 Okay. Hello and welcome to the July 26 2023 meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission. We're going to start out with some new appointments. So we have Jason Dorney on the concom. And I'd like to start by just doing a brief introduction of everybody here. And maybe just a couple sentences about who you are. I know we just did this Bruce because you were here last time we're going to do it again for the sake because we were not often afforded this kind of introduction. So let's just do a brief introduction of like how long we've been here and basically what our background and expertise is. So I'm going to start with Jason. All right. Thanks Michelle. I, I've been in Amherst for a little over a year now. And I work in the erosion sediment control and stormwater management industry I work for civil engineering firm that is located in San Diego. And we, I've been in that industry for just over 17 years now. And I'm really, really excited to join and I'm glad that I have been appointed and I'm really happy to work with everybody and excited to be on the commission here. Great. Welcome Jason we appreciate your expertise on this commission. Bruce Steadman I have been in Amherst for six years. I am the recently retired executive director of the Conway School of Landscape Design. I was, I went to the school as a student in 1978. So you can see I have a long history in the region, often one. I also have worked on a lot of these issues in a variety of ways over 30 or 40 years. Most of my experience was as a environmental policy mediator and the facilitator of discussions and decision making. I'm particularly interested in the question of this commission and its work relative to climate and the climate crisis. And as one of our site visits today about the rehabilitation of wetlands or making sure that we can bring them back if we can. Thanks Laura. Everyone welcome I'm Laura Pagli Rulo. I, my background I've been in the renewable energy industry for about 20 years now. So I, I'm very mostly familiar with the solar siting process, which can come in handy from time to time on this commission. Thanks Sarah. Alex. Welcome. I joined the commission last September. I'm a relative newbie. And I've also volunteered to take notes. And I sent you Aaron. You know, okay, good minutes from last time. I retired five years ago from the US fish and wildlife service where I worked my entire career in the regulatory field. Dealing mostly with streams rivers hydroelectric projects, fish passage, that kind of stuff. And it's been a joy to be on the commission and get to know the streets of Amherst. Thanks Alex. Michelle, and I've been on the commission for two years I've lived in Amherst. 30 years. Who's counting, but yeah, my, my current career and background is in land trust and conservation easements and conservation and management long term financial planning and perpetuity for ecosystem systems and sensitive and endangered species. And we have Dave Zomek, who I think you've met and Aaron, do you guys want to introduce yourself briefly or have you already touched base. Dave Zomek, I'm the assistant town manager Jason I think we met during the interview process welcome glad to have your board. It's a great group, but the group is changing a little bit. I won't say how long I've been in Amherst, but while. And I'm kind of a generalist I play a lot of roles in town I work on conservation I do most of the land acquisition for the town. I also do affordable housing. I was just appointed today I believe as the interim health director, because I was leaving on Friday. I also do a lot of work with recreation projects and of course work very closely with Aaron, and yeah so happy to support the commission in its good work and really excited to kind of begin to put a lot more focus on land management policy. You know for the future, because all of us are really in these in these seats for just a short period of time. So happy to have you on board. I'm Aaron jock I'm the wetlands administrator. Amherst native and I've been with the town going on for years now. I've worked with a couple other towns as a conservation agent position Amherst a little different as the wetlands administrator, but I have a strong background in agriculture conservation and GIS. Thanks everyone. Okay, so we're going to move right along to land management updates. Oh, sorry Dave directors report on to you. Yeah I don't have a lot to report tonight. It's kind of status grow out there we are short on staff like many departments, many organizations. So we're just doing some dread and water out there with trail clearing. And then we do the buffers pond testing myself just so the commission knows you know we test buffers pond every Wednesday takes 24 hours to culture. The sample we samples we do that through the DPW wastewater plant, and then we, we share those results on Thursdays. All the rainy weather we've been having buffers is is a little bit of a roller coaster in terms of bacteria levels. We've been lucky so far. I think we've only posted it really one one out of six weeks of testing. So just so you know, there's information on the website. In fact, we're, we're, we're putting on FAQ up there because there have been a lot of questions about what the results mean. So we do that every every week and we're trying we're doing our best to keep up with the basics at at buffers pond trash removal trash cleanup, parking some some trail clearing and and other maintenance up there. We're still searching for an assistant land manager as I said, I have said the last couple of meetings. Please if you know anyone who would like to get into the field. We have a full time job with full benefits it's on the website and we're accepting applications until that position is full. It's really a hands on position working out there with Brad border week working with Aaron, working with myself and other departments on trails trailhead parking kiosk maintenance you name it. We're beginning to think about some some brush hogging where we're beyond the the typical date for the accepted date for grassland birds. July 15 and frankly with our staffing situation we probably won't get on a tractor and and Brad won't until late in August maybe early in September. So we have to avoid those areas where we know we have terrestrial turtles, such as on the Holyoke range and and some other conservation areas in south and north East Amherst. And then lastly we are planning Aaron and I, although our time has not permitted us to do this. So we are planning some tours of Hickory Ridge, just to update the community update the town council update the commission. I would imagine these would happen right after Labor Day and we'll we'll get you that information but we want to kind of do a walk and talk with folks. There's been a lot of questions from the public about solar about the accessible trail, and, and we'll have an opportunity to meet with Aaron help me out it's not amp anymore. It's a pure sky. Thank you pure skies representatives in early September, and they'll be giving us an update out in the field on where they are with the solar project. So I would expect those to happen late late August or more likely right after Labor Day. I'm happy to take any of your questions but it's, it's just keeping trails open, keeping, you know, trash and other other other things off of trails and buffers pond and Mount Pollux etc. It's busy. There's a lot of people and to be honest getting back to buffers pond when even when we have bacteria levels that are higher than state accepted levels. And we post upon people still swim, it's really at their own risk. So, but people don't adhere to the signs. Yeah, thanks Dave so when when that that happens is there a sign posted at the pond that says don't swim. Oh there are probably 30 signs that go out okay so they're well warned okay yeah they're well warned from the parking lots on the North Beach and South Beach, all the way. Yeah, I certainly know some people who don't heed. They're a die hard swimmers they will matter what they swim right into November sometimes so people on regardless of bacteria levels. Thank you. Okay, well we'll move into land management updates. So we have met Pollux wedding proposal to have the applicant here today or. The applicant was not able to join tonight, but I did have a lengthy conversation with her this afternoon. So, as far as the land management application the proposal is a wedding of 30 people at Mount Pollux. They're using to bring like a rug for the bride and groom to stand on the chairs for the attendance and they would have a small radio to play a stereo system to play a song for them during their ceremony. They asked about doing biodegradable confetti and I said I don't think that that's the commission's going to go for that. And they are going to do just a small sign at the bottom of the trail that basically is like an easel with a little board that says wedding with a directional arrow. I did warn them about the parking