, there are three people who work for Western region. Wetlands office. They're managing. Everything west of Worcester. So I don't particularly want to turn it over to them unless I have to. know if they're not complying. Got it. Thank you. Alex. Yeah, I'm ready to support Erin in the motion that she's prepared and would suggest that we move on that we still need to discuss for River School. And I'm looking for time to talk about commission issues that we need to schedule and I would just assume not everybody very tired by the time we talk about that. Okay. All right. I've got one more. You know, Aaron, I agree, you know, I don't want to continually belabor this, but so in these conditions of the enforcement order narrative, you stated that all the unpermitted fill once it's been removed needs to be stabilized with a biodegradable erosion control blanket, and that the other areas need to be stabilized with either seed and mulch or hydro seed. Once that biodegradable blanket is down, then what? Because that is going to biodegrade. And as we get into the summer months here and it gets humid and it gets wet, it's going to biodegrade fairly quickly, depending on what they use, because we're not calling out a specific, we're not specifying the product so they can, as long as the biodegradable, they can use whatever they want. If it's straw, it's going to go quick. What then are we going to have them? What is the permanent solution to this then? Or do we need to write that now? Or can we visit that once we take step number two in this enforcement action? Yeah. So there was a wetland seed mix that was also required to be planted in association with the restoration, basically, of the area. So I mean, I think there should be seed put down, but then I think once the blankets are down, once the seed and mulch are down, improved erosion controls that are actually functioning, I think then our next step is what would the commission like to do? Do you want to see that hillside replanted? If so, we need to specify what plantings to put in or have them submit a mitigation plan that's actually created by someone, but totally open to it. I think April 12th is right around the corner, so it gives them some time to address this and then we can, we'll be in the growing season, so we can either suggest what we want, we can say, we want you to plant, you know, 10 of these and 20 of those and 15 of those, we can spell it out for them what we want them to do, or we can have them hire someone and file an after-the-fact permit to do it. Okay, so that'll be part of step two. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Bruce, you got a motion for us? No. I think by some mechanism we should tell him that we're gonna have a site here that every week. That's a great idea. Okay. Yeah, I'm in favor of oversight. Is everyone gonna add that? Yeah, I'll add that to the, I'll add that to the notice. Okay, so then I will move to update ratify and reissue the enforcement order issued to Amir Mkechi and Carl's excavating for work at 11 trillion way. As noted in the narrative, all required work to bring the project back into compliance must be completed by April 12 2024. If requirements are not met, the commission staff will begin assessing a daily fine of $300 in the Department of Environmental Protection will be consulted for support in resolving this matter. And I can and what would Aaron add? Do we want it? Okay, Jason, do you want to add the site visit schedule? I'm just gonna add it into the document. It'll be enforcement. Got it. Okay. Who had the second? Sorry. I did. Okay. Jason on the motion on the second. Bruce. Hi, Jason. Hi, Alex. Hi, Andre. Hi, Laura. Hi, I'm an I. Okay. See you again, Trillium. Okay, next is sorry, someone said something. We're laughing. We're laughing. Discussion of playground surfacing at Fort River School. Okay, so there's been a couple of public comments on this one. And if anybody in the public wants to speak, please raise your hand now and I'll I'll get to that. Okay, so my brief comments, which unfortunately, it's quite late tonight, but I'm not going to reiterate everything that the Board of Health deliberated on in our research, but they did do a lot of research on the most available scientific literature, all of which is emerging on toxins in this is crumb rubber like recycled tire poured in place, unitary surface. And for those who aren't familiar with it, it's used in playgrounds like Roth Park and Kendrick Park because it's bouncy. So it meets safety standards. And there's emerging evidence that it has toxicity both to human health and ecosystems. And it's an urge restriction because there's a stormwater system that will take the outflow from this. And it's I think like 13, that was 1300 feet and into the Fort River and the river buffer. So I think from where I am, okay, the other part of this is there is an alternative to this material and it's called well there's several alternatives to it. There's an Institute at UMass Lowell that's done a lot of research and evaluations of the different playground materials and that was provided to us in some of the public comment and they're basically listed and coded by toxicity. So in this case, we have a material that was proposed by the contractors. We have an alternative to the material and the town and