 All right. This is an opening of the Everest Conservation Commission. Date is August 25, 2021. Starting off here. I think it's initially covered for me. Which I have none. Yeah, it comes from me. None. Mention the playground. That is nice. I think I said last meeting, but I did get them to. Jump range area parking lot and that looks great as well. That's what I have to say. Dave, do you have anything for us? Sure. Just a couple of comments or updates for the commission. Thank you. And I know Aaron will have some other photos. I think later in her report, but. Just jumping around town a little bit. We are wrapping things up at Puffer's pond, although it is that was 90 degrees out there today. We're wrapping things up in terms of water quality testing. We're going to take our water quality testing through next week. And then we'll kind of wrap that up for the season. We've been doing weekly water testing. Unfortunately, given all the rain, we've had water quality in both Puffer's pond and Fort river. He's not good right now after the weekend storm, the remnants of, or I guess, yeah, the remnants of all re. You know, overall, I think we've got a lot of work to do on kind of getting more data and really kind of digging in to see what's going on with water quality in the, in the upper mill river. And the Fort river. I know we've got quite a bit of testing going on in the Fort river watershed this summer. And we'll, we'll be able to take a look at that, that those data sets this, this winter. Puffer's pond is a little bit different animal and, you know, every, every watershed is different. So we're going to have to kind of get to the bottom of it. One of the interesting things is that when I first started here, we, we did all the, the water quality testing in the, in Puffer's pond. And it wasn't until 2018 that we really started to have problems with water quality and fecal coliform in, in, in, in Puffer's. So in the mill river. So any Coli. So, so anyway, more, more to come on that. Leroy mentioned a new trailhead parking. So we, we permitted both the parking at Wentworth farm conservation area off of Stanley street. And then sweet Alice parking and improvements. Here's a nice photo image of, of the new 10 car parking lot at, at Wentworth farm on the Stanley street side. And Rob Mora, our building commissioner and Brad border week and his crew did a really nice job there. Some of the erosion control, of course, still in place. But we, you know, repositioned rocks. New parking for those with disabilities, a nice new kiosk that we have to populate, but it's safe. It's orderly. And we hope it makes sense to people and people are already using it. Go back one, if you could, Aaron, this is an image of the new parking area. This is off of Bay Road. I believe it's 14 spaces with, I think, a lot of the new parking space, the new parking space, the new gap spaces, a new kiosk, split rail fence. We're not quite done on the west side, which is the right hand side in this image. We're going to be adding in. Another row of. Split rail fence. But so for right now, it's kind of, it's kind of firming up. It looks nice. We're going to again, populate the, the kiosk there, but CPA dollars were used to pay for both of these projects. And this will really compliment all the work that we're doing on the. Betrayal around the pond in, in collaboration with Kestrel trust. I believe while I was on vacation, the NOI came to you. Here's another image looking west at the, the drainage swale that captures any of the runoff from that parking lot. But again, there's no hardback. There's no virtually no pavement. The only thing that was paved was the lip of the, of the the road there, but there'll be a new trail going to the west and then a connection to the existing trail going up the range to the south. So pretty excited about that. I think it'll really support some of the work we're doing there with Kestrel collaboratively. Other updates, summer staff. We had three summer staff this year. High school students and college students. They did a nice job. wrapped up last week. We also had some help from the town's ambassadors. These were folks that were primarily about educating folks about the pandemic and COVID-19. They were up at Puffer Spawn and they helped out there with some messaging. So that was good. But right now, for the rest of the season, we are back to our core crew of Brad and Brendan. So we're gonna have to be realistic about what we can do. Right now, we're gonna get going on some brush hogging on various conservation areas. We have a list of those conservation areas where in particular, we know there are box turtles or wood turtles and we try to leave those areas until very last in the season, hopefully until after the last frost. So sometimes we're actually brush hogging well into November. So we'll be hitting places like Mount Pollux and some of those well used places, Puffer Spawn North, et cetera, doing some brush hogging. And then we're not done with projects. We may still be coming to you with some additional permitting for projects. So, and then lastly, just a quick update on Hickory Ridge Golf Course. We are still moving along even at a snail's pace with that acquisition. But I'm told by our lawyers that we're talking about a late September, early October closing for purchasing Hickory Ridge. There's a lot of work to do on that this winter. Remember that it is not all conservation land. Some of that land will be used for other purposes. So part of what I'll be coming to you with in the weeks and months ahead will be kind of a draft plan for what parts of that property will be conserved permanently, where the trails will be and then what parts of the property, for instance, the frontage where the clubhouse will not be under a conservation restriction as one example. Because keep in mind that there was some CPA dollars that went toward that acquisition and then some general fund money as well. So some of the land will not go into conservation and what happens with that will be determined by kind of a master planning process that you all will be involved with and many other committees and boards and of course, residents of Amherst. So more on that as we go. Did you get the contaminated soil process go? Yeah, that is for the most part wrapped up. Aaron has been involved in the latter, certainly it all went through you in permitting but we're feeling very confident that the 21E area associated with some of the outbuildings that housed lawn mowers and equipment for the golf course. We feel pretty good and I think DEP does about that cleanup. So we would not close on the property unless that was cleaned up. So that should be wrapped up. If it's not done now, it should be wrapped up any day now. So happy to take any questions if you have them and that was just kind of a little smattering. All good news and pretty quick for soil remediation in my experience. I had just a little question. I have not been over to the new Bay Roadside but it looks like the same chaos for Stanley Street. Is that going to be the standard one that we see popping up from now on? Yeah, you've raised a good question Leroy. The answer is I think it'll be the standard but we're gonna add something to it. We ordered those back when we had more flexibility with CARES Act money. And the bottom line is we didn't order any of the cabinets that go on the outside that you can put material in, maps and other outreach material and it keeps it safe for the most part from the weather. So we're actually gonna be adding those to the kiosk so that will become kind of our standard kiosk because the ones you see out there are pretty basic. It's got a nice roof, it's nice kind of post and beam style but then where you actually post information of materials is really pretty basic and there's not a lot of room to do it and I don't think it'll protect it from the elements. So we just put in another order for a couple of the cabinets to add to them. So then that should, if all goes well we'll get them from the same company and that will become kind of our standard trail head kiosk where we put them up. Nice. Happening here. Next up, Aaron, what do you have for us? Well, I sent the minutes kind of late. I just finished them up early this morning. So I don't know if everybody had a chance to read them but I've got them pretty bare bones at this point. So I don't know if folks want to take a look at those or address approving them. Was able to read them. Has everybody else had some time? All right. I'm happy to make a motion if that's appropriate. Go for it. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of August 11th, 2021. Second. All right, voice for Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Mary. Larry. I. I hit on. I hit on myself. Michelle. Hi. And Anna. Hi. Is that everybody tonight? Yep. And I thank you guys. Thank you guys. So lots going on, but we don't have a ton in the way of approval as far as other business is concerned. One item I wanted to, well, there's a lot of projects underway right now. A lot of active construction going on. One project I wanted to update you on is the Farringbrook floodplain restoration project that's happening on the Farring, the confluence of the Farring and the Fort River. This is a town project, a grant that Beth Wilson received for floodplain restoration along the Farringbrook. And I just wanted to share some photos. So what you see is basically clearing up to the edge of Farringbrook at this point with erosion controls installed. And they are, there have been a couple, a couple of hiccups, I guess, with this one in the sense of we, on the Fort River side, and I'm hoping that I uploaded photos. If not, I can try to share those with you guys. On the Fort River school side, they installed a water quality swale that goes to a little settling basin, basically right along the river. And in the course of the construction, there was a blowout basically, or prior to construction, the swale had caused a lot of erosion and sort of blown out an opening between the swale and the river. And so the contractor tried to rectify that and added some riprap along the edge of the basin to shore it up, which I thought was fine, but it just was not part of the original plan to do that. So I wanted to make sure that you guys were up to speed on the change and that you actually had a chance to take a look at it. And I apologize because now for, I thought I had uploaded it, but it's not getting my fingers on it right this minute. Anyways, I will keep hunting for that one. And while I'm hunting for it, I'll tell you about the other change, which is basically the contractor has requested to substitute their, so in the Faringbrook and the Fort River during construction, they were approved to use what's called a turbidity curtain. Turbidity curtains are sort of a special kind of curtain that's hung in the waterway to prevent a sediment that gets into the water from migrating downstream. And so it's supposed to sort of be a filter and the contractor does not want to, does not want to use the turbidity curtain instead. They would actually like to use stacked straw waddles in the stream. And again, it's kind of a significant change in the sense that, I mean, it's a field change and they think it'll work better because the low flows of the faring and the Fort River make using a turbidity curtain challenging for a number of reasons. Like a turbidity curtain comes in basically like a five foot section, very long and very wide. And so the concern is using it that it's gonna be kind of overwhelming for the stream being such like that the stream is maybe six inches to a foot deep, if that. And so they think that by stacking straw waddle and staking them directly into the stream that that will provide better filtration and not basically just be this big flapping piece of material in the middle of the waterway. I've talked with Beth about it and I also talked with Jonathan Schuster who's the erosion control monitor and they both feel it's reasonable. I'm a little on the fence about it to be honest with you because it's not something that I've seen in use or done before, but this contractor has said that they've used it and it's been effective. So those are two minor changes that you guys should be aware of. And let me just see if I can show you guys. So this is where the washout area was and you can kind of see it's behind. You can see where the black filter fabric is. Can you guys see that? This is on the Fort River school side and this is where the washout was. And so what they did was they laid down this filter fabric and these are some more photos from it. They actually did a really great job with it but this was an addition that wasn't part of it. I can't see anything, Erin. Yeah. We're just saying a bunch of the pictures on it. Yeah, we can't see a close up. Okay, let me try. Can you explain, Jonathan Schuster is the erosion control monitor but DOER is the ultimate authority on the project? Is that right? That's a good question. So... That's pretty good. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so this, there was, let me show you first the washout. Let me back up for a second. So this is the finished product but this is what the original, the original area of the washout, what it kind of looked like, right where this erosion control fabric was, there was a break in the berm basically that prevented water from flowing directly into the river. So they were able to put the filter fabric down and then they added stone basically to be a solid protection there and hopefully prevent additional erosion. Now, part of the, this area here was of concern because it shouldn't have extended this far into the water and so, or toward the water, toward the bank. So from what I understand, Beth was gonna have a portion of this stone removed that they just went a little overkill on how much they put in there. Right, so that's number one. And I think you raise a good question. Fletcher, as far as the grant is concerned, I don't know if these changes need to be approved. They've kind of, it's kind of been like, oh, we need a field change. And so let's just be nimble and adjust in the field. And I think sometimes you have to make those decisions. I feel it's important for you guys to be in on those decisions. And so I wanted to make sure you are, but I can ask Beth about that and make sure that. Erin, I can kinda jump in there. I don't think, DOER has a rep very involved in this project. So I don't, I think we can leave that to Beth. I don't, I'll check in with her, but I don't wanna take your time, Erin, chasing down every one of these things. I think we should focus on what's right in front of us. And the communication with DOER, they're the grant funder. And I think they will be well informed on that. So I wouldn't worry too much about that. We can certainly follow up with Beth, but I would, let's focus on what we need to do to make sure it stays in compliance, the project itself. It doesn't, it seems pretty good. I mean, I have no, looks like with the blowout, they clearly know what they're doing. They got in there and they fixed it. That's great. There's obviously, this is gonna be such a highly disturbed area. It's rained 95 days and two months, you know, like it's gonna, this is all there is so far. I'm actually quite surprised. And if they think a straw bales are better, try it out. You know, I mean, cause the nice thing is once those things blow out, all you do is switch it out. You know, as soon as they fill up, what I do is switch them around. And I thought there was more water. I didn't know there was only just six inches to a foot on that area. Well, it's very flashy. So, Right. But that's like an easy fix. Right? Those things blow over, no problem. You just swap them out and it sounds like somebody's there. It sounds like Bessa there every day. I'm sure. Yeah. I mean, my only, I think you raise an excellent point. And I think my only concern is monitoring, you know, like what happens on the weekend when the contractor is not there. And if there's a big rainstorm, I know that there is monitoring going on from SWCA. So that's a, you know, it's a good thing. So. Can I ask a question? Oh, go for it. So it looks pretty denuded up to the stream. What are the, and I haven't, I'm not familiar with this project, but what are they putting in there and what are they removing? And just looks like a lot of disturbance right up to the river. So I was just curious about it background. Go for it. Okay. So, yeah. So the town got a grant to restore the flood plain of the faringbrook, the small section where the confluence comes into the Deerfield River. And in the plan, basically, it's to, you know, take down the mature vegetation. There was quite a bit of invasives in there and regrade the bank, which they're sort of steep banks on either side and a very flashy system and also really poor water quality. The faringbrook comes down from the center of town. We have a lot of issues with bacteria in it. And so the idea is that it will add more sort of flood attenuation and improve the water quality of the faring as it comes into the Fort River. And the real sort of gut check with this is disturbance has to happen in order to restore it. And so it's one of those things that from the town standpoint, we really have to treat cautiously and carefully and make sure that there's no, you know, as we would any applicant make sure that the impacts are really kept under control. Yeah, there's also like really great, they're doing a bunch of habitat structure for like the mussels and stuff like that. And for the wood turtle. So there's a huge cool habitat element going on with this project too. So it's very cool, but as Erin said, we have to make a major disturbance in order to get to where you wanna go. Okay, thanks for the briefing. Anybody else have comments, questions on these changes? Actually, is there, Erin, do you have any of those plans available on the SharePoint or anything that we could, or that Michelle could look up? It's pretty cool. I mean, they're putting in some really great rock structures. Like it's a pretty in-depth, pretty fascinating, I think project. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a great idea, Fletcher. And maybe I can, I'll share the plan set with Michelle so she can have a look at them. And maybe I can talk offline with her a little bit more and just kind of go over it with her. Do you know if Michelle have access to all the stuff like from before when you came? Cause it might have to get Erin to get her. Just in my tenure. Yeah, but I appreciate that, so thank you, Erin. Yeah. And if anybody from the commission wants to make an additional visit to the site, which, you know, the next couple of weeks will be changing pretty dramatically. You know, we'd be happy to meet you down there. And I mean, this is a project initiated by the conservation department. This goes back probably 12 to 15 years when I first started that we identified the Fearing Brook as one of the major contributors to just a lot of, a lot of poor water quality in the Fort River. So that's where this all initiated way back when. And here we are today trying the first of what we hope will be a number of improvement projects along the Fearing Brook. But it's a little jarring when you go down there to see the removal of vegetation along the, along the Brook. Frankly, in retrospect, I wish we had done the north side because there's so much Japanese knot weed on the north side. It's, it would have been, it would have been wonderful to try to, try to remove some of that as part of this project, but it just didn't happen that way. So just to update you, I'll try to do this pretty quickly, but the Podic Conservation Area, we have a wetland creation project there. You might recall, and this is another one that's probably new to Michelle that we're creating in the middle of the field at the between, it's actually at the Zala property between Podic and the Catherine coal site, a vernal pool and a wetland creation, wetland replication area. And this was part of some ever source work that was being done at the substation. And the hope is that this is the staging area for equipment and these are the access mats to get in for equipment to do the work, but we're hoping that we could create a habitat potentially for the spadefoot toads that are in the vicinity and maybe someday create habit, create basically like a breeding habitat where they could have some additional habitat area. I also, we also have large project underway, the East Leverett Road Water Main Project. And today they were doing, they just started doing directional drilling under the Cushman Brook. And so I was out there today to take photos and they actually, so the drill rig is down here. It's actually pretty far away from the river right now, but they're making their way closer to the river, but they actually hit bedrock. So they, right as I was there doing the inspection, they had to stop and get a different piece of equipment in there to do that. So faring East Leverett Road. And then I met with Ted Parker earlier this week on a subdivision out on South Middle Street. He's going to be coming before the board with a RDA for some invasive treatment at an existing subdivision site out there. So that'll be coming through in the not so distant future. Erin, is that the same one we got complaints about? Didn't we get, we got like complaints about treatment happening of invasives back on South Middle? There was a notification to us because there was some invasive treatment that was being actually being done, I believe it was supposed to be being done at the Amherst Hill site and the contractor went to the wrong location. He was supposed to be, he was supposed to look at it to basically assess the, you know, kind of give him an estimate for how much it was going to be, I guess, and he got the sites mixed up. But he stopped him, I guess, he didn't really even, he got out there and just got situated and was about to start when they stopped him. So he didn't actually do any application as far as I'm aware. Yeah, I wasn't sure. I thought we had gotten a neighbor complaint about it last time. So that, yep. Thank you. You're welcome. So that's what I have for other business. Um, you know, there wasn't much in the way of like, enforcement or certificates of compliance or emergency search or anything like that this week, thankfully. Hopefully no land use apps. No land use applications either. 