 Thanks. All right. Welcome everybody to the September 28th meeting of the Amherst Massachusetts Conservation Commission. First item on the agenda is comments from the chair. As per usual, I'm just going to announce at the top. We will be continuing the hearing for 52 Fearing Street. So we have an agenda item. What time is that on the agenda? Hold on. For 7.40 p.m. it's a notice of intent SWCA for 52 Fearing Street. About work in 100 foot buffer zone to BVW at 56 Fearing Street. That hearing will be continued. So if you're here for the 52 Fearing Street hearing, it will be continued at least until our next meeting in early October. The best way to track that hearing is to check our agendas as they're posted before each of our meetings. With that, commissioners, we have a really exciting addition of two new commissioners tonight. So I just wanted to give us a chance to go around and introduce ourselves briefly. Maybe name what you like most about being on the Conservation Commission and a fun fact about yourself. Just came up with that. Just out of blue. Fletcher, would you mind going first? Sure. Well, I'll fire it off. Fletcher Clark. I've been on the Concom. I think it's a seven years now. No. Wow. Seven. So although I might mean most things. You know, the best thing I like about the Concom is I get all a lot of gossip in town. It's like actually like but like in a way that's like civically minded, right? Like you are like there's I really do appreciate that. And you get to do something that's kind of helpful with obviously we're trying to protect wetlands. I'll seriousness, but you do get a lot of good gossip in town that I would never get as a citizen. Something interesting about me. I got long hair that I haven't had before. Long space between haircuts for Fletcher. Yeah, COVID locks. Got it. Michelle, Andre volunteers to go next. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, sure. Andre Gidera is my name. And I've been on the Concom not even seven months. I'm the rookie here until today. And I started by would admit I think it was May. And I really enjoy being part of protecting our wetlands and kind of measuring out what how the wetlands are dealt with through the legal channels and what something interesting about me. I don't think there's much of interest. I like to ride bikes. Bicycles. And motorcycles, but I like bicycles. Cool. The mountain kind or the road kind or both? I'm a mountain biker through and through, but you can't I competed a bunch and I you can't ride just mountain bike. You have to do a lot of road riding and cyclocross and so cool. Michelle. Hi, I'm Michelle or lobby chiver comes to your tongue. I've been on Concom for a year and a half now. I am in the business of conservation, but I work in California. So I enjoy being able to be involved in my own community through the conservation commission. And I'm a big user of our conservation lands and Amherst. Yeah, fun fact, I'm from Amherst. And now I live in Amherst. So that's fun. I think a lot of us are actually are several several of us on this little zoom meeting or cool. Alex or Cameron, you don't have to answer the part about what you like about the conservation commission yet. Maybe why you decided to join? Go ahead, Cam. Yeah, so my name is Cameron McCook and I'm a student at UMass right now. I was really thrilled at the opportunity to actually work with my community because I spent the summer really visiting all of the properties or a lot of the conservation properties in Amherst and actually getting to be a part of that process was something that was really intriguing to me. And the fun fact by yourself. Fun fact. I really like cats. Cool. Alex. I have graduate degrees in forestry and wildlife management. I worked for 38 years with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on I was in the office in Hadley. We covered the 13 Northeast states. I worked primarily on rivers, hydroelectric projects, fish passage. I sat right next to the wetlands folks and I have training in wetlands. I worked in an regulatory environment for 38 years. I'm pretty comfortable with that. I will read all of the laws and regulations that govern you for us. And I look forward to that. I have been here in Amherst since 1992. My children, of which I have two, went to Amherst schools and they're now on somebody else's payroll. Which is, it does happen. And fun facts. I like to, I like to canoe and kayak rivers. I know the countryside by its rivers. And I spend a lot of time in the woods. And I'm an outdoor person. I have to admit that I have not covered all the conservation land in Amherst. And I enjoyed Dave Somek's report last on the 14th, where he talked about everything that was going on from mowing and the fact that they only had one brush hog and the problems that he had in coordinating between pollinators and other things and the fact that they got stuck twice in the mud, flat tires. And I enjoyed the pollinator discussion that Michelle had. So I have enjoyed watching concom meetings for some time, probably about a year. And I'm now very happy that Erin asked me to apply. And had she not asked me, I would have done it. It wouldn't even occur to me. So thank you, Erin. Good find, Erin. Alex, Alex, I'm retired from Fish and Wildlife. I recognize you from from that office. I was an agent for 22 years. And my first Fish and Wildlife job was at the regional office before it was open. You know, I started in Billings, Montana and spent a bunch of time out there. Nice. Then we moved back here. And I've been, I've thoroughly enjoyed living in the Pioneer Valley. It's just a great place to live and raise a family. Thank you. We're so glad to have you guys. Dave, do you want to do a quick intro, Dave and Erin? Sure. I introduced myself earlier, but Dave Somek, I am the assistant town manager and have this added title of director of conservation and development. So I straddle a lot of worlds, planning, zoning, conservation. I did grow up in Amherst, have studied environmental planning and thoroughly enjoy working with the commission and and Erin and I have a great working relationship, as I know she does with you. And we are very fortunate to have her and and the rest of this team in planning, excuse me, in planning. So yeah, I'll turn it over to Erin and welcome to you both. It's exciting to have new members. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you guys so much. I'm really excited to have you. You guys know me. I'm Erin, Erin Jock, wetlands administrator and fun fact about me is I used to brew kombucha, play my guitar. I enjoyed watercolor painting, but now I have two small children so that is my life now and I have no hobbies. Someday I'll be interesting again. Word. Yeah, I'll just go real quickly. So Jen Fair, I was lucky enough to get to talk to Cameron and Alex in their interviews. I feel super fortunate that you guys were willing and able to join us. My favorite, I've been on the commission for almost five years. So less than Fletcher, but second longest ten year, I think, at this point. And I've been a chair for two years, I think. And my favorite part about the Conservation Commission is I learn so much just about, again, like Fletcher said, about what's going on around town. It helps to stay engaged and informed and understand how the town works. But also our commission is pretty awesome. I mean, the expertise we have in this group. There's rarely a situation that comes up that somebody doesn't kind of have experience and know what's going on or can easily figure it out. So I'm super appreciative of how much how much I learn from all of you guys all the time. And I feel like we do a really good service for the town because of that. I'm proud of proud of us. A fun fact about me. So I have a four year old Sophie and she was born when I was on the Conservation Commission had just started. And during my maternity leave for about four months, a friend of mine, actually a friend's mom and I would try to go once a week to a different conservation area and Amherst. And we haven't been able to go to all of them. We are we didn't at the time. But I think since then I've been able to cover all of them. And the best part of that was that this family friend, Joan Deely, some of you might have run into her in like the invasive removal space, dear family friend, but long time member of the Northfield Conservation Commission. So there was very little discussions of babies and motherhoods and a lot of discussion of wetlands and wetland regulation. So it's a fabric of our community and family, I guess, is the point. I don't know what made me think of that, I guess, being on the other end of the kids not being on the payroll anymore, Alex. OK, so with that, again, thank you guys both for being here. You don't always have a lot of time to talk. So I try to make time when new people join us to kind of acknowledge that and be really appreciative, but please do. I mean, Erin knows everything, but if there's anything I can do to help, please feel free to reach out at any time we're here. And with that, crew, we have a full agenda tonight. So I just want to go through, I think, the only continuation or the only hearing that we won't like talk about at all tonight is the notice of intent for 52 Fearing Street. Otherwise, most of these agenda items will at least have a little bit of discussion. So we have a fair amount to get through. I don't think I have anything else aside from just if you're here for the 52 Fearing Street hearing, a member of the public waiting for us to talk about that hearing, you're not going to discuss it tonight. We'll be continued at least to our October meeting and first meeting in October, which, Erin, do you know the date of that? Over 12th and it'll be a 730 October 12th at 730 would be the next possible time we talk about that hearing. The best way to track it is check our agenda as when they're posted before our meetings. OK, and with that. And report from Dave, Dave, do you have anything to share? That's not already on the agenda tonight. Sure. Thanks, Jen. I can go really quickly and I forgot to share a fun fact. One fun fact about me is is in a prior life, I studied extensively, studied the Eastern Spadefoot Toad, which is a very rare amphibian in Massachusetts. And trust me, that knowledge has never really made me rich. But it is, you know, provided me with wonderful opportunities to get out in the pouring rain here in Western Massachusetts and look for this really cool toad. And we can talk offline about the Spadefoot anytime you want. Erin knows I'm a little obsessed with this critter. So anyway, let's see, going around around conservation in general. So we had a wonderful event last week at the Fort River Farm. We kicked off. We did a ribbon cutting for the community gardens there. I think Fletcher was there. I'm not sure if I saw other folks. It was we got this in just before the rain, just before what was it? Thursday? No, not last Thursday, last Tuesday, I think, late in the afternoon. And it was a wonderful event with lots of gardeners. And we also celebrated the restoration project along the Fearing Brook, which Beth Wilson spearheaded with funding from the state. So really nice event, very happy gardeners. And it was just it was it was a really nice event. And thank you, Fletcher and other folks for being there. Erin was there, too. Erin, of course, yes. Erin, Brad, Tyler was there. Lynn Griezmer, the chair of the I almost said select board town council was there as well as a couple of other counselors. So it was really nice to kind of get that cross cross pollination between council, concom, CPA committee and wonderful people enjoying our conservation land. Um, also at that event was Stephanie Chickarello, who some of you may know, Stephanie has filled in for Erin and other wetlands administrators when we've needed some help around the edges. And Stephanie was recently promoted to the sustainability director for the town. So we now have a director of sustainability for Amherst and Stephanie is a wonderful she was our wetlands administrator for, I'm going to say 20 years or so, maybe 20 plus anyway. Anyway, she's always there to help us and help us think about the work we do in the broader sustainability lens. So I look forward to working with Stephanie. We do in her new role tomorrow morning. The Water Supply Protection Committee meets. I'm not sure if you all knew we had a water supply protection committee. I am I help staff that committee with the DPW. And I just bring it to your attention because we will be sharing with you. They put together a draft white paper on solar solar development in watersheds and water supply areas and in watershed protection areas. So they will be reviewing that document tomorrow morning. And