at the entryway and that the properties open to the public, you know, during daylight hours and they were fine with that they're actually going to have a shuttle deliver people just in case the parking lot is full. Yeah, I mean it seemed like a pretty, a pretty standard, a pretty standard ask, I guess they're not looking for anything that's out of the ordinary in terms of the wedding requests but I could put up the application if folks want to see it. And if anybody has questions of the applicant. I'm sure she'd be happy to field them, but she couldn't be here tonight because of a work obligation. Okay, and it was about 30 people I think was the attendees. Correct commissioners any comments questions on this one. Bruce. When is it. Yes, it is. August 25 from five to 545 in the evening. Just for historical context, we've been allowing weddings up there for longer than I've worked for the town. And I think the prior to my arrival here. We actually did require a fee for using Mount Pollux for weddings that fee actually couldn't really go to the town. It probably could be to go into the general fund so it actually went to Kestrel, and then Kestrel granted it back to the town. And I think I think that the, you know, the subcommittee could look at, we've talked about fees, I think Laura in meetings past brought that up. And so I think it's I think it's on the docket for looking at fees as part of our subcommittee looking at land management and policies. But I think I'm not just at an August but yeah, I think that that's great. That's exactly what I was going to do. I think this wedding is very short. There was an issue where we had permitted that filmmaking, if you recall, yes, I was a full day affair which, you know, effectively my concern is always that it's a public space. And even though we'll understand that it's accessible to the public. The space is small. And if you're having an event on top it other people don't feel welcome to, it's not like there's one section over here what there's really one access. And my concern is parking in as long as we clearly, clearly communicate with them that and I think the shuttle is a great idea. Yeah, I always recommend there's plenty of parking down at the South Amherst Common. This is a traditional place for people to park both for religious services months and library, 4th of July, etc, etc. So there's plenty of parking down there they could shuttle people in minutes up to Mount Pollock so that's great. You're not able to park on the side of the road like the main road. They should not park on Southeast Street. Absolutely not. Yeah, I did let them know no parking along the sides of the driveway or on Southeast Street for public safety reasons so they're aware of that. Super. I have no issues with it. I'm fine with it. Okay, hearing, hearing no others. Okay, do we need to move on this one. Okay. I'll make a motion to accept the wedding. At Mount Pollocks. What is the date we have here. August 25. For August 25 from 5 to 545. I'll second that. Okay, Laura on the first Jason on the second. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Bruce. I'm an eye. Okay. Moving on. So we had an Amethyst Brook research project. Everyone probably saw this in the packets. It was for a moth. Sampling research project. Okay. I'm communicating with Aaron via the applicant. Requesting some abstract methodology objectives for the, for the project because the late trapping was a non-discriminate and lethal method, which currently is against our bylaws for conservation land, which is. It's not allowed on our conservation lands. It's not allowed. So they withdrew the application. So we're going to move on from that. But moving forward, I think I'm just letting people know that I'm probably going to ask for incorporation in our land use subcommittee for a just general, just as a trustees land, the trustees of reservation do. Someone submits a research project on conservation lands. Just also submit methods abstract and objectives for any kind of wildlife collecting. So not an issue for today, but we're going to move on from that. So I think we can move on to our hearings. Correct. Aaron, we're good. So it's 721 right now we do. Yeah. Let me see. We can see ours. Oh yeah, that'd be great. Is anyone going to give a report on the subcommittees work or no. We haven't met since the last, the last concon meeting. So we're meeting next week. So we're every other week. We had a sort of a strange scheduling but yeah, we're, we're on the off weeks. So let's say what I can about the CR. Yeah. Yeah, so I think everything was in your packet. So, I guess that the short, the long and short of it is that we are following suit with a number of land trusts across the Commonwealth, trying to address issues that have arisen from changes in IRS regulations. Land trust community working with the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth, the Department of Conservation Services that grants conservation restrictions has advised owners of a pathway by which they can amend their CR so essentially, and I think there's a memo from me that the town council that went to the town council, but essentially allows CR owners, if they choose to apply for an amendment to their CRs to essentially safeguard their tax benefits that they received as part of the donation of land. And in this case, this is up on Market Hill and Flat Hills Road, I believe. And it's the only, only owner that really is one other owner who came to us on Southeast Street and he decided he didn't feel like he was at any risk with the IRS so he withdrew his, his application. We had one CR in Shootsbury or Pelham that went through the, that went through the town council but again you are not involved in that because it's out of the town of Amherst. And in this case it was the, the only one that came to us was the lower CR. I see no harm in doing this. I don't think it compromises the intent of the CRs in any way, shape or form. It doesn't affect that they are in perpetuity. It's really kind of, it's the ultimate precaution for the, for the donor for the, for the donor of the CR. So, Michelle, if you've had any other experience on a national level with these, I have talked to a number of lawyers and to be honest, some of them are, I would say it's 5050 split. Many lawyers think this is not necessary at all. It was mainly, I think, design the IRS, the change in the IRS rules and regulations were designed to make sure that they were not egregious. They were taking advantage of appraisals and donated value at a much, much higher level than anything we see here in Massachusetts and particularly in Amherst. So, there were some abuses some years ago of these donations of conservation land where people are taking millions of dollars in tax benefits over time. It's not the case with the lower CR or with any CRs we do here in Amherst. So, I see no harm in doing this. Yeah, so I do have some experience with this because professionally we had to deal with it. It's about addressing the safe harbor agreements within a conservation easement and predatory safe harbor agreements so for example, a conservation easement set upon a land that would then allow like a golf course, which then maybe it was extinguished and a conservation easement might have to pay for the golf course value so I don't see that it was very relevant for Amherst conservation lands and according to the lawyers that I have been involved with. Many of them as Dave said didn't even recommend doing anything or doing a risk assessment to see if anything was needed but mainly up to landowners to decide what they wanted to do so. I don't know about it based on what I know and I don't think it affects any kind of conservation values as far as the commission is concerned but welcoming any comments from the commission. Okay. Hearing none. Yeah, go ahead Dave. If there aren't any. I do know that Bruce had raised the issue or the question of the actual signatory page was done before the new members joined so we if if you're in favor and do take a vote in favor of approving this amendment. We will just change that before you come into town hall and sign it. So we're adding the new members obviously taking off the old members of the commission. So if you want to note that in a in a motion that's fine. Alexis your hand up. Yeah, so Dave what's the action item for us on this this is the second time this subject has come up it came up at our last meeting. It's in the minutes. And essentially the same thing was said now and now I understand the reason it's coming up is because we have something to sign. It's to approve the amendment which is in your packet. Yeah. Okay, the amendment for the CR for the lower for the lower conservation restriction. Okay. Okay, if no one else has any comments or concerns and looking for a motion on this one. No hands. What's what is our motion to approve the amendments to the law or conservation easement. Wouldn't that be done by us signing it. You have to take a motion and a motion to approve and sign. And I would call it a conservation restriction. So. All right so I'll make the motion to approve the lower trust conservation restriction amendment has presented. I'll second that. All right, Jason on the first, Laura on the second, Jason. Hi, Alex. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Laura. Hi, I'm an eye. So what I have a question. What's the deadline for signing it. And when will the new page be available. There isn't a long story, but the actual deadline for these was July 24th. The attorneys who are working on this who believe it's important to do it. Also believe that if you, if we get this in if, if communities across Kamau get it, get it in as close to the 24th of July as possible. You're safeguarding the owner, you know, from any IRS action. So we'll have the new page. I think we'll have the new page ready for signature tomorrow. So at your leisure this week next week, if you're in town Monday through Friday, eight to 430. Okay, stop by the mezzanine of town hall. Angela Mills will have the signatory page. Because I'm going to Chicago on Monday for 10 days. So I need to come in there Friday if I'm going to sign it. That would be great and I'll work with Angela to we'll get the everybody the new signature page done tomorrow. Yeah, and since the 24th has passed. The sooner the better. Right. Yeah, I remember this deadline being kind of a hot topic day but it seems like it's, it's been extended a bit. I had a meeting and maybe March about it but anyway, as soon as possible. Yeah, as soon as possible is fine. Okay, generally we receive an email from Aaron saying that the document is ready to sign in Angela's office. So maybe watch out for that. I would just assume it's it's ready to sign by noon tomorrow. I mean during this and send out an email to to Angela so I think she'll have it done by noon tomorrow. Okay. Okay. So, then moving on. Are we on to hearings and or should be good to go. All right, so we have a new NOI. 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 bylaws of commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the town of wetlands. I'm going to turn down wetlands as most recently amended and article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaw. And I know I is the tie in bond forever source energy proposed equipment and switch gear upgrades within the 17 K substation expansion of the substation fence line at 246 college street, an installation of 21 manholes and distribution poles from the roadway along college street from the intersection of North Hampton roads out pleasant street to 2246 college street. Okay, do we have a project proponent here. Yes. I don't know. I put Chris LaRose and Katie Wilkins in the room I don't know if there if there are other folks. I can't see if anybody's raising their hand because I'm doing a share screen right now. Next slide. I'm sorry. Let's go to the next slide. Well we haven't gone over procedures yet I don't know. Okay, I'm going to do it with me. Sorry. So, I'm going to start with staff comments first followed by project proponents comments will have five minute presentations by the staff five minutes from the applicant. Five minutes for public comment or two minutes per person, five minutes for conservation conservation commissioners and then revisions all plan revisions are required by Friday prior to meeting at noon. And for all presenters and members of the public. Clearly state your name address of the project who you are representing as well as if you have any preferred preferred pronouns for all members of the public. Please clearly state your name address and note if any preferred. And I'm just going to say right here that 46 fairing street has been extended, because we have a problem with quorum tonight we just don't have all members needed for the quorum so if you're here for 46 or 49 I can't remember. Either one, we're extending that to what is our date August. August 9. Yes. Let me see my notes here. I think it's 735. Yeah, UMass will be continued to 730 and 46 bearing to 735 on August 9. Okay, so back to time bond. I see Chris and Sam. But Aaron would you like to give us your staff comments first. Yes. So just a couple quick things and these it would be great if the applicant could address these when they comment but I noticed that the polls that are proposed across the street from the substation location are right on the edge of the natural heritage polygon. And so it doesn't appear and unless I missed something that natural heritage was notified for the project so it seems like the proposed work for the polls is outside of an HESP area. So I don't know if you could address that and also if the work is proposed outside of an HESP area, but you're working really close to it. One suggestion I would have is that we sort of flag the boundary of that polygon to make sure that folks that are doing work in those areas know to, you know, be cautious and not extend their work area into the the natural heritage polygons. On the stormwater. On the stormwater report I noticed that the pre and post calculations for runoff were basically exactly the same exactly balanced and I took a look at the pre and post land use data for the that was included in the stormwater report. I noticed that the pervious impervious balance was like was perfectly balanced and so that's why we're seeing a, you know, no net change basically and runoff calculations for the site. So assuming that the applicant in their presentation could touch on areas where impervious surfaces are expanding and areas where impervious surfaces are being reduced for the commission so that we can just get a better sense of the numbers in the stormwater report. And then the last item is one of the things that I recommend when we're potentially exceeding that 20% threshold for alteration of the buffer zone is for the applicant to calculate what the percentage of alteration is and to come up with a proposal for mitigation. I know that a proposal came in sort of at the last minute so I was hoping that the applicant could review that with the conservation commission. And those are my comments. Thanks Aaron. Chris Sam or Kate, you want to respond. Kate Wilkins with time bond. I don't know if you want me to give the address of time bond or fine. Okay. Here with crystal rose from ever source, as well as Sam Volody from time bond as well. As was stated, this project is at the college street at the emmer substation emmer 17 K substation, the plan is to extend the substation fence. Do some upgrades within the substation itself. That's why the expansion is needed. And then some distribution work so that involves the installation of the 21 manholes, as well as the conduit connecting the manholes within the existing paved roadway of college street in existing paved parking lot right in front of the substation, and then along a portion of the side of the existing substation along that east side. The project itself will impact about 4,255 square feet of buffer zone. Of that we calculated 3.5% of that buffer zone impact to where we're under that 20% threshold within the area overall area of the site. And I guess touching on some of the comments from Aaron, in particular, we do realize we are on the HESB habitat right along the edge of that polygon along the south side of college street. We're not doing work inside that polygon but very much agree with mapping off that area and we will make sure. And even if it's conditioned of marking off the polygon to make sure that the pole replacements that are associated and adjacent to that polygon also gets marked out so no impacts are located in there. We also have recent survey biological and and botanical surveys for that site so we'll make sure we have the latest and greatest information for where species are located. We did not present pull together the stormwater report as in tie and bond. Chris, I don't know if you were able to get any additional information from the folks at Eversource who pulled that together. Yes, that was conducted by Burns and McDonald Aaron I know we had talked about that on the phone today I did I did put some feelers out I did not get a response yet. But you can see where the pervious and impervious changes mostly occur is this new switch gear is some somewhat like a small building it's a looks like a large trailer I guess you'd call it it's it's you know it's nicer than that but I'm so it's roofed it's an impervious structure will be removing some of the old foundations for the the former switch gear. That's where some of the old impervious becomes now pervious gravel. But to get an exact number for those though you know to actually match exact structures to those numbers I can I can forward you along any information from birds and McDonald's. Yeah, and I wasn't looking for any specific numbers more so just what you just described, just sort of a narrative explanation of what the changes are going to be to the site in terms of pervious cover or removal of pervious cover. I would