732, let's start our first actual hearing. Which one of these calls do I have to make? So in the body of the email I sent you Leroy, I kind of highlighted it for you to make it easy. Yeah. Which I appreciate very much. This public hearing is now called to order and this hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40, the general laws of the common and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and article 3.31, wetlands protection under the town of Amherst, general bylaws. BVN, resource area delineation, SWCA for Barry Roberts, Stanley Mitchell, life estate for confirmation, the resource area boundaries, boarding, vegetative, wetland and bank at 246 Montague Road, 2C parcel 1 through 12 and 12 itself. And I'm going to promote Barry, I'm guessing Tom Reedy is here for Barry, Mickey Marcus. If I missed anyone who's presenting on behalf of this project, just go ahead and raise your hand and we can promote you to panelists. And also Leroy, I'm going to make you co-host just so that you I should have done that at the beginning just to make sure you have full control over muting and promoting and all that good stuff. Thank you. All right, right from the top, Mickey, Tom and Barry. Thank you for telling, but I do hear this is a big one and it looks like we have some public action on it. So if we can keep it as brief as possible, that'd be nice. I understand some people went out and saw the site earlier. So it should be a refresher for some, but it's new to me. I'm going to end that. Love to hear all about. Thank you. Well, let me just say, Tom, do you want to introduce the project? Do you want me to just go ahead and do this? I think you just go ahead, Mickey, for now. OK, hi, everybody. I met everybody before Mickey Marcus, a professional science. So I think this project, I hope you agree, is relatively straightforward. It's an and read. It's been in the newspapers for a research lab in the future. But prior to any design engineering, the idea is to just make sure we've confirmed the wetlands and know what the setbacks are. So, Erin, I don't know if it makes sense to share the site plan screen or do you want me to share that? Sure, I can I can open them up for you. So we submitted an and read for this property and it's it's located between Montague Road, 63 and Sunderland Road, a lot of its farmland. It's been farmed. It's actively farmed. And it has, you know, Eastburn Brook running through the property. It has floodplains. It has bordering vegetated wetlands. I first started looking at this project in May. And we delayed doing the wetland delineation until the all the vegetation had grown in in June. So the wetland work was done in June. The fields had not been mown. We were able to see all the vegetation. And really, I think what we ended up doing was I think, Erin, the plan should be the very end of that document you're in. Right. Just want to make sure that they so see where it's generally located here. Yep. Yeah, so that plan shows Route 63 on the right side of that figure, Sunderland Road on the left, is an existing house and barn on the property. And that's probably a good good plan. So that area on the right side is all part of the floodplain of Fearing, I'm sorry, Eastburn Brook. Basically, we tried to include all the areas that, even though they were farmed wetlands, are wetlands. So there's floodplain, there's a floodway, which is the area right along Eastburn Brook. So that area on the right side is just a very large flat floodplain that's actively farmed. There's a narrow finger on the site that looks like it was probably once a man made or drainage swale. But that's a very well-defined wetland. And on the west side of the site, close to the Sunderland Road, there's an area that we really just went back and forth trying to figure out if it's a wetland. Determined it was a wetland. Determined it had a connection to Eastburn Brook. And in fact, during those recent rainstorms that it turned out that that wetland was accurately done, it had standing water in there and a direct connection to Eastburn Brook. And if you just go to the actual site plan, it should be at the very one of the last pages in that submission. So the Eastburn Brook is actually very well-defined. It's somewhat entrenched. So the banks are very clear. And the top of the bank and the mean annual high water was really the same location. So we showed the riverfront and the 200-foot riverfront buffer, showed the wetland buffers on the site plan. There is an existing farm road that crosses the property east to west. It's an old farm bridge that crosses Eastburn Brook. Excuse me? Oh, I apologize. It's moving slowly. I didn't mean to interrupt you. So there is an old farm road. And we had our certified wildlife biologist, Christa McDonough, go ahead and just do a wildlife habitat assessment of that brook and that crossing. It's not part of the ANRAD, but we wanted her to go look at it during the growing season. So that's been completed. So what do I say? The blue areas are the FEMA 100-year flood plain. And on the right side of the site, which is the upstream side, it's elevation 166. As you go to the left side of the site or to the west, the flood plain elevation actually increases to 172. My guess is that somewhere on Sunderland, with that culvert crossing, with a stream across the Sunderland Road, I'm guessing it's an undersized culvert and a storm walk. The 100-year flood is backing up. And what we found is, even in these recent rainstorm events, we saw a lot of water out there. So I think the flood plain elevations are correct. So any future site work will need to provide if there's any disturbance in that flood plain that will lead to due by elevation. But right now it's from elevation 166 to 172. And FEMA did do detailed cross sections through the whole site for what those elevations are. During the site visit today, Erin and Larry were out there. There were a bunch of flags missing in the fields. The fields had been mown since we delineated it. The wetlands in June, those actually got replaced this afternoon. So we went back out, read back surveyed. So if the commission members do go for another site visit, the wetland flags have been replaced. What I would like to do, once you've looked at this area and have your permission, I think I'd like to remove those flags because they do hay it for animal use. And I don't want the plastic and the flags to be used for hay. So I think for the, so I'm talking about this Western area near Sunderland Road. Thank you, Erin. That gets hayed and the wetlands are all remarked. You can go look at it. But we don't use wire flags for fields because if they hay that, the metal can affect the cows. So all the farmers say, just if you use plastic in the fields, that's better, but I'd rather use nothing. So anyway, once you've completed your review, I would like to just remove all the flags that have been placed out there. So I think that's a summary. So there's just a lot of flood plain. There's a couple of very well-defined wetlands. I think we're waiting until June and waiting before any kind of cutting to do the wetland flag. And I think helped determine where the wetland boundaries are. I know not all of you have looked at the site. I'm happy to take any questions you have. And I'll keep it short at this point. All right. Aaron, do you have anything about this site you went on today? Yeah. So I guess I have a couple of comments. DEP file number comments were issued. I forwarded those along to you. I also have photos from the site visit. So let me get those up for you. And we can maybe take a look at those. So let me just get oriented here. I believe this is where we had walked up from Route 63. And the farmhouse was kind of to the back of us. And there was a barn to the left of us. And this is looking down or looking west, rather, toward the wetland area. And you can see the larger tree-lined area there. That's the Eastman Brook. And then there's a smaller area of vegetation in the front. And that is the swale that runs parallel, semi-parallel to Eastman Brook. That is just east of the Eastman Brook on the plans that Mickey was describing. This is the area east of the farmhouse, southeast. Looking east. Looking east, yeah, exactly. And you can see they have squash planted in this area. And then there's a buffer in between. And then the wetland is below that. So this is the smaller swale that is east of the Brook. It runs almost parallel to the Brook. And where Jonathan is standing in the picture is this area had been hayed. So a portion of the wetland flagging had been taken out. So there were flags missing along this area. And so he was standing where the GPS unit showed the limit of BVW being, just to give you some visual context for the fact that the limit of the BVW had been mowed. And so we couldn't see where the limits of it were completely in the fields. Just trying to get my bearings here. I believe this is on the west side. That's between that swale area and the Brook. OK, yep. You're right there, Larry. Yep, that's the first swale on the east side. Yep. This is walking down the farm road before you come to the bridge on the left-hand side. There's a BVW that is on either side of Eastman Brook there, walking. This is the bridge that goes over Eastman. This is on the other side. And as we walked, you could start to see the indicators of the other wetland. And again, this was haid, so we couldn't see the flagging, but we could see the wetland indicators of the standing water. And there was definitely hydrologic indicators there. And it was very difficult to determine the limit. I mean, they had it on the GPS unit or on a tablet where the boundaries were. And we were kind of standing where the estimated area was. But it was difficult to visually assess where the limit of the boundary is. So I guess as a result of this, it was difficult for us to visually identify where the limit of BVW were. And that's why they re-hung the flags today. So I had recommended that before proceeding that we have those flags re-hung. So it's good that they have been re-hung. And I'm not sure the extent, if all of them have been re-hung or just that portion on the west side of the Brook, because there was some missing on the swale, on the east side as well. But DEP did provide some infrared imagery, which does show, sorry, this is cooperating, infrared imagery that shows some additional wet soils or indicators of hydrology on the site. And again, I think we know that those areas are flood plain. It's complex in the sense that these are obviously historically agricultural fields. And so the soils are disturbed from probably being plowed and turned over and also potentially from animals pasturing on them. And then in addition, because they're planted with seed, and they're paid, we're not necessarily going to be seeing the same wetland vegetation that we would ordinarily see on the site. One question I did have, and I'm not really sure if this is even worth bringing up, but, and Mickey, maybe you can speak to this. But on the east side of the site, so down in this area where my mouse cursor is, do you see this kind of channel that runs here? I wasn't sure if that was an intermittent stream that was running in the middle of the BBW. It looks, it's got a very meandering, channelized look to it in the aerial imagery. And so I didn't know if you guys had looked at that to see if it was an intermittent stream that was flowing into the Eastman Brook there. So that area is, it's been farmed. It's wet, but there is a channel there. And it's dominated by a wetland plant called acharis or sweet flag. We didn't delineate that separately, Erin. It may be intermittent stream, I'm not sure it could be a historic function, but it's all