the school building commission, the committee is looking to the conservation commission to basically deliberate or make a decision on what is acceptable to us for the playground servicing. And before the school building committee came to us, we approved the school building site plan with the exception of the playground plans because we weren't ready to fully deliberate on that. So we don't have that plan in front of us, but in order for them to move forward with the building, they want some guidance from us on what would be acceptable. So I think what we need to do is discuss our concerns, discuss where we stand on it and make a motion on some kind of just basically make a motion on what our decision and standpoint is. I don't know if it has to be a memo or just a motion, I think that's what the Board of Health did. Again, they did a lot of research and it's way too late for me to go into this, but if you'd like me to rattle off with the chemicals are and more of the eco toxicity, I can do that, but hopefully you guys read some of the summaries that were in packets. Okay, any questions from commissioners comments? Anything? Can we put a time limit on this discussion? Sure. I'd love to. How about 10 minutes? Dave, go ahead. Yeah, thanks for the summary, Michelle. I think, you know, I've had a couple of conversations with the town manager about this, I believe the town manager may have been, I think he was quoted in the newspaper on an article on Fort River School saying that, you know, he, he's a member of the building committee, the Fort River School Building Committee. And I think he and other members of that committee, as well as the designer are looking for input, as Michelle mentioned, from the Board of Health, but also from the commission. I might suggest that you frame this in the form you mentioned a memo, Michelle, but perhaps a recommendation from the commission in the form of a memo might go to the the Fort River School Building Committee, as well as the town manager, and perhaps the superintendent. So perhaps a recommendation as to, I don't think we want to have the commission call out a specific product, because, but, but something, you know, an alternative to port in place rubber surface, you know, referring to something made of cork. That kind of recommendation. Thanks, Dave. So, I mean, that sounds good to me. I guess my only concern is, is a recommendation standpoint on which they can is strong enough to make a decision, because I did attend the school building committee and Paul was pretty adamant that there needed to be a vote. And I just want, you know, the Board of Health makes recommendations, we make, we have votes. And I just want it to be clear that if it is a recommendation, whatever that is, that that's a position that that we're taking, or that if they have anything that varies from that, that they need to come back to us with a plan, which we would vote on. So, you know, I, okay, so I have drafted something that I can put up on the screen. And we can look at it. And it's, you know, specific to the Fort River playground. And it both includes, can I change? Can I share my screen? Yeah, try again, Michelle. Okay. Sometimes it takes a couple times. Well, she's doing that. Did I hear that we put down the crumbly tire material in the park? Yeah, so crumb rubber tires, the recycled tire, and it's in Kendrick Park, it's in Groff Park. And I believe that's what the track is also made of. The track at the high school? Yeah. Yeah, it's very soft, very bouncy. And it also off gas is quite a bit, and it gets very hot. And there was I believe that Kendrick Park too, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. So there was lots of discussion about the high school redoing the track and going back and forth with the school committee. I'm very surprised that the town put it down in the Drunfield Park. Well, if I could just to clarify, we have a 20 year old track, nothing has happened at the track of the high school. So there is no there is no new track at the high school. No, they've been talking about how to resurface it. Right, right. That's a conversation that's still in the process. That's outside of this conversation. I just don't want to get sidetracked on the high school track. Andre, go ahead. Can I just say something there? Michelle, to your point, you mentioned that the Board of Health has made their recommendation. They made a recommendation and it seems like the idea is still there to continue with the the tire PIP. I don't know why they're continuing with that, but well, they're an advisory committee and we're a regulatory commission. So there's different. Right, so then my point is that we we regulate is the is the wetlands and the discharge that could come from the crushed tire PIP. And I'm not I'm not ready to let let a bunch of zinc and and lead and so on go out into the environment there. So yeah, I'm against what they have proposed. I would be certainly happy to see some sort of cork, even if it's not corking or something else, but some sort of alternative that would be safe for children. And also, by the way, let's make sure that we keep in mind accessibility. Because there has been some there has been some voice that the cork may not be accessible or as accessible as the know it is. It's like a unitary port and play