say most of the site is also impervious at this site there is a stretch of grass in between the existing portion of pavement and the existing fence line. So that will be removed and gravel stone gravel base will be put down where obviously there aren't buildings and equipment. And so just to clarify what because because Chris said, just trying to make sure I understand this correctly. So correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure I'm at the right place here on the plan. It goes gray when I go to to mark on it. So, the the blue area that's outlined on the plan is the is the new infrastructure that's being added to the site is that correct. Correct. That is correct. Yeah. Okay. I'll go ahead. I'm sorry. I was just going to say the larger rectangle the blue, you know, yes, where you're where you're outlining there would be the new switch gear structure. And that's coming just to the north of it from the old switch gear start structure which is open aired right now but with concrete base that would be removed. Got it. And, and as of right now this is a you said a paved parking area like up in this area. Correct. Okay, so what what you're saying, as far as the storm water is concerned is that a portion of this the pavement would be removed, and it would be returned to gravel. Is that correct. Correct. I believe that the ground surface within the substation is usually a larger trap rock storm stone. Okay, because it was a portion of the storm water report which specifically noted that there was and this is this is why I was curious it was well I guess that so it's a it's a reduction of open space, but there's there are noted reductions in impervious parking area and driveway so that accounts for where those areas are being reduced. And that the fence expansion goes partially across the driveway there's ultimately to kind of discrete grass patches and then a small asphalt, I guess driveway into the substation. So, yeah, that would be the impervious area that that's converted into gravel surface and then the, the open space would be the grass patches that are now converted into the gravel. All right, I just wanted to clarify that so that I could better understand sort of the, how those infiltration or how the runoff calculations were just so that it was clear to the commission kind of the balance that was happening there. Sounds good. Okay. Sorry, Kate, did you have more. No, and I guess the last thing just don't want to go over any sort of time would be our mitigation plan. So, although we're, we're slightly below the 20% threshold, knowing our back and forth with Aaron from the very start of this project almost I feel like a year ago at this point. We, we're still going to move forward with some mitigation ideas and plantings and as Aaron said we submitted something a bit less minute to the commission for review. But, sorry, I just wanted to make sure I had the latest and greatest version that Chris had sent over. So, it would pretty much involve as I said the 4255 square feet, providing, knowing that we can't. It's not the most effective place to try to put in mitigation plantings based along the side of the substation and the most effective bang for our buck. So, we pulled together kind of a mitigation cost for trees. The planting labor and then overall maintenance and monitoring for a three year period, if that was to take place to try to give an overall estimation of cost so we were estimating the overall plant cost tree labor cost and maintenance and monitoring to be about $4116. We'd like to have a $1 per square foot overall fee for that, which would give us the $4255 for overall mitigation funding knowing that we are losing some areas of grass and pervious area in that location but understanding it's maybe not the most effective location to try to put some nice plantings back in that location. Can you provide more detail on what your percentages are for existing alteration in the buffer zone you said you're below 20%. Yeah. Sam when you were calculating that with Dan, did you have additional details for that. Yes, I do have a couple screenshots of how we calculated that Aaron I can forward those over to you after the meeting or if you'd like me to dig them up now and share them. Yeah, I'm just wondering what you're with the, like, what the current site alteration in the buffer is versus what the proposed site alteration is in the buffer zone for just totals. Just to reference, it's part of the reason behind that is it is a large site and obviously already has significant alteration so you know calculating new alterations compared to the site, but it's at a relatively low number. Hence why in our mitigation package, we rather than going with a percentage just looked for the total square footage of impacts as mitigation. Absolutely. And I, the reason that I'm asking is just so that the commission can take into consideration your total alteration so if you're, you're under 20% it, we only require mitigation for anything over 20%. So that's why, like, as they consider what your proposal for mitigation is for example if you're only altering 22%. Your proposal, you know, might be more, you know, beneficial to them than if you were altering 24%, so to speak so you're actually altering less than what the bylaw. I mean you're, if you're altering less than what the bylaw allows, and you're still providing mitigation then it's kind of a net gain. I don't know, I don't want to go above our allotted time but just just quickly I'd also like to say there was some debris identified in the north of the substation. We weren't sure at first if that might have been an occupied a homeless occupied structure or if that was talking to Aaron it sounds like it actually may have been a formally used as a community garden, believe you mentioned. So there's some debris still out there we will be picking it up it's within the wetlands so as part of this process we'll go in hands and boot pick up any of the debris that sounds like now it was left over from from a former community garden so that'll get cleaned up as well. I'm impressed Katie and Sam. I think I am familiar with the pictures that you're talking about that we were looking at it looked like a encampment to me. So, I don't know if anyone's still there but that could be potentially a sensitive situation has anyone investigated that mean is it unoccupied or occupied or. I've gone a few times and check if it's occupied I agree we've gone through this a lot and it obviously takes on a human, the humanitarian component if it is occupied and that would cause some more delays otherwise it'd be quite easy to clean up. I will probably have community relations verify that, but no it doesn't appear to be occupied and I have stopped by a few times. I'm not sure a better, you know, solution other than continuing to check and making sure that it is not occupied. Right. Thanks Chris. Okay, any Commissioner comments. I have a question. Bruce, yep. So, I apologize that I wasn't. This is only my second meeting so this may have been discussed before, but in the description of the hearing it talks about 21 manholes, and I drove by there and I sure couldn't figure out how there could be 21 manholes on that site. I'm sorry to answer that 21 manholes are spawning from the intersection that I believe Pleasant Street up near the Commons, and then running down to the substation it's at the request of the Amherst TBW I suppose I believe there's a waterline project going in or something similar but but yeah those were going down roughly every 300 feet down College Street. So those are outside of jurisdiction, but we brought that up in the project. Yes, and just to clarify this because it was a little bit confusing in the application. I just want to clarify this so when the original submission came in. The applicant's representative had had mapped the faring brook as being perennial. And so they had cast a 200 foot riverfront off of the bank of the faring brook and when with the 200 foot riverfront, it put the manholes that were that are being added in College Street in the roadway it put them in the 200 foot riverfront area. Once I reviewed the plan and I spoke to the representative I said, you know, just to be to be clear that the faring isn't is an intermittent stream and so it only has 100 foot buffer. So that it was corrected to add the 100 foot buffer to the stream, instead of the 200 foot riverfront. And when they did that it took the manholes in College Street out of concom jurisdiction. Just a point of clarification because it wasn't discussed at the on the call but it was, it was addressed in the revised materials that were provided to us. And I appreciate you told me this already but I thought I'd bring it up again just because it's still on the descriptor in front of everyone and. Yeah. No that's great thank you for doing that Bruce that was good that you caught that. Thanks Bruce. Anyone else. Okay, I mean I guess I have a question about the mitigation proposal, given that