within BBW. And the source of that, do you know, is it coming from a culvert under this driveway or do you know? No, there's no source of it. I think it's just a historic stream artifact, part of a flood plain. But there's, it's just a little channel that runs through that farm field. And it was wet, but it didn't have a source. Any old pipes coming out of the houses? No, they do have a pump that they use right at Route 63 for irrigation. And that was it. Yes, I saw it in this area right here, I believe. Yeah. You know, I saw that Erin's slide, she suggested a third party peer review. And, you know, obviously that's, you know, the commission's decision. I don't know that you need that here. I mean, all these, you should go look at it if you haven't looked at the site, but I think now that you see, now that all the wetlands have been remarked after they've been hayed, we really did capture all those wet areas. And what the DEP was suggesting was basically all old flood plain. But you'll see that there's, it's not a wetland, it's a flood plain area. But I think before you make that decision to open it up for a peer review, you should go look at it. I think you'll see that we worked very hard to capture all the wetlands on the site. I did have a question. Oh, sorry. I appreciate you very much getting up there in a timely fashion. We definitely had some cases where it takes too long. So now that it's been refled, hopefully we can definitely schedule some new time to get over there. But what are you going to say for us? I just did have, I did have a question on, and I apologize, I didn't look at the infrared stuff too deeply, but the differences that DEP found with the infrared mapping to the Mickey, what you guys have done was strictly the flood plain. Well, I don't know, alteration or flood plain, what am I trying to say here? The differences that DEP found from your plan with the infrared. Yeah, no, we had looked at those. It's just showing a potential hydric soils, just saturated soils is all that is showing. So it's just sort of heads up, it's a problem area. But the wetlands we delineated were actually larger than what was shown on the state and the town wetland maps, similar, but a little larger than what was shown. Any other questions from commissioners? Double check, make sure it's going through everybody. All right, then I think we should open it up. Anything else from you making right now? No, I'm good. All right, I think we should open up to the public. Is there anybody from the public who have any comments? Looking like no. Just to double check, anybody in the public who would like to speak can raise their hand. Oh, I've got one. Janet, you can allow you to talk here. She'll be able to speak now if you unmute yourself. Okay, thank you. Janet Keller, 120 Pulpit Hill Road. Actually, Dave and Chris met with us, some of us, but with Lyons Whitten and me and John Gerber and described some of the process that the Conservation Commission will be going through. But I wonder if you could describe that briefly for others who are here this evening. It's not something that's in most people's wheelhouse. And even I, who worked on some of this stuff at a different level than you guys do, I don't feel fully confident of it. So I would be most appreciative if you'd give us a little view of that. Surely, it can be complex, but it shouldn't be. In this case, we are. The applicant is attempting to, a delineate, that means to identify all the resource areas we are particularly looking for wetlands and surrounding. When I say BVW, that's what I mean, bordering vegetative wetlands. Whether or not we as a commission accept those lines or ask for a third-party review is what we're discussing tonight. And that's the very basics of it, if that helps you understand it all. Any other answer? Sure, I was just going to say this is not at a point where there's a design for any sort of building or development in play. This is really just with the land as is, where are the wetlands? Specifically locating resources on me. Nothing about design in future plans. Which would then come back to us, if like any future design has to come back to the commission in a new process. What's your view about this? No. Jen, does that help? That does. Thank you. Yeah, that is helpful. And I'm much appreciated. No problem. Any other comments from you or anyone else from the public? It looks like no final call. Looks like no more comments from the public. So commissioners, any more comments, thoughts, questions? I have a question for Erin. Erin, could you reiterate why you believe it is important to have a third party review? Is it because they removed and the flags were up and down and up and down? So I think agriculture can be a particularly complicated area to delineate for a number of reasons. Ordinarily, when you're delineating wetlands, you're looking at soils to identify where you have indicators of hydric soils. And so those where you have undisturbed soils can be easier to detect. When you have soils that have been disturbed, you might not see the same horizons in the soil that you would see in an undisturbed soil. So that right there makes it difficult to identify a soil as hydric. And also to call out the hydric indicators in the soil. And then the other thing is vegetation. In an undisturbed wetland, if you leave a wetland undisturbed, so for example, if they just abandoned the hayfields and they left them for like three years, three to five years, you might start to see rushes and sedges and maybe other indicators start popping up. So when you went out there, you could start to see where the dominant vegetation was starting to establish. But in this case, where you have hayfields, it's very difficult to draw that line. And in this case, for me personally, it's very similar to identifying bank on a river where you have a large area of disturbance. So if you're looking at an entire stretch, let's say you have a huge stretch of undisturbed river, but then you have one section of disturbance in the middle of it, you wouldn't necessarily delineate that bank based upon that area of disturbance, because it's not natural. You would look upstream and downstream and say, what does this area look like here? What does this area look like here? To get a sense of where the natural bank would be to approximate where the bank boundary is on the disturbed area. And in this case, when I look upstream and downstream of the Eastman Brook, I see large swaths of BVW on either side, except for this area where the hayfield is, and that area is hayfield with small drainage swales on either side, which indicates to me, at some point, those may have been BVW that drainage swales may have historically been installed to drain those areas to make them more advantageous for hayfields or for agriculture. So it's very tricky. And I think, and I'm not in any way saying that I think that you have to use good judgment. And I think they made some great judgment calls. And I think that the delineation looked fine to me. I think that they did a great job. Obviously, it's difficult to see without the flags, but I think they did a great job. I think for me, it's more of a piece of mind of checks and balances, number one. And also because it's a big site, it's an important site. And let's say the commission accepted the delineation and issued it case closed. Here you go. I think there's enough questions about the site that that could introduce the possibility of an appeal where people say, well, wait a second, we think there's wetlands here and so we want to appeal this decision. And I would rather that we do a thorough job on the front end to make sure that everybody is comfortable and that we've rigorously looked at the site to make sure, yes, we're solid on this boundary before we issue an approval. In that case, we can go forward feeling very confident that, hey, we've had a second person look at this. We've really thoroughly investigated the site and we can feel confident in the approval that we're granted and that it will stand up on appeal. And then, and I apologize if I missed this in my reading. When was that flagging, the current flagging done? So we started looking up a site in May and delayed the delineation until all of it came in June. So the delineation you're seeing was done in early June. And the data forms were in the application. Yeah, I know, I'm sorry. I was trying to dig through to find it and then I realized it's faster just to ask you. Thank you. Alrighty, we're coming up on eight o'clock. So if everyone has roughly an idea in mind of what they're thinking, should we move on this? I see no reason to not go to a third party peer review in this case. It's just, as Aaron says, it was a very logic complicated site. That said, I will say personally I'm leaning because I've personally not seen it in person, like physically. I would lean to actually continue it until the rest of the commission could see it. That said, has everyone else seen it? No, I'm inclined to agree with you. Sorry, my dog has decided now is the time to play games. I'm inclined to agree with you. This is just, sorry. And I hear what you're saying, Mickey, in terms of it'd be great for us to get out there and look at it first. So if, I mean, I'm kind of trying to judge your face a little bit, Mickey, to see if a continuation feels okay for you because that's, I agree with her. I think that's a good medium. And then we can decide if a third party review is the best avenue or not. I think actually Aaron, when she was out there looking at the delineation is difficult now without flags there. So, and in fact, with the, I was out there. I mean, I didn't do all the same thing that Aaron did, but it's a difficult site and it's a very up and down site with very likelihood of wetland areas. But because it was agricultural, I think it's got to be looked at very carefully. I don't agree. Yeah, I don't disagree about looking carefully. I just, I'm hearing the- We would shorten it if we went for third party right away. You're right. Yep. That is a good point. So if we're all comfortable going third party right away, then let's move on that tonight. Keep it short. I did take the liberty of getting an estimate from Emily Stockman in advance of the meeting tonight. So I have that estimate. If you guys want to take a look at it, the benefit of that is we have the estimate, we have it approved, we can move on it and have it done concurrent to the next meeting so that we can try to, you know, have her go look at it at the same time, commissioners get out there potentially and just make it move a little faster. Yeah. And if I can just add, so everything that all of you are saying is fine, I think Aaron's just written is fine. And if it gives you more comfort, you're going to go to the third party purview. Obviously, because not all of you have looked at the site, we're going to, we would continue it anyway for at least two weeks. So you can take a look at it and if it expedites your review and your comfort level, you should have your third party peer reviewer look at it. I know Barry Roberts is the applicant. He's on the line and it'd be helpful for me, at least if Barry could just speak up if that's okay to continue this hearing for two weeks. Yeah, Mr. Roberts, do you have any comments on that? You're all right with the continuation? Yes, it would be fine with me to continue the hearing. It would be also fine with me to engage a third party and hopefully be back to the continued meeting with a report from the third party so we can keep this project moving. Excellent. Then Aaron, I guess we, is that two separate motions one to continue and one to request a third party or? Do we need to continue if we're requesting the third party? You do have to have a date certain for the public hearing. And so for the continuation of the public hearing, I would recommend that we continue the public hearing to September 8th at 740 and that the commission, if the commission so desires to move forward with the peer review process so that we can try to get the review done in advance of the next meeting possible. We need a motion on that. Should I move that we get a third party review of the site at, I can't remember the, let's see. 246 Montague. 