service. And that's why it's being promoted as the best alternative. And it's not as good as the engineered would these other ones unless they're standing P gravel, in terms of the, you know, potential toxicity, but those other ones, those other options are not accessible. So that's why cork is rising to the level of best alternative. So yeah, okay, so then in some of the reading that I've done it said also about the about the tire VIP is that that it is considered by ADA accessible, if done right. I don't know if there's a if there's also a some kind of nuance to the cork. Leave it at that for me. Dave. Yeah, two things. One, I just I do worry a little bit about a motion or a requirement of the commission to use a proprietary name like corking. I'm wondering whether port and place unitary surface made of cork might be enough. The second thing is I want to be really careful. We don't. I had a conversation with the town manager two and a half, three hours ago, maybe it was for now, because this meeting has been long, where I asked him about where the building the forever school building committee is with regard to this. And I just want to make sure we don't kind of project where we think they are. I do not I do not believe they are moving. I do not believe they they they are going to move forward with a with a port in place rubber surface if the commission doesn't do something tonight. I you know, I think you should do what you want to do with this motion if this is a direction you want to go. But I just want to make sure we don't. Yeah, we don't project what we think they may do or I don't really think they've said that they will move forward unless the commission does something. I think they're looking for a recommendation from the commission or a vote from the commission. So I just encourage you to do what you feel is right here tonight. Okay, I mean, my impression from that meeting was that they were sort of at a point where none of them were really ready to move forward and that they were relying on the commission to sort of make the decision that would push them one way or the other. And so in the interest of not being rate limiting for them, you know, this is what I was thinking of doing, which is giving them a sense just like we did with the battery storage of where we are there. And to give them a way to move forward if they want to. So I think there's a I'm just saying I think there's a lot of community support for going in this direction. And I think they've heard that. So I think if this is a direction the commission wants to go, then you should, you should do that. Alex? Yeah, just first a time check, we got a minute and a half left. It would be nice to know what all alternatives clearly are tonight. And I also agree with Dave that we shouldn't be specifically recommending anything. We don't have the year we don't have the expertise to do that. And also, I don't think the discussion with the school board about how to replace the high school track is is is not germane because all of these kinds of issues have been discussed even town council got involved. So what what to put down which is which is safe, healthy, and so on. This is a continuing conversation that's bounced around for the last six months. So we can learn from that. And maybe the school committee is ready has heard it, but they certainly push back when they were first told to what they're proposing wasn't appropriate for the high school. So and we had a suggestion of writing a memo. Michelle says we need a vote. What are our real alternatives tonight? I mean, we can wait for them to come back with a plan and do nothing. I just, again, sitting in on that meeting, they were picking the can to us. So here is the can back to them with some guidance. And they're on an extremely tight timeframe on that. And I'm, I'm, you know, cognizant of that. But up for discussion. I mean, me, this is an acceptable standpoint. And I'm going to be in the same place when we vote on it or not. So I'm interested to hear where other commissions are at with it. Bruce, go ahead. Andre was first. Sorry. Andre. I'm not muted yet. Okay. So what I wanted to propose is for one, if we, let's, you know, if we're familiar enough with, with the topic or have read some, maybe we can take a straw poll to see if we're ready to perhaps make a recommendation. And again, I think the point that Dave was making earlier, Alex, was that we not recommend a specific brand of product, which is what that, that corkine is. But if we describe a type of product that we are looking for as an alternative to, to the crushed up tire, then that would, that could perhaps be some kind of guidance that they're looking for. So I'm looking for to see if we might expedite by, by seeing if that's something that we're agreeable to, so that we can end our marathon here. Thanks, Andre. Bruce, and just so you know, I'm supposed to let everybody talk first one time before I go back to the same person. So go ahead. I'm in favor of what Michelle has up on the screen now. Okay, so why don't we do a straw poll about this? I can't see anybody. Okay, so raise your hand if you are in favor of moving forward with some kind of recommendation tonight or determination tonight. Okay, everybody. All right. Does anybody having viewed this have any comments on it or