we're in the buffer, and there's a dollar amount on it and I don't think we've received that in our packet to review. I'd be interested in reviewing it and also we have some precedent for approving this kind of thing and and comparing it to what we've done before. So having the chance to review it and compare it just for the commission. In addition, maybe I'm interested in the NHS peak confluence of this project and since it is on the boundary lines. I don't know Aaron. So I guess it doesn't trigger a notification to the USP but perhaps the proposed mitigation would if it coincides with the core habitat that's mapped in this project area. Yeah and so part of that is just a clarification I guess with Chris which is when we were on site we had talked a little bit about. Ever source doing some invasive management because I guess that there was some invasive species that were along the. The stream that runs along the side of the substation and also there was some Japanese knotweed that was across the street near the polls and so we had just talked anecdotally in the field about whether ever source was going to want to do. The invasive management relative to those invasive species on the project. I don't know. That's what that's what Michelle is getting at with because I mentioned that it might be part of the mitigation package but I wasn't sure what you guys agreed on. We would prefer to look towards compensation again I know plantings on this site don't really work because of the limited scope of this work and kind of the wider range of invasives. You know we're looking to replace just the polls there they're not quite roadside there there but they're close and that knotweed is substantially. More than that I think that this project would have trouble trying to sustain that there is some invasives in the bank. I mean it's a I if it's pushed from the commission I mean we're willing to to work and obviously want to he's all members but it'd be difficult to try to control that in perpetuity only because it's you know it's it's a maintained project I believe on one side and then a substation on the other side it's you know it's it's it's a drainage channel that that may not be the healthiest resource. It probably will continue to to overgrow if we don't you know maintain that constantly. So I you know our mitigation and it was discussed that ideally would be to go to a fund that could you know the town could use for obviously the wetland protection act but in a spot that would probably be more effective. Understood thank you Chris so we're looking at an in loopy contribution. I don't know if any of you on the Commission has any comments on that but. I'd like I'd like to see some calculations maps whatever you came to because you did propose a number I just like to see some background on that. Any commissioners have any comments. Not many people were here when we set that precedent but it has been so I remember that precedent and I think your questions are valid. Thank you Laura. Okay. All right, so I guess. So we're moving towards maybe a continuance based on provision of additional information for the mitigation compensation. Just a reminder Michelle to take public comment. Sorry, thank you. Public comment. Okay I'm seeing none. Okay, in that case I'm looking for a motion from commissioners to continue, continue the public hearing for. And a college street to eight nine 23 at 740 p.m. So moved. Alex on the motion to have a second. On the second. Okay, Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Laura. I am an eye. Okay, does that sound good Kristen Kate do you have any further questions. I don't know if that sounds great and Aaron I provided a brief write up of our synopsis and if you can provide that to the commissioners and if you know, it's a little bit arbitrary. We're, we're, you know, filling grass, and we're kind of referencing well what makes sense planting wise. So if there's a, you know, we can obviously have a back and forth if there's, if you if you feel there's a, you know, a better way to mitigate but this kind of represents. Okay, great. The more maps and details you can provide the better we can sort of evaluate what we're doing with the in living mitigation but thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. Okay, so as to be a on behalf of the university of Massachusetts for construction of a gravel parking lot. I'm going to move on to the Columbia Drive. I'm going to move on to the Columbia Drive. So this motion is going to be continued. Yeah, and this was a, yeah, a failure by the Daily Hampshire Gazette the legal ad was submitted to them. I was provided a proof I approved the proof and it didn't make it into the newspaper. I'm going to move in from the paper because I asked like what what's going on here. This is the second time that we've had a an error on a legal ad. So, yes. Okay, thanks. So it's sort of an administrative error. I see Alex has a question. Go ahead Alex. Another question I just need to step away for maybe three or four minutes and I'll let you know when I'm back. Okay. I don't see anybody here to report on that. Yeah. Yeah. And so, and just an update on that. So. I'm not, I know that Kristen presented this was before we knew that there was a failure of the legal ad. So, I was told after the fact that the legal ad didn't make it in the paper so we're going to have to basically reopen the hearing and explain kind of what the reasoning or rationale was for needing to basically start back over at square one with the presentation. So just just to kind of clarify that because it was confusing to all of us when we were talking about it in the field today. So we'll, we'll continue to August 9th at 730 and at that point we're just going to reopen the hearing and start over and then we'll explain that there was a problem with the legal ad that forced us to basically reopen the public hearing. Okay, I will not be here in August 9th. Is that going to pose a problem with quorum? Um, Yeah, I don't think so. Okay. I don't think we can talk about that offline. So, okay. Bruce, you have a question. No, I just, I went to the site visit and two things that struck me was, so we went two weeks ago and then we went back. And it was much clearer about where the end of the construction was, where the different lines were the flagging was a lot better. And so I think if we could encourage the flaggers to do their job earlier, so we don't have to go back and see it a second time to actually understand it, that would be helpful. The other thing is there is a vernal pool there and it was just offhand I would say it was at least a foot if not two feet higher than two weeks ago. It's quite extraordinary to see that difference just given the amount of water that we've seen. So, those are my higher order observations there was a lot of discussion which was good but this I remain concerned about how that vernal pool is going to be protected. Thanks Bruce I think, based on state and local laws that we can consider that vernal pool to be essentially a certified vernal pool and give it all the benefits and protections that we would at the state and local level. So, regardless of the, yeah, as stated by you and Erin and everybody else prior, I think we can establish that we are considering that to be a certified vernal pool even as a, even if it hasn't gone through the certified vernal pool process. And that that's based on local and state law. So, regardless of the current or, you know, proceeding water level. Okay, anybody else on this one, if, and if not I'm looking for a motion to continue the public hearing for a lot 13 Olympia Drive notice of intent to eight nine 23. Sorry. Since I was there and Alex is in here. Okay. I can second that Michelle. Thank you so Bruce in the first Laura on the second. Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Laura. I'm an I, I think. Oh, Alex is an I think Alex. Okay, great. Right up next. I printed out the wrong. Are we on administrative businesses. No, we still have to continue 46 fairing. Okay, fairing street. So, got her consulting for LLC 52 fairing street LLC for the construction of a single family house with garage and associated site work in preparation of 100 foot buffer zone to boarding vegetation will end at 46 fairing street. And we are so we do not have a quorum, we have a dissimilar distribution of members for this conservation commission and so we needed a full quorum of original members for anyone that is listening right now we do not have that quorum and so we are continuing to August 9 that 735 Aaron I am not going to be here in August 9. That's okay Michelle because one of the members of the team that's presenting the application has a due date for a baby right around that time so they are likely, likely not going to be wanting to present at that meeting anyways so I don't think that's going to be the end of the world but I will let them know. Okay, so I our motion as stated is to August 9 but knowing that I will not be there should we postpone that to a later date. I don't, I don't think so because just in the, in the interest of notifying a butters who might not be on this call who might be on on August 9 and the reason I say that is because I did speak to a couple of butters who knew that the meeting was continued to make sure that it was going to be. And just because a butters won't be re notified just, it would be good for us to kind of keep giving people benchmarks so that they know when it's actually going to be heard. Okay, well then commissioners I'm looking for a motion. To continue the public hearing for 49 Fearing Street notice of intent to August 9 2023 at 735 p.m. Alex on the first Laura on the second Jason. Hi, first Laura. Alex. And I'm an eye. Okay great are we moving on to other business. Yes. Okay. Spalding Street. So we had a request for certificate of compliance for 51 Spalding Street, folks might recall this application was for expansion of an existing parking area. I went out to the site and did a post erosion control inspection. And I did. I stopped sharing for seconds that I can pull up the photos. I did take photos on the site the site looked stable. It looked like everything had been constructed as per the plan set I didn't see any compliance issues. So there are a couple ongoing conditions in the order of conditions which would need to. You know remain enforced so it would be potentially a full certificate of compliance with ongoing conditions associated with it and I'm just going to share the photos for everybody so you can see what the site looks like. Michelle did you want to bring up the issue about the plantings. Well, so I noted that in these pictures there's American boxwood planted American boxwood sort of a misnomer because that is a Eurasian species is non native, generally in our order of conditions we specify the only native plants should be planted. Erin provided a map of the actual boundary line of our jurisdiction and there's probably about two plants planted in that jurisdictional area. Those two right and I provided hybrid and perhaps boxwood so at issue is that we already approved these plans and on the plans it was specifically specified that there would be boxwood planted so it's our bad, but we're in the future going forward. I think that like when things are maybe. So we approved it there was an amendment there was differences we they they pulled it back that was great, but we just didn't notice that the plantings included non native species and we approved it anyway. My only comment is that. Maybe we should just look a little harder next time. I'm not going to not recommend issuing the order of conditions at this point because we already approved the we already approved it and it's like two plans but I'm just kind of bring it up for commissioner come for commissioner. You know, consideration. Yes, yes, yes, thank you. So that's my only comment on it. It seems to look good. Do we have any other comments from commissioners on this one. Yeah, Aaron, when we issue a certificate of compliance. I noticed they still have temporary BMPs in place. Yes, that's because I was doing the erosion control inspection when I was out there for this site visit they still had the erosion controls in so I gave them the okay when I was on site to that they could then remove the erosion controls. Because the site is is fully stabilized. So that's why they're in the photo. Right. Typically do we. Yeah, it looks like they just have straw waddle down and they potentially have stabilized with their vegetative stabilization. At any point do we require folks to show that they are not creating additional disturbance when they remove their sediment controls or erosion controls. Just thinking like things like, you know, when you tear that out, you basically create a new trench of disturbance. Yeah, no, I mean, I'm so glad that you brought that up. I think that's an excellent point to to require that they basically seed down the area underneath the erosion controls. So yeah, that's, and we can, we can include that as a condition of approval that the, that the areas where the erosion controls were are seated down with grass seed. And I see the the owner is in the audience and he's raising his hand, would it be okay if I bring him in. Yes, please do. I see Bruce Allen. Yes, Bruce Allen. Hold on. I'm sorry now. I'm sorry but with regard to the boxwood planting. That's probably a good 20 feet away from the 25 foot wetland boundary so I think someone's not looking at the map correctly but or the plot plan correctly. Secondly, the waddles have all been removed in those areas have been seated and the grass is growing very nice and green. So I just wanted to pass that along. So Bruce, the issue was the commission actually has 100 foot buffer from the wetlands. So the question was whether the boxwood was planted in the buffer usually we have a standard condition that there's only native species to be planted in the buffer zone or resource areas. In the case it was, it's like on the cusp of the 100 foot buffer zone so that's why we're, you know, obviously not raising a big issue about it it's more so for future. When we have an application where, for example, somebody might plant a non native species in the buffer zone we might ask them to remove it or replace it with a native species. Okay. We also have a three year monitoring period for those plants. So, monitoring a non native plant for three years. Doesn't sound like a good deal. Anyway, we're that's beyond us we're not raising that issue does commissioners any questions for Bruce will we have them online. Okay, well, then I guess we're looking for a motion to issue a certificate and compliance. And read it or somebody else can. And just just to note before we do read it that the special conditions are the ongoing conditions sort of in perpetuity for the site so that's why those are we're seeing those perpetual conditions listed there as part of the approval. And what are 2122 2324 Aaron. Those are our standard boilerplate. So those would include things like you can't use salt in the buffer zone you can't use chemical fertilizers in the buffer zone. I don't have the order of conditions up in front of me but they're sort of like our standard boilerplate of things that we generally when we issue an order of conditions kind of permanently restrict. The conditions from the landowner in this case. Nope. No. Okay, thanks Bruce. All right commissioners I'm looking for a motion. And I moved to a motion to move to issue the certificate of compliance for DEP. And that was 089 dash 0700 with ongoing special conditions 910 and perpetual conditions 21 2223 and 24. Jason on that motion. I can. Alex on the second. Okay Jason. I first. Hi. Laura. Alex. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay, I understand this is a rental property. Is that correct. I think it's owner occupied. Okay. Okay, I'm just bringing that up because some of those perpetual conditions might get lost in the prey of rental occupancies so mentioning it. Okay, moving on. I'm looking for an extension of order conditions on 33 man view circle. And I, I think some of you visited the site today. Yes, we did. The project is a. Almost entirely a restoration project. There was a significant stream crossing that existed previously on Mr. Predmore's property basically. The, the plumbrook and he undertook this amazing restoration of the stream, which the project's been completed and I have some photos I think I uploaded them to you guys, but I will try to navigate to them right now if I'm able. The stream looks great. The, it's just a really, really nice restoration. I think it was the first restoration project that I sort of oversaw. This, this area that you're looking at right here was previously a massive area of basically fill with concrete head wall on either side and a two foot culvert going through. So you can see it was grossly undersized and basically serving as a dam to the plumbrook and Mr. Predmore pulled it out and restored the river, which is amazing. He still has a small footbridge which he's currently constructing, which was permitted as part of this project. He also, there was a sewer line. I don't know if it was a repair or a tie in from the roadway, which was completed, but he also has a one more part, I guess, like a second phase of the project, which is that he's converting a three season porch to a vestibule for his house. So he's, he completed sort of phase one and he's still working on the second phases of the project. That's why he's requesting additional time from the permit. He is going to be coming back to us because he has determined that he had to relocate the location of the footbridge and part of the reason for that was because it was too low lying and wouldn't have provided enough clearance for the bridge over the river. In order to meet the stream crossing standards and this again, the bridge was proposed in a section of the river that had been restored so until we sort of saw the finished