246 Montague Road. Welcome for a second. Second. All right, voice of Michelle. I didn't hear, but Aaron, did you hear? I did not. You can't hear you. It looks like you did unmute. Do you mind me? Can you hear me? There you go. Hi. Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Hi for me as well. A few of us. Thanks all for your time, Aaron. I think you've got the approval from the applicant to move forward with the third party peer review. So you can send that quote over there. That'd be great too. You can engage Emily to do that. Wonderful, wonderful. And so I just want to make sure, because I was taking notes while Larry was making the motion, was the motion just for the peer review or did, was there also a continuation to September 8th? I did not do the continuation. 740. I did not do the continuation. Perfect, perfect. So if we could just have a second motion, that'd be wonderful. Oh, I think, does Dave have a, Dave, because all my kids would comment, I think. Yeah, no, I just, can everybody hear me? I just said two questions. One is, I might have missed is, does the commission, given the complexity of the site and the high profile nature of the project, does the commission intend as a group to get out on the site in the next couple of weeks? And my second question is just more of a comment that although we will make every effort to have the third party review done in two weeks, I just want to make sure we're realistic about that. Our intentions are that, but given that the reviewer will need to walk the site correct, review all the data points, et cetera. I just want to make sure we're just putting it out there. Our goal is two weeks, but it depends on the consultant's time and the weather and a number of other factors over the next two weeks. You're absolutely right. I think we're on the same page there. Definitely aiming for two weeks, but it's not, we understand. Sorry, Laura, can I ask you another question? All right, my computer just freaked out and froze. So I apologize if I missed this. This is for Mickey and Barry Roberts. If we are not able to find a time as a full group to come visit, are we able to swing by the property and do a site visit on our own time, is that okay? Yes. Okay, I was gonna say, you can say no. I just, I know sometimes it's tough for us to all convene. Yes, is the house occupied there? Is the residence occupied? Yes. If you go in from the Sunderland roadside, you won't be bothering everybody because you'll be just walking up to the barn is approximately the property line, proposed property line. So. Okay. Thank you. This is a very good access road from Sunderland road to walk into the site. All right, so I moved. Can I make a motion? Are we good for that? Go for it. All right, I move we continue the hearing for the ANRAD at 246 Montague Road to September 8th at 740 PM. Okay. Tight, tight there, I don't know. Fletcher. Aye. Hey, Larry. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Anna. Aye. And I have for me as well. Just one comment. I'll contact the Mitchell's who do farm their property and let them know that multiple people may be wondering too. Thank you. Thank you. We do appreciate that. Thank you all for your time tonight. And so, Mickey, I'm sorry just to confirm again, you have the flags are all up now. So we should be all ready to go. They are all up. They got put up this afternoon. Okay. There's a chance I can be there first thing in the morning. So, okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Who's up next? Do we have a continuation next? Yes. So the, there was a little confusion with the filing. We had a submission for a notice of intent at 300 North Pleasant street. And when the submission came in, I posted a legal ad, but the butters weren't notified in time. So the applicant has requested that we have a continuation. To September 8th at seven 30 so that. And they have now notified a butters, but they've. Just want to, we just want to make sure that all of the proper notice has been posted prior to opening that public hearing. So we would just need a motion to continue to the next meeting in order to review that project. I move we continue the hearing for the notice of intent at 300 North Pleasant street to September 8th at seven 30 PM. Second. Wow. I gave it up. I was actually seeing if Michelle's going to jump in on this one. I almost did. Voice of Michelle. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Hi. Hi for me. Great. 52 faring. So an update on 52 faring. This is another an rad site that is currently under peer review and Emily Stockman, the contract was finalized. And she is schedule in the process of scheduling to get out there, but it's not completed yet. So it's not completed yet. So the applicant would also like to, the applicant would also like to request a continuation. Until September 8th at seven 35. Was this the. This is the faring street. This is the one we. You are on street. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I have a comment about this as has the, have the documents that were associated with the university pro university of mass project on it and put in our file. So I just wanted to give you a little background and I appreciate that question because I'd like to give you guys a little bit of a, an update on where things stand on, on the watershed delineation as well because there's, this is kind of a two part, right? So the several documents have been provided to, I mean, many documents have been provided to me. And I am going to share all those documents with you guys. I'm going to share them with you guys as well. I'm going to share them with you guys as well. They're not uploaded on the drive yet because I'm still going through them all and incorporating them in. Some review that I am. Working on. Of the watershed, but basically I'm trying to incorporate multiple different watershed studies to look at the watershed. As it relates to the tanbrook to determine the watershed size. I also. I also looked at some of the digital elevation models and I also looked at the town's stormwater data to try to get a sense of. Stormwater con contributors to the watershed that wouldn't necessarily be picked up on a DEM. And that's important because. This is a. Very stormwater focused water body. It runs underground basically from its source all the way to where it runs underground. You can see footprints on both sides of the river. And I really do greatest job of that later this powiedzieć as it Voluntary as it Daylights at mclellan Street. And so there's a lot of influences and inputs to the stream that aren't just. Natural tri butary contributors, there's also stormwater contributors. So I want to make sure that we're picking up those areas. So I'm I'm trying to assemble a lot of documents and the hope is for me to have those documents assembled by the next so she can review the research that I've done so that we can kind of come to hopefully a consensus on what we think the extent of the watershed is. So you're including that study that was done at UMass and the Canberra. There's multiple studies at UMass, but I know I think I think the one you're specifically referring to is the watershed evaluation that was done by the university itself. Yeah, stormwater management and well the stormwater management is one of them and that's, I've got copies of them that's why I was wondering. Yeah, anything you have that you want to share with me Larry I can try to include that and yeah right off the web. Right so so some of the anything you want to share I can just double check that I have access to it but I have been several of the research papers that have been shared with me and. Mickey Marcus also shared some documents that were internal sort of UMass studies that were done by the university as opposed to like independent researchers who had studied Tanbrook. So, all that being said. Hi, I'm looking forward to that for one hour and I really appreciate you and sounds like a heavy lift. I'm really looking forward to seeing that all put together going through it. So, I didn't know that was coming to now excited thank you. So, any other comments on this or we're just moving to continue. I don't I don't have any more on it right now. We continue the public hearing for 52 fairing street to September 8 at 735. Second. Right. Show. Hi, Larry. Hi, Fletcher. Hi. For me as well. So, um, I don't know what I just what just happened there. So, with regard to the Robert Frost care project. The Brad presented that at the last meeting, we have since received DEP fine lumber comments. Thankfully, DEP went really easy on us which is great because honestly, this, this is the. Very, very low impact and high mitigation potential. Basically lots of improvement happening with this. Lots of wetland impacts are being resolved with this. But I do have the DEP fine lumber comments here if anybody wants to take a look at them. So, I think this is, I feel like this is such as a simple basic project to replace existing foot bridges and install very basic bog bridging to mitigate well and impacts and so my recommendation to the board would be that we approve the order of conditions and just include the standard boilerplate for state and local. Get it done. Get it done. Project. Any comments from commissioners. Any comments questions from the public. I want from Janet. I think you can speak now, Jennifer. Can you hear me now. Yes, we can. Great. So I'm just curious, you know, I walked that trail all the time. Where are you going to be working. Yeah, sure. Yeah, and this was presented at the, at the last meeting but let me show you a couple I'll give you just a, and, and Dave if you would rather do this I'm all for however you want to do this. But this map. Sorry, is it covering up. Hold on just one second. I think part of this is getting covered. I just want to make sure you guys can see site one because I can't see it on my screen. Yeah, we're not seeing a shared screen from you. Okay. While she's pulling it up essentially just to give you kind of the rundown in terms of language that's getting used the bog bridging or those those little foot bridges that are in little wet areas and there's a couple I have it pulled up on my end and Aaron I'll show you in a minute but where they're like completely down there like this. They're completely tilted and in the water and stuff so it's it's a lot of replacement work right Aaron I'm done talking sorry. Oh no that's fine. I just feel silence is always it's never great. So the general locations are identified here. Site one down in the south just south of station road. There's two