edits to it? And, you know, just to get nitpicky with the words, it's a, I use the word determine, I didn't use the word recommend, I didn't use the word vote. And I don't, you know, know legally what the implications of that are, but open to comments on how this is worded so that it's representative or not. But any last contributions on that? Go ahead, Jason. Yeah, the last part says the commission does approve for use. Do we want to just state specifically that the commission does not approve for use the use of recycled tire port-of-place playground surfacing? I mean, I'm okay with that. And the simplicity of that. Those are just ones that Is the word approve or recommend? So the for what part? The nursing I was going to come back to us with a plan that has port-of-place, recycled tire, port-of-place, we're not going to approve that. We've already approved the plan, save the playground surfacing. So they need to bring that back to us anyway. Correct? So correct, that's what I was going to say. I think we ought to tell them right now that if they do that with the recycled tire port-of-place, it will not be approved. Yeah, that's kind of where I was trying to go and excite it. Okay, so Jason's in favor of cutting out the Sorry, not cutting that part out. Just adding, let's add that we do not approve the use of recycled tire port-of-place. We keep the bottom part. We don't take that out. So there's a sentence he's suggesting that comes before the commission. Okay, so it's that so more than a lap. Oh, that it comes before the commission. Okay, the commission determines that there's sufficient evidence of toxicity to water resources, resulting from the leaching of the blah, blah, blah to prohibit the use of the the commission will not approve the use of recycled tire port-of-place playground surfacing. And could you add and other toxic substances? I feel like that's getting that's, I don't know, what if I don't know, toxic, well, some of the some of the tissue, some of the materials they wanted to replace the high school with were cancer causing. And so if we're going to talk about the tire recycled tire, if we're going to talk about the tire recycled tires, maybe there is a catch-all phrase that that loops in things that are detrimental to health. And I don't know if that if we'll find out someday that that's cork. But to me, that's that's what we're talking about. It isn't just tires where we don't want toxic materials going into the resource or the for that matter outside of our jurisdiction, but children being exposed to it. Yeah, I mean, so cork has a binder in it. That's like, I don't know what it is, but it's probably not completely inert as much as we'd want it to be. So I don't want to preclude options that are much better than port-of-place with a statement that is, you know, so exclusive. But other thoughts, welcome, Erin, go ahead. I just want to say the statement that the Commission approves for use at Fort River Playground, because no matter what is no matter what is proposed at Fort River, they have to come back for approval to the concom. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. However, this is phrased that, you know, we're not vote, we're not voting on this in, you know, in a public hearing, right, where this is this is guidance. Yeah, so I remove that and put recommends that that's what people are suggesting. OK. Yeah. Dave, go ahead. I know it's getting late. Just two quick comments. I'm just Alex, just if I could, you keep bringing up the high school and the issue at the high school that's been discussed with some in some detail is actually not the track and field. It's actually the whether we go with turf or grass. So the the track has miraculously not gotten much attention at all. Very few people have talked about what is the surface going to be at the track. We're many, many months away. We just began the design for the track and field. So I just want to make sure we don't kind of mix and match projects. I also might have I might have gotten. Yeah, it was mostly about the turf. You might have gotten the surface mixed up, Dave. But the issues that the issue is the same with regard to broadening this, you know, in that last comment, I just want to I also want to point out that there is going to be a number of acres of bituminous pavement that are going to be part of this project that all of that pavement is going to leach petroleum for weeks or months after it is laid down. So I would encourage I like what Michelle has done here. I would encourage the commission to really focus on what is it you're talking about here? What is your focus? Your focus is the playground surface. So, you know, I just worry about kind of mission creep here a little bit because we could get sidetracked on a lot of different aspects of the site. You're you're concerned about, you know, crumb rubber and and those kind of surfaces. So I think I think you're close and I encourage you to kind of move forward with with what what you have. I will also point out that the I know my Michelle included the engineered wood, the sand and the pea gravel that may end up on the site, but all three of those do not meet ADA standards. So, you know, work is the likely, you know, the best and likely alternative here to board and place surfaces. The other three I don't