grade of the restoration it was difficult to nail down the exact location of the bridge. So he's going to be coming back to us with an amendment, a minor administrative change basically to share those details with us but he's still sort of penning them to submit to us he's modifying the plans right now so he can share those with us. That's a general overview. Thanks Aaron. Comments from commissioners. Bruce. Well, I'd let Alex give the he has much more expertise than I do in this type of thing but it was gratifying to go there and see something that was genuinely restored in a way that you'd want to see it in lots of other places where culverts or there's just, you know, streams and sections of streams and rivers that are completely underground. And yeah it was only about 30 feet but it was still pretty significant. Thanks for this. Alex did you want to. I understand it as I am I on mute. No. As I understand it it was a voluntary restoration project on his part that he paid for himself was not cheap. There was the cover that he pulled out was big enough you could drive a truck across it. And it was access to a farm access to a field across the way. And he's done a beautiful job. It's his it's a pet project of his is very proud of it. And he was a delight to visit with. And I wish we had more people like him. It's nice for somebody to voluntarily daylight a string. Great. Thanks for visiting Bruce and Alex. Any other commissioner comments on it concerns. I just want to say, I remember what it looked like, Aaron, and it's pretty amazing what it looks like now, so. It really is it was a unbelievable transformation because I was there right before the culvert was pulled and so it was in like the most horrible condition that you could imagine it was just deteriorating crumbling away and thinking dead and now it's alive which is pretty amazing. Yeah, yeah, to watch the stuff get pulled out of the river and watch them restore the banks was just, it was awesome. So I'm really, really happy about it. Right. That's the good stuff. Yeah, exactly. It's the landscape. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, well then we're looking for a motion issue the three year extension over conditions that can finish the project. I will make that motion to prove the. No, hang on. Which one am I reading of the middle one, the middle one. Yes. For 33 Mountain View Circle, making a motion issue a three year extension to order of conditions to be 089 0656. All right, on the motion. Bruce on the second Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Laura. Alex. Okay. I think we are going to have, oh, Chris Valente is here. I don't know. Luke Beeson, if you're a part of this project or not, if you are feel free to raise your hand and I can pull you in. Yes, you are. Okay, great. Pull you in. Well, Chris and Luke are joining. I'm just going to do a quick share screen to, to kind of give a little bit of an intro on this. So the commission approved maybe two or three meetings ago, a trail project on the Holyoke range. It was order of conditions that had been submitted to us by the Kestrel Land Trust and the amc. And as part of that application, there were sites two through four, which were three wetland crossings where there was proposed bog bridging and when myself, Andre and Alex were out in the field. One of the things we observed was that the wetland area was really wide and had been disturbed pretty significantly by mountain biking. And so the concern and also the concern was raised in the field for emergency vehicle access. The commission had included a condition in the order of conditions to have a strip of sort of stabilized gravel running along the edge of the bog bridging so that that would be accessible for mountain bikes and that they wouldn't be tearing up the wetland area when they were driving through there. And because of natural heritage and endangered species program, they, I guess, were unable to modify that to include the gravel strip. But they did come through with a proposal to modify instead of doing a bog bridge to do this punching bridge, which I did the calculations for to see what the difference of impact would be. And when you take into account the original bog bridge that was approved as well as the two foot wide strip of gravel, the punching bridge that's being proposed by Kestrel reduces impacts on all three of the sites so site. Well, I call them site one, two and three, it's actually two, three and four, but the first crossing was would reduce the square footage by 94 square feet the second reduce the square footage by 74. And on the third it would reduce the impact by 88 square feet so it's, you know, I think that what they're proposing is a better solution than having the gravel strip running along the side of the bog bridge. So I just wanted to share that with the commission in the lead up to this and Chris and Luke, please take it away. Hi everyone. Chris full antique stewardship director at Kestrel line trust, and with me is Luke Beeson who is our lens steward, and Luke is going to be the on the ground person assisting Appalachian Mountain Club through on this project. So, that was a great introduction Aaron I didn't have a lot to add to what you said. I did the other concern that was raised by the Commission at the site visit was emergency access for ATVs. And then we spoke with Paul Janagy at DCR who proposed this alternative. He said that they have other routes. They can bring emergency vehicles through on so they don't need that route. And he didn't see it as a concern so the way he saw it is the punching will solve the bike problem because it'll have ramps. The emergency vehicles he didn't see as an issue. Thanks Chris. Did you want to add anything. In particular, happy to answer any questions that you all have about the plans or installation process or anything like that. Okay commissioners any questions. I don't see any I mean I think that Andre had raised some questions about the emergency vehicles so that's been addressed. It looks good it looks like the impacts have been lessened and everything has been addressed I don't have any particular issues with it so unless anybody has any more questions I think we're looking for a motion. I need to prove the minor. I will second that. Right Bruce on the first on the second. Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi. Laura. Hi. Alex. Hi. I'm, I'm an I. Great. Thank you. Chris and Luke for being here. Thank you all guys. I know like with the project. So Michelle before we move to adjourn and I know that will happen quickly there were a couple just sort of minor administrative things that I just like to give a very quick update on to the commission if that's okay. Okay. So bear with me. I just want to make sure that I cover these things. So, I had prepared or I had shared with the commission and update regarding the ever source application of herbicide on the right of way. I did upload that to your, I think I uploaded it to your box, but it was only late this afternoon. So that permit is, is there. They initially didn't think that they needed it because they thought it was only required for open water applications, but when I made them aware of it, they did. They did provide the permit to me. So thank you, Bruce for dotting the eyes and crossing the T's. I have a special. Back in my mind about herbicides. So, yeah, that's fantastic. Jump out. I am very happy our two new members are really contributing value right off the bat here is really, really nice. So thank you so much. Let me see. I wanted to give you guys an update on the project that's located behind the Florence savings bank on Northeast Street. It's the Northeast Commons it's kind of a large sort of apartment complex. I was asked about sites that have wetland restoration or wetland mitigation or wetland what they call wetland replication which is essentially a recreation of a wetland. That's one of those sites that has a wetland replication on it which I'd be happy to take you out to so you can see I can report happily report that the wetland replication is doing fantastic on that site no surprise because when I came I mean the project had been permitted before I got here but that entire site was wetland. And it was only identified as having a small isolated pocket of wetland on it but it was all wetland and so where they replicated it took beautifully. And they've had some erosion problems on that site I've been monitoring them really closely because it's such a tight. What print of the parking area and the building to the wetland so I've been really trying to keep a close eye on them and with the rains that we had recently they had some issues. I did get an update from the email I put in your packets that they were doing some cleanup of erosion and sediment controls. That they've they've said that they've addressed and I'll go out and follow up on that. I would value going on that because I live near it bank and I go by there and just from the street it's really hard to tell. Yeah, going on so. Well, Bruce, I'll reach out to you and again, any other commissioners who want to join our welcome to go out and have a look at the wetland replication area so feel free to either shoot me an email or just let me know if you want to tag along for that and we can go out and have a look at it. That would be, that would be great. Okay. Okay. I'd like to see it too. Yeah, good to in the morning. Yeah. So Michelle, your, your preferred time is morning. Is there a certain day of the week that is preferred for everyone? I mean, it's not necessarily, I think just like, like or something out and okay, I will or will not make it or maybe I could drive by and look at it or something. I mean, what is what does Friday look like for you guys around Friday is not great. The day after tomorrow. Yeah. Oh, yeah, that's that's fine. You want to do this Friday morning. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I'll be gone from the 31st to the 10th so. Oh, well that's interesting and we should kind of keep that in mind that Bruce and I will be gone. I mean, I'll be on August meeting but not. Okay. Okay, gotcha. What time Friday. 9am. So the first thing is on that one parking in that location is very dangerous. So I would recommend that we either that members either park at Cumberland farms and walk over or in front of Florence savings bank, and that we plan to meet. We can just meet on the sidewalk in front of Florence savings bank and walk over together just for the sake of safety and not trying to parallel park on Southeast Street because there's a lot of construction vehicles there. And where's this again. So, in East Amherst, there's the intersection of Southeast Street and College Street. There's a Florence savings bank there. It's it's behind the Florence savings bank building on Northeast Street. Newly constructed building back there. Yes. And you're anybody who wants to come Friday morning is welcome to join and I'll let the contractor know that the commission's coming out there it's pretty obvious. Yeah. I live right there. I live right by that so I thought this we were talking about but I just went to confirm. Davis, I pop up to have a comment. Yeah, I just wanted to remind everybody that when you know that site there they're mostly inside now but when you're on an active construction site. We are kind of guests if you will have the owner and the contractor so you know I'm glad Aaron's going to come out and you know when it is a group I was just on a site at UMass and you know safety is number one so we just want to make sure that you know when when vehicles are backing up if if anybody is moving on that site just stick stick together and yeah, we just want to make sure you're all safe and and the contractor doesn't run into any problems or the owner so. Thanks Dave we don't need hard hats or anything. Yeah, sometimes you do sometimes you do need a hard hat and sometimes yeah but in this particular case, we can skirt around the almost the entire project along the wetland boundary. So that should be no problem but I can talk to the project manager he he I let him know that I was speaking to you guys about this tonight. So I'll let him know that the Commission's coming out to take a look on Friday and he can kind of accompany us so that the others know that we're there. Okay, thanks Aaron so everybody look out for that invite. I just add to like following comments. I did see that there was a KP lot notice, which was sort of a comment on our bylaws in relation to the railroad that was about a notification. Yeah, I was going to be my next, my next item so I would encourage everybody to read that I don't really want to read it in an open meeting or even pull it up in an open meeting because that is privileged information I mean the town attorney and the conservation commission, but just to sort of provide a brief update to the board and and this kind of gets back to, I think Alex had brought up at a previous meeting our need to do some sort of minor administrative updates to our bylaw regulations this is one of those that I would add on to that list. Okay, so just to provide a little bit of history and I'm going to provide a really quick snapshot. I think it was around 2021 the railroad came to us with a request for determination. The railroad is required to come to us basically to determine their spray and no spray zones as part of their five year operation and maintenance plan that they conduct. And they are exempt from the regulations because of their entity being a railroad and they provide like a public service so they they do fall under an exemption and they're under a separate set of regulations which are federal regulations and basically they came to us this was prior to the revision of our bylaw. And they did not notify butters they came to us and the commission actually denied the permit. Part of the reason for that was that the railroad didn't show up for any of the hearings and we had asked for some updates to the plans to include some sensitive areas that have been identified which they didn't do. And as a result of that the commission ended up denying the application and telling them to sort of reassess the the rail line and include the sensitive areas that had been excluded on the original application. They did resubmit but they dug in their heels that they did not want to notify a butters and I basically pointed to our new bylaw regs which in the bylaw regulations it states that there is a request for determination that a butter notices have to be provided, and that the commission cannot provide a waiver to the a butter notices so it basically means everybody has to do a butter notices. They, I guess, objected to that as well and that was based on federal highway regulation. And there is some case law precedent that basically would make it difficult in court for the commission to stand behind that a butter notice requirement and I did talk with KP law and they confirmed that that would be something that that the town attorney would recommend that we sort of not require of the railroad because of that reason. So, if it's okay with the board I'm just going to let the railroad know that we'll continue with the application and just not do the butter notices and that we are going to have to do a an amendment to our regulations to basically exempt the railroad from that requirement for that reason, but for the time being I think we just have to follow town council's advice or at least that's my recommendation to the board. I think so. First, and we advise the butters ourselves. So the rail line runs north to south through the center, you know through Amherst, and it's a significant number of a butters and that's part of the reason why they're the railroad objected. So it's on the measure of thousands of a butters. I think, or at least multiple hundred. So, yeah, it's kind of a big hundreds. Yeah. When you say the railroad, do you mean Amherst? It is the New England Central Railroad is the owner of the rail, the rails themselves there. So I was just wanting to give you guys an update that I did follow up on that and that that was their guidance. So thank you. And I just wanted that to be clarified mission because that was integrated into our bylaws but it seems to be there's a precedent for it that we might need to change something. And yeah, there's going to be a lot of spring that won't have a better notification. And that's just anyway. The last thing I wanted to say was that we had mentioned that we had an in lieu fee precedent, and I was wondering since this might be coming up in the future and we have several new members. If it could be put in our packet, perhaps the PowerPoint that we had, and the calculator, just so people can see it and see what we've used in the past while we're talking about new notice notices. And that would be for the the upcoming August 9 meeting. Yeah. And if, if need be, it could be the details of the previous hearing could be removed so that it's a blank, a blank calculator, but the fact like the facts are there. Okay, sure. Okay, I see Alex has his hand up. I suggest that Aaron not wait for the packet for the next meeting, but send it out on its own so people have a chance. A long, a big opportunity to look at it and call you if they have questions. Yeah, so that we can shorten that discussion when we actually meet next. Okay, thanks Alex. Michelle developed it by the way she did a great job. Yeah, it is a work in progress or a living document. So, Commissioner comments are welcome. Okay, I think that's it as long as anyone doesn't have anything else to say I think we're looking for a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. What kind of that. Okay, Alex on the first Laura on the second Jason. Bruce Laura. Alex. Hi. And I'm an eye. All right. Laura. Okay. You got a soft landing Jason. Welcome. Yeah. Appreciate it. Thank you all. And have a good night everybody. Good night. Thank you. Bye everyone. Good job, Michelle. Thanks Alex.