sites that are west of Echo Hill. And then there's one site which is off of flat Hills Road. And then just to give you an idea of sorry that. There's a little foot bridge that's located off station road and so the idea would be to increase the span so that we're actually meeting the 1.2 times bank full requirement for stream crossing standards through the state, and do some restoration work on the bank to stabilize it where it's damaged and I can show photos once I go through the plans here to show you. This is site two, which is behind Echo Hill and again there's an existing foot bridge and the plan would be to expand the foot bridge to widen it so that it's spanning the bank and stabilize the existing area of disturbance. Site three, there is currently an existing trail which has caused quite a bit of damage in the bbw and the stream, and the idea is to put a bog bridge there's only one footing proposed in the bbw and then the area of disturbance would be seated and restored. And then flat Hills Road. There's a really large area of wetland disturbance that's very, it's not vegetated and it looks like bikes have been going through it or other damage has been caused to the wetland. So the idea would be to concentrate foot traffic on a bog bridge and there's three footings for the bog bridge being proposed in the wetland area but in exchange for that quite a bit of restoration of the stream itself and also the bbw. And then I'll just show you the photos again. If I can bear with me just a second for whatever reason it's sometimes hard to navigate. I don't know why photos aren't showing up here. There were some there. They're in the ones I'm looking at and we're in the. Oh, there we go. I think. Okay, so they're site number one. What's wrong with that one. Yeah, I mean you can see it's there's hardly any span at all the thing is just sitting in the stream. This is site two and, and it's hard to tell here but basically on this side, the bank is completely eroded. And it's already been reinforced by a block here and the idea is to pick it up so it's higher higher up off the ground and span it so that it's not causing erosion on the stream bank. So you can see the damage that's being caused by all the foot traffic tromping through the river and the ideas to put a bog bridge across here to concentrate foot traffic and stabilize some of these areas that have been disturbed. And then the, the worst one, in my opinion is the flat hills one, which you can see, there's just been a lot of it had just rained a day or two before so it's. There's been a lot of a lot of foot traffic going through it and just damaging the wetland area. There's there's this is actually a stream, believe it or not, the stream runs through this area, but it's just been so heavily trafficked that it's, it's kind of like turned into just a big pit there. So, that's kind of a quick, quick review. There was one, the one thing is okay so just two quick things I guess on this. One is that natural heritage. This is not an estimated habitat so the notice of intent is not being held up by the natural heritage review. So in priority habitat we have provided the plans to natural heritage so until we get feedback from them with regard to the one site that's located in priority habitat which is the one south of station road, we won't. That won't be constructed but it's not a hindrance on us issuing the order of conditions because it's not estimated habitat. So, 20 square feet of flood zone mitigation that basically because it's in the bridge itself is in flood zone and we're increasing the size of the bridge it's 20 square feet increase in volume that's going to be added in the flood zone and. So, it's up to the commission with regard to, if you're comfortable with just adding an increased size bridge there or if you want to have 20 square feet of restoration somewhere in the flood zone. We don't really have a site identified for that it's all conservation area. I would personally be comfortable with just approving approving the bridge and not increase the bridge. Yeah, I mean it's it's kind of it's kind of a 20 feet 20 square feet. Yeah. What do you do to plant. Save it on the foot. Extend the footbridge. I didn't know that about. You don't need it for no wise, it doesn't have to be priority habitat. You're not Mesa exempt. You still have to file with Mesa Mesa but it's not a requirement of a notice of intent, you don't have to actually have comments back from natural heritage in order to issue an order of conditions the conservation commission doesn't but but an applicant still needs Mesa approval in order to proceed. Okay, in this case it's a it's a that that first one that we looked at that's collapsed into the stream bed so I can't imagine that they're going to have a problem with us. Lifting that up and you know, making it a better span of the bank, but we'll see what their feedback says. Can make a motion. Janet kid. Well, do we answer Janet's questions. She's gone. She's gone. We know you're still here. So can I make a motion to approve the work on the rubber frost trail. Oh for it. There it is. Was that really it. Well, okay, I'll move. Okay, I will move to approve the rubber frost trail with the order conditions from DEP file numbers your 89 dash 0690 with the boilerplate and local conditions. And that yeah, and then we just talked about the floods flood zone mitigation. Voice. Michelle. Michelle, you went the wrong way. You were unmuted. Unmuted, right? There you go. Larry. Hi. No, he did not. I for me. When you guys think you guys got that. Are you just going to start immediately on that. I mean, that's a Dave's e question. We're going to start tomorrow morning. Excellent. We got to figure that out. It's a great question. Fletcher. There's, there's a lot on our small, small staff right now with Brad and Brendan. So, yeah, we, we, we want to, we want to move on these, on these bridges as soon as possible. I met with, with, with the staff today and talked a little bit about this. So, as soon as we can probably mid September would be the earliest we can get going on it. Yeah. You ever do, I know you probably do like volunteer trail days, but like with specifically like this type of stuff, or would you rather not have people in the way doing like construction. No, I think it's an, I think it's an untapped resource. We have not. Honestly, I think we have not taken full advantage of the potential for volunteers. We've advocated for kind of a volunteer coordinator for the town, because coordinating volunteers takes resources and to do it right. You really need to cultivate those volunteers. So it's not a one shot deal one time event that they want to come back they want to work with the town and so I think we'll, you know, we've been talking Aaron and I Brad and I about how could we, how could we develop a group. We used to have a group called the bridge runners and years ago and they were a group of volunteers who worked consistently with the with the department on on trail improvements bridge improvements things like that. So, I think, you know, we've got the colleges we've got our year round residents I think a lot of people would really love to volunteer we just need to kind of develop a program where where we can cultivate and and encourage people to work with us. We talked about it as an opportunity at sweet Alice to clean up there. Absolutely. Cool. We have that poor farm. Yes. So, I don't know I did, I did promote Dave Haynes Dave is not available to join us over the computer tonight but I know he has joined us from his cell phone so I don't know if he is able to unmute himself to speak. But so Dave, just feel free to jump in but I did have a conversation with David 530 before the meeting started tonight to talk about a few things. The first and probably most important point is that. So, since our last meeting Dave has been going back and forth with Rebecca from natural heritage endangered species as far as revising the plans to meet their satisfaction as far as the habitat, the habitat areas on the site and we did get a verbal approval from Rebecca on the plans that she was happy with them and that she would be issuing her official approval and the official approval letter has not come in. But she did say that the plans looked great and that she that the approval would be forthcoming in an email to me so I just wanted to say off the bat, I don't have a problem with the Commission approving the plan that Dave revised that she was satisfied with so long as we have conditions in there that basically state any conditions from natural heritage must be followed by the, the order of conditions incorporated into the order of conditions in some fashion, the area where the work is being done in upland is outside of Conservation Commission jurisdiction anyways so it's really a little consequence to the resource areas. It's basically involving planting of fruit and not trees. So, just to put that out there right off the bat that that is one sort of outstanding consideration but I don't think it has to hold up us moving forward to need tonight. I don't know if you want to talk about some, some of these like I would of course recommend the standard boilerplate state and local conditions right off the top as I recommend for every permit. There are a couple sort of case by case discussion items here and I don't know if we want to discuss them in any particular order. I'm going to sort of go from bottom to top because I think the top one is kind of the biggest discussion item, but my recommendations as far as conditions, in addition to the boilerplate would be no storage of composted manure in the buffer zone and then manure should be located in an appropriate upland location. The stock fencing must be located outside of the five foot buffer established around the wetland boundary. No new encroachments on the flag wetland boundary including live stock fencing and tree clearing. There is a small chicken coop which is shown on the plan set. That's actually half in the wetland half outside of the wetland and that's a historic, I guess, structure on the property and my recommendation would be. With the chicken coop in the buffer zone but that it should be moved out of the wetland. There ordinarily we would require no herbicides and pesticides on in the buffer zone or in resource areas as a standard in our boilerplate. My only exception on that from speaking with Dave earlier tonight is that they intend to do some invasive species management which requires the application of herbicide. So, if we include that standard boilerplate as far as no herbicides and pesticides I'm fine with that so long as we have an exception for to establish an invasive species management plan that they may use necessary applications for treatment of invasive species on the site. I had there is a either a hedgerow or split rail fencing that shown along the trail to prevent access from the trail on to the farm and I don't have a problem with either I was just curious if that had been definitively identified if they were going one way or the other. And let me see I see Dave raised his hand I'm just going to just my last two comments are. I wasn't sure if the five foot buffer that is between the wetland boundary and the proposed agricultural activities was to be left completely undisturbed or if there was going to be mowing on any kind of regular basis there. My last comment is just related to the 100 foot no disturb around the vernal pool because I believe that's the last real hang up in terms of just allowing work in that area and I personally because agriculture is very different from residential and commercial would not be opposed to recommending a variance in the 100 foot vernal pool buffer however I do think that I would lean toward the Commission. I'm not suggesting that that area be hayland as opposed to crop production area, or you know, trees, trees, whatever you guys think but that maybe we restrict certain activities in that zone, if that's something you want to consider. All right. That's a lot so we'll start with the biggest one. Anybody have any thoughts on the variance. Let's talk about the whole the what they're trying to get a variance on the whole 100 foot buffer. 