think will meet ADA requirements. There was some discussion about like if the entire surface wasn't cork that some areas could be filled in with those that wouldn't interfere with like movement. So I just with that in mind, I put those as like filler areas or so. No, you did. It's a great it's a great the work you do is great. So. OK. Thank you. All right. So we have a designated area that we're talking about. We've made clear the yeses and noes. And this is a basically preliminary guidance and they have to come back to us no matter what with what they do. So it's not a boat on a plan. And this is just helping them move forward in their planning and decision making. OK, any comments? I'm for it. Can I make a motion that we send this to them? Or can we simply just send this? Can we all agree? I see your hand raised, Alex. Yeah, I'm not quite sure where we wound up at the end of Dave's comments about engineered wood, sand and pea gravel, leaving that in. And that's one and and or just say something like the Commission would support use in the Fort River playground, the use of a material such as work. Yeah, Alex, I think that if we leave it like that, those recommendations are still going in because they would be good. But the they the. Zone the zoning board or someone is going to realize that they're not ADA they're going to make sure that whatever they approve is going to be ADA compatible or ADA approved. Right. OK. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, I think there should be a motion to approve this determination. I move to approve this recommendation. I will second that. Hey, Andre on the motion, Jason on the second, Bruce. Hi, Jason. Hi, Alex. Hi, Andre. Hi, Laura. Hi, I'm right. And thank you. Thank you, Michelle, for the work you did and bringing this forward. That's much appreciated. Thank you for giving it its due time. And I think you've been waiting to bring something up, Alex. But clearly we're an hour over. So. Sorry, did we have to let anybody from the public? Oh, yeah. My screen is I'm feeling Aaron's challenge here with sharing a screen and not see what's going on. Does anyone see any hands up? Because I got my blinders on the other two attendees. Yeah. Anybody can raise their hand at any time if they've got comments. There's Tony raised. A hand. OK, Tony. Hi. Thanks. Yeah, I'm applauding your vote just now. And I've been following the school building committee process since the beginning, and I came away from the last meeting with the same takeaway that Michelle described, where the committee was planning on moving ahead with rubber forward in place, unless the concom said that they would not approve it. So I think this motion is really important. And I think the language you've used is excellent. And I applaud your action on this. Thank you. Thanks, Tony. Thank you, Tony. OK, I'm seeing no other hands up. Alex, was there a specific topic that you wanted to bring to the commission? I don't think we have time tonight, but I wasn't aware of it. So I've been asking for space on the agenda for well over a month. And we had one discussion. All I want to do is identify them. I don't want to talk about them. You want to identify what to talk about? I want to identify things that the commission needs to talk to itself about. Yeah, I agree. That's important. And so we need to what come up with the list. Was that your I have I have three things, right? And I would recommend that we put them at the beginning of our agenda, not the end when everybody's tired. Can we hear the three things? Yeah, I would like to find a time in the future for the land use subcommittee to bring forward those policy matters for which it has concluded its work and would like to introduce the finished products to the commission for its consideration and approval. And I don't that doesn't need to be. I just need to schedule it. OK, and we have that for the what section do we have? Community gardens. I don't want to talk about it. I just want to put it on. OK, is it prepared enough to do that for the next meeting like so we can circulate materials for everybody to review before the next meeting? I'd like to finish agriculture before we have this meeting. Please continue with your three items. I would like to invite. Chris Baskham to talk to the commission about fire department requirements for batteries. And I'd like to invite him when we do not have a project in front of us. Where we have to act on it. And it's not part of a discussion, not part of a hearing. This would be Chris by himself. And what was that less agenda item? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that one. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. So he is proposing agenda items for upcoming meetings where we are just. Discussing concom sort of procedure and matters. And the last one was inviting Chris Baskham to come talk about fire safety considerations for battery storage facilities. And in a part of our requirements, we don't really know. So so in relation to the impact on Wellens, because he spoke to the bylaw working group quite a bit about those about how he would approach battery storage systems with fires. Yeah, but he's never talked to the concom. Laura, is there like a yes, right up or something? Yes, there's a recording and there is plenty of materials have been written up. Yes. And he, you know, the questions of toxicity and how to handle burns. And that was all addressed during the bylaw working group. Yeah, I'm actually I'm actually, Laura, I'm more concerned with what is physical requirements for access, turnaround, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, so the so the general kinds of things that could tip a project upside down. Yeah, so the general get that information out first. Yeah, so the the recording will I think it'd be helpful for you to listen to the recording and then see if you still want him to come speak the general recommendation for any standalone battery storage system in the event of a fire is actually to let it be and let it burn into not access. And Erin, Erin, I think you were there, too. Were you there in that meeting with the fire commissioner? I can't remember. It was a but I think I suggest rather than asking him to come to our commission, I think we should first start by doing our homework and listening to the recording that was already made because we the recommendation is to let it burn. Why does he have access requirements? Because you need access requirements for the surrounding area to the battery, Alex. I don't know if this is the right time, but please listen to the recording before. I mean, I just don't want to waste time. I really don't want to talk about it. All I wanted to do was identify what I think is a need. If you want to send out a link, that would be great. But what's the opposition, Laura? I'm just suggesting that rather than asking the guy to come the fire department chief to come around to all of our meetings. I'm not opposed, but we see spend one meeting. But whatever, I'm just saying he already spoke on this matter for specifically for battery storage. My suggestion is to be courteous of his time just to listen to what already has been discussed. But you can invite him. But I'm just saying if you have other questions, it might be, you know, courteous to watch the recording first. So there, do you, like, know offhand where that recording, the date? Yeah, yeah, I can find that. OK, that'd be awesome. And then that would probably at least make it a more efficient conversation if we move forward with this. That's good. So I also sent out a copy of the solar plan to everybody on the commission. And if there's and so we have that. So. Great. Let's let's listen to the tape and move forward on that. OK, so you said you had three. I have two. The other one is a discussion about the wetland regs generally and specifically about the 20 percent threshold and to actually look at the entire language that's associated with the 20 percent rule. I don't want to go through the mitigation formula that the Michelle developed. That's not not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about our handling of the 20 percent threshold and look at the language in the regs and have a discussion about our process. OK, I mean. It's good development for the commission to talk about these things. I'm wondering like how much time we'll have to allocate to them like a 20 minute hearing spot. First of all, Joe Vance and I see Dave probably wants to say something. But is who's interested in putting aside some time to. Well, definitely the land use subcommittee that's got to come to us when that's ready. Chris Vascom. I think we should do our due diligence. I agree on that one first and then read whatever is available. And then just discussing that 20 percent. Does anyone have any comments? I think I think we could probably attack. I'm sorry, I just jumped right in. We could probably tackle them one at a time. We don't have to have them all on in one meeting. I think I think it would be really rough to do that because we have so much other work to do. That's just my that's my only comment. I agree with him. Yeah, so I'm thinking like, you know, 20 minutes when time allows to fit this in when we know that we have continuances and a lighter load, which does happen from time to time. So maybe we just need to coordinate that more finely. If not the volunteer, but if Dave feels like he's got little to report at a certain time, maybe we could usurp that position or something in the beginning when everybody's not looking to to depart from the meeting. To depart from the meeting, I guess my only right, Andre, sorry. Sorry, as I say, my only my only thought is I think I think making sure we do at a time where we have a lighter agenda. You know, I think right now, I mean, these are long meetings, guys. You know, many of us have young children, jobs, many things going on. So I'm just always I think all the things you brought up are important. But I just want to ask everyone to be patient in terms of when we can find time to schedule them because it's difficult. Yeah, I I hear you. Yeah, so I think that we can keep these in mind for the next meetings coming up and just when there's a space that looks like we can talk about it when we put on the agenda. OK, Andre, I forgot to put my hand back down, but I could make a motion. Let's do it. I move to adjourn. I second that. Andre, in the motion, Jason on the second. Laura. Hi, Bruce. Alex. Thanks, Andre. Hi. Jason. Hi. I'm an I. And so am I. Sorry. Yeah, I'm going to do it here. All right, everyone. Good night. Have a good night, guys.