100 to the to the vernal pool as it is in the located in the in the field area and let me pull up a plan so that you can actually see it in context because it's only like the outer extent of the 100 foot buffer that is included. Dave can talk now he might be. Can you hear me. This is Dave. Yes, got Dave. Oh great thanks I was having trouble. Yeah. If we were asked. Okay, back to we were proposing the along the fence line there we were proposing either or. We had the choice there was discussion about split rail versus a hedgerow. We'd like to have the opportunity to do either either or. And so that the five foot strip along the edge was going to be actually mode. But not not no soil disturbance would occur in there. It would be mode. That would be fine. And then the other thing, let's see the yes, we would be happy to do the, the, the buffer to the vernal pool as a has hay only and no crop land, no, no soil disturbance in there that would be fine. And the actually the plan that was submitted previously for the restoration of the altered areas did include management of the invasive species. And in fact, using herbicides in there as, as needed. So it wasn't included with a notice of intent. But I think those are all the points that were that Aaron made. Yeah, and that actually might take care of our biggest one sounds like everybody's on the same page about this variance where you can use this for just a. That's it Aaron right there in the blue. Right, so that's the section of the hundred foot, which is currently open, currently open, correct. Yeah. It has been, it has been a hayfield. Yep. Personally, I don't mind. I'm okay giving that variance as long as they're going to follow this restoration plan as long as they're going to keep doing what they've been coming in front of us the last months and years they've been talking about this project. If they're actually going to follow through with all these things I mean I do feel that they're going to. I don't have an issue with it. I might as well just get all out herbicide use obviously I do that. I think they need to if they want to tackle the invasives. They need to have the ability to do it. What was the other things. I don't mind. I don't care about a hedgerow or split rail fence. With that. That's where I'll stop. I'm just a little confused during the chicken coupon. Is it currently in place? Yeah, let me zoom into that so you guys can have a look. We're perfectly happy to move it out out of the wetland area. It may be maybe reconstructed or it may not be reconstructed but it'll definitely be moved out of the wetland area. Period. And I don't have a problem with the coop at all. I just just like to see how it's the structures located in the well and just to move it out of there. With natural heritage, one of the things we've come to an agreement to replant that field over there has basically with fruit and or nut trees to establish a grove and natural heritage seems to be in favor of it and happy with that. We're still not going to be mowing that area from November 1st to April 15th or no, the other way around from April 15th November 1st it will not be mowed. It will be mowed in the office in active season for the species of concern. Just to maintain it as more a field and it'll prevent shrubby vegetation from coming in but it'll be a productive piece of the farm as a grove of fruit and or nuts. So to Fletcher's point earlier about the follow through I mean Aaron is this something where like, we can ask for check in, like, is there some way that we can kind of confirm that, you know that the plans are being followed as, you know, again I think that it's not, not that we don't trust it to happen but just to kind of add that check and balance and. You guys could incorporate like a quarterly monitoring or twice yearly monitoring, just to give us an update through the life of the order of conditions or something. And then to the second quit that's thank you that was that was what I was asking essentially was can we do monitoring reports on like a much less frequent. Even annually I think would be great. Yeah. My second question was about the herbicides is that something that Fletcher I mean I, I'm with you that they become a necessity when you're navigating the number of invasives that are on that property. You know I mean I think do we can we pay attention to how they're applied. In that instance, as I can answer I'm happy to answer that yeah I mean really you're thinking with when you're using these chemicals it's not. You're like hosing everything down every month. It's like all right year one, you're probably going to hit it pretty hard, and there's going to be some dieback by each year, if you stay on it. It's less and less right to the point sometimes we can just start pulling stuff by hand or something so it's not this constant like you know barrage of chemical use and you know when you're using this chemicals are like two and a half to 5% concentration. So it's like 90% water. No I mean I'm with you I've had my property to I think my question was more about is it like a mass brain versus a paint like a hand application kind of situation. I would probably just be a miss blower, which is like the fine, the mist. I haven't been out there to see the exact stuff is if it's big stem like big bittersweet you can cut it and treat it with stuff on there so I haven't seen the exact restoration plan with the invasives. You had used and the chemicals do have their wetland safe. You know I mean whatever you want to believe it is but what I'm saying what I'm getting at is if you really want to get after this after the invasive stuff and promote native by like native plant biodiversity. You start heavy and then it just tails off and you've got to do it especially in those wet areas because that's where it's disturbed and it's wet so just constantly going to be growing. Right constantly. Yeah, I mean I just did a huge project yesterday we're trying to save like six different types of rare plants and I had to like hose down like four acres to like promote these plants. It's not painful but if I do it once and then it just tails off every year. Your insights. Yeah, thank you. What I've observed out there for invasives coming in our multi flora rose bittersweet and loose strife. The loose strife is already being pulled by hand. I don't see any reason for chemical treatment of that. And what I recommended and I think is in the what's in the restoration plan is to cut and paint on the on the rose and on the on the bittersweet. I think that was what was in the restoration plan prepared by Meredith I don't have it right in front of me so beautiful. Thank you. Definitely very species dependent like I know Japanese knotweed sometimes requires fuller spray but other species you can do stump treatments after spraying at the appropriate time of year it depends on time of year species. If it's after a cutting or before. And the beauty of what he just talked about with the road if you're willing to cut the rose by hand and then treat the stumps. Then you're working a smaller, then you're working a much smaller area. And then once those things start to sprout you get right back on it. Yep. And then you're using even way less so if you can cut if you're willing to cut and remove multi flora rose and then treat the stumps you're like. And then you're using your fletcher that yeah that I don't. It's been a rough two years y'all. No, I mean, thank you for that. David I think that's that's a really helpful. It's helpful to know I think it sounds like either way it's necessary but it's comforting to know that your plan is to do it with as little impact as possible. The other thing to this discussion is requiring a wetland approved herbicide if there's anything that's in or around wetlands, and I like rodeo is one of the approved products for well and there is. Yeah, but with the woody stuff they're going to use a triclopier which would be like a garland. Yeah, three a or four, I think for our lawn for has to be a triclopier. And so all those are. And if you're going to cut stop you're using a little bit more concentration but you're using way way less. And then hopefully keep them knocked back and that's it. So as far as the monitoring question, do you guys think annually would be reasonable. And I think. Yep. Okay. I think the herbicide pesticide question. So in total agreement about the restoration component. Is it going to be specified that it's it's specific to the restoration component and then is phased out as an allowance, or is it is it an allowance and perpetuity. I assume that they'll be using herbicides specifically to treat invasives in perpetuity. I'm just, you know, I just I'm wondering if we're adding a blanket allowance for herbicide and pesticides or if we should be adding one that's specific to the restoration component and restoration plan. You know what I'm trying to get at. I mean, I would probably leave it as from my standpoint as open ended in the sense that if they're willing to address invasives on the site to give them that ability to do so. And it would be really in conjunction with the restoration and also with the, with the order of conditions. But I don't. I don't know if I'm doing the same at this point. You know, the, a lot of the restoration plan components are built into sort of the overall management plan for the property. And so, I don't know if that answers. Is it going to say you can use herbicides here. And, and so down the line, use may change owners may change, but that specific condition is in there. Are you saying just to make sure that it's noted that you can only spray for treatment of invasives versus for. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that we're allowing it and if it it's not rolled in with pesticides like it says. Yeah, besides but that we're just. Yep. Yep. I would say that. Or besides would only be permitted for treatment of invasives if that's what they're asking for. And that's it sounds to me like that's what they were asking for. Unless I was mistaken. That's, that's, that's the way I've, the discussions I've had is it is to treat the invasives. They do want to do a primarily an organic farm operation here. And so the questions by commissioners comments is up on the screen. There's a lot. So, take another read double check. Yeah, do you guys want me to run through the conditions I have listed. Just so somebody make to make it easy for a motion or to make it easy in case you guys want to make any mods to any of this. I have monitoring on an annual basis. No pool buffer Haland only mowing is okay in the five foot buffer. Her beside is okay only for invasive management. Move the chicken coop out of BVW no encroachment on the wetland boundary in the future. Fencing must be outside of the five foot buffer, no storage of compost or manure in the buffer must be an appropriate upland location. I think that's all that I have over there. Obviously the boiler state and boiler, state and local boilerplate. If everyone's good with that just before we move on. Before I ask for motion just a quick check for the public any questions comments. Just like no, so now we are looking for a motion. When Oh, for Anna. All right. I'm going to be approved the order of conditions for 214 Pomeroy Lane with the noted conditions as Aaron previously stated as well as the state and local boilerplate. Second. Hi. Hi. Larry. Hi, Michelle. And I for me. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for your patience. Oh, thank you. Yep. Thank you all have a good evening. He too. No, I think that's it and I have already covered other businesses this evening so. One bit of other business. I'm so sorry. I have my, my term as our rap to. What's that thing that I do. Sorry. Is coming up in, I can't remember the exact date, Aaron. I don't know if you have that or if I have it. If I have it, I will find it, but I just FYI that that if we can put that on the agenda soon, if I'm super happy to keep doing it. It's been really, really fun, but if Fletcher really wants to fight me for it and wants it back or if someone else is interested, we can talk about that. I don't know. Put it on the agenda for the next meeting. I just we have a meeting tomorrow. I looked at it, looked at the page and was like, Oh, I'm up in 2021. I should pay attention to this. Yeah. Sorry. How. So the, well, let me give Michelle the rundown in case she Dave, you are still here. Maybe you know my, the answer to my question. Do you know when I'm officially booted or need to be re-upped. No, I think you're the liaison from the concom. So as long as you're the conca, if you're, if no one wrestles this away from you or wants it, then you stay on Fletcher was on there a couple of years. Yeah, I wasn't sure if we had to do like an actual reappointment or not. But Michelle, to give you just a really quick overview, the Community Preservation Act Committee is essentially we are responsible for determining where we want the funding that have that comes through the Community Preservation Act, which is a mix of taxpayer dollars and state and local funding, and we're also working on establishing funds as well to support community projects. One of the, one of the areas of which is open space. And so they have reps from the Conservation Commission. They have recreation, historic preservation and housing as well as the other areas. And so there's reps from those committees as well as some local folks. And so I took it on from Fletcher last year. Is that right? Last year as our rep and it was kind of a not an exciting year for conservation because there weren't any conservation proposals, but we get this round of proposals coming through in the coming months. So like in the past Hickory Ridge was on there, Dave mentioned it before. The dog park got CPA funding like sort of Kendrick Kendrick playground that just opened got funding so yeah it's a really super fun. I'm enjoying it a lot. There are projects that we all weigh in on in your liaison for the meeting. Yeah, when there are projects that are related to open space I bring them back to to y'all and kind of get opinion and feedback, and then take that to the committee. Yeah, there just weren't last year, any that related to conservation. Well, with that said, actually, Dave, I think in the pipeline. Yeah. Yeah, and just to clarify that the, so the projects for each of the, the four categories are typically originate in the department and the with the committee of origin so conservation comes through staff and the commission to CPA preservation works with Ben Breger who's who's a planner who works, who works with Aaron and myself, et cetera over to recreation and then affordable housing also comes through the planning department. Right off the top of my head I don't have any open space projects but I will tell you that we are definitely going to keep the requests coming for trail and and resource area improvements going where we're trying to spend as much as of our old money as possible on things like, you know, trailhead parking at sweet Alice trail improvements bridges, you know, we we got a lot of deferred maintenance on conservation land that needs to work. And so we could ask for money. It gets a little challenging because you, you technically legally can't use CPA dollars on land that was not purchased with CPA funds. So Pover's pond is a great example that we, we might push, we might push that issue a little bit in the years ahead, but Pover's bond was not purchased with CPA dollars so legally technically you can't use CPA dollars to improve it. So, anyway, but it's a great committee they're very organized, and they, they make decisions on a lot of interesting projects as Anna mentioned. And hypothetically trail improvement or work around at Hickory Ridge could be could go through CPA right because it was partially CPA funds are partially used. I don't know. No, that is true on the land of the that portion of Hickory Ridge that will be purchased with CPA dollars. I will say on that score it's it's related but staff at my urging put in a and my direction put in a CDBG community development block grant proposal for Hickory Ridge for the trails at Hickory Ridge trails to be to be made and enhanced. And that was recommended week or so ago by the CDBG advisory committee to the town manager. And that was somewhere in the order of $180,000, which seems like a lot of money. When you if you know all the old cart paths and bridges at Hickory Ridge. That won't go all that far. So, so the good news is we might have some seed money to improve the trail system that Hickory Ridge, but we're going to need more there and we we've got a lot of deferred maintenance all over town. Bridges trails, ADA trails you can also request money, we could do, you could request $100,000 to improve and enhance ADA access for people with disabilities on our conservation land, you know, and we're really trying to get like right now. The proposals come from the town, which is great they originate from the town which is great, but we're really also hoping that we can get more residents to submit proposals to they don't need to come from a governing body or committee or anything like that. So the district one neighborhood association had a proposal last year that unfortunately didn't quite qualify and I'm hoping they come back with it a little bit tweaked this year but we're hoping that more residents will submit proposals to them. We get things like I mean the forgetting the name of the church. There's a church that qualified under historic preservation. Yeah, so it's it's really cool. It's a great committee. Great work. My comment is that there's always a learning curve in these committees and I think that Anna should at least do two years. I'll do my best. And thank you. It's an interesting point. I really didn't know that individuals could submit proposals. Yeah, we're we have a meeting tomorrow, where we will share their about the process anyone wants to come six o'clock. And just to clarify, typically, it's, it's a group that submits, but we, we can't use tax dollars to fund an individual to do x. It would be, you know, the, for instance, the UU congregation downtown have has a very historic stained glass window so some years ago we funded the restoration and preservation of that stained glass window. The JCA on Main Street on Lower Main Street. We funded the restoration of their steeple, because that is actually historically a very significant congregation, I believe it was a congregational church at one time that the JCA bought, and they would have just soon taken down the steeple but in that steeple is a historic element of that former congregational church so the town funded the historic restoration of that steeple with the historic preservation comes a restriction on maintaining in that case the steeple or a stained glass window for instance open space if we preserve open space or agricultural land. There must be an accompanying conservation restriction or agricultural preservation restriction that goes with that, with that project. And likewise when when we do a park like growth park. And that's, I can't remember how much CPA dollars we got for growth park. So the town must put a restriction on growth park, so that we don't change our mind five years from now and go we should put a wastewater treatment plant there or a fire station or something like that. So, keeping me out of trouble by accidentally using phrasing that. It's a lot of fun. This conversation just triggered a conversation I had Michelle actually. And I don't know if it was acquired with CPA or had anything to do with CPA but Michelle you had mentioned atkins flats parking to me. Just the lack of parking there and I didn't know. I know Dave is aware of that. But I don't know like, if there's anything to do with CPA or if that's completely separate discussion I just figured I would earmark that one because I know it was Michelle goes there a lot and there's no parking. It's a really beautiful site and there's essentially no public access to it but it is a public. That's nice. No that's a great one that we can dig into in the in the community. I think realistically, because there's a number of questions I have down there that predated me working for the town by many, many years. So what we need to do is pull out the elements of that deal where did the funding come from what were the agreements and all of that. So on your way down to Atkins flats which is off of Southeast Street on your left is a pasture that is currently used for horse pasturing. And I began to kind of tease out some of the history of that pasture last year, or excuse me I might have been earlier this year. But we need to. Yeah, it's a really good point. I think that just from my cursory look at it. There was never. There was not intent at the time of the deal to add public access or public parking per se, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't do it now. So it's just wondering, yeah, the intent of the conservation of that land and if it. Yeah, I didn't know what it was, but it was a combination of watershed protection and water supply protection because we have one of our wells there as you probably know, and then we actually have two of our wells there. But I think it's a great question and I think, you know, it's been on my list for a while to kind of tease that out so I think that's a good one for us this winter. I'm going to tease that out and see what the history is there and see if we can achieve any access, public access, public parking. Well, I don't I don't have anything more, as far as other business that was able to cover at the beginning so if no one else has anything. I'm also, I'm going to, I'm going to do it. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn. Hi, Larry. Hi, Michelle. Hi for me. Thank you everybody. Nice job, Leroy. Well done, Leroy. Good job guys. Thank you so much. As always, great job Aaron, but Leroy stepped up. Nice job. Thanks guys. You did great. Have a good night. See ya.