as soon as it's, you know, reviewed tomorrow morning, I'll have Erin send it out to you. And you I think we may, you know, want to comment as a commission or through Erin to the Water Supply Protection Committee. On that white paper. So it's really I look forward to kind of talking more with you about that, you know, at an upcoming meeting. Let's see, Vista Terrace. You all voted a couple of weeks ago to accept the gift. We were able and will make the change that Michelle recommended in the in the deed. We have not gone on record with that gift yet. But the the town council did accept what did they authorize? I forgot the language. They approved of your acceptance. So basically you you accepted the gift. They accepted the gift. We can now accept the gift and go to record for that land off of Vista Terrace, which eventually will include new parking and a trail connecting to the Mount Holyoke Range. So that's kind of a fun project. Alex earlier mentioned the land use discussion we had two weeks ago. I don't know if you're going to have tonight time tonight to go into more depth on that I kind of doubt it, but Aaron and I were talking about some ideas, maybe even talking about having some sort of a land use subcommittee, not unlike you did for the regulations and bylaw discussions you had over the last year. But I think we would all kind of welcome that. So we can we can talk about that at a future meeting. Happy to to look at that more closely. We also announced this week that we got a fairly large park grant. These are state grants for and this one was for Hickory Ridge. We this is for two hundred and eighty thousand dollars to do an accessible trail at at Hickory Ridge. So we're kind of excited about that. Again, we don't this would pay for design planning. It would all need to go through the commission. You know, resource areas and the good news is we already delineated all the resource areas at Hickory thanks to Aaron and her work. So you'll hear more about that in the future. But again, we're just doing the paperwork with the state at this point. The proposed trail would be if you can picture the clubhouse at Hickory. It would be as you're looking north from the former clubhouse. It would be to the left to the west toward Hadley. There's already a fairly long existing cart path there from the golf course, and we would, of course, try to utilize anything that's there already. So again, a grant, wonderful to get that kind of funding. And we'll we'll look forward to working with you on permitting and such in the future staying at Hickory real quickly. We have been doing a little simply shoring up. We have seven bridges there. So one of the bridges, the decking on the bridge was peeling off, shall we say? So we we fixed some of the some of the dangerous parts on one of the bridge there that were just the boards were kind of a tripping hazard. So we're we're good. Is this separate from kind of the minor administrative change that we approved last week or same bridge, same decking? No, I think the Aaron, help me out on that. Yes, the bridge that solar bridge you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. So the bridge is just putting a couple of boards on a bridge that had holes in it. OK. And we were worried that a child might break a leg or something like that. Yeah. And then I think that's all I have. There is a CPA deadline on application this Friday for CPA proposals. I do not have any land acquisition in mind. I would have come to you months ago if I did. We did, of course, do the gift, which is a small thing and is not costing the town anything. I will likely put in a proposal for some trail trail funding. We always need funding for new bridges, replacement bridges, trail work of various kinds. So, you know, I would guess that I would be in the since I haven't written it yet. It'll probably be in the twenty five to fifty thousand dollar range to the CPA committee. Anyway, that's all I have for now. And Dave, Alex has a question. It looks like go ahead, Alex. Yeah, Dave, on the property down by. Atkins, where they gave you five plus acres. I drove down that road over the weekend. And is the piece parcel sort of midway in the street on the south side? It is. Yes, exactly. OK. Got it. Yeah, there's a small call it a driveway across Drone Driveway with a turnaround. And that is what the developer the developer put in for us again. You know, there's extensive wetlands permitting, which would need need to go through the commission to get a trail there. I think the parking is certainly out of resource area, but any trail connections there would have to go through the commission. There's an old farm road there that goes over some culverts, but we've got a lot of work to do ahead of us before that even is usable, passable. So for now, we'll sit on the land. We'll probably put up a couple of bollards there so people don't park there until we're ready to greet them. So, yeah, I'm a quick asterisk, Dave. Can you just explain what CPA is? Because I meant to add an addendum to Michelle's intro because she's our representative. But right now stands for Community Preservation Act and committee. So I often refer to them as the CPA C. They're a group of volunteers. Michelle will be your has volunteered to be your representative on the CPA C. Thank you, Michelle. It's a wonderful group of people that represent interests, both from from the four focus areas, funding from the CPA can go toward recreation, conservation, affordable housing and historic preservation. And this is essentially a tax on real estate sales in town. And each year, Amherst has on the order of a million to a million for to spend on these projects. And they're wonderful projects from restoring historic buildings like, you know, like libraries, town hall to buying open space, protecting or creating affordable housing or fixing athletic fields and everything in between. So as I stated earlier, I'll be putting in a modest proposal for trail work, but we don't have any acquisitions in the works at this at this time. So those are the main things I wanted to just update you on. I'll try and hang in there tonight. As I said, I'm on deadline for a couple of things. So I may leave you later on, but I'll stay with the meeting as long as I can and happy to take any questions. But there's a lot going on out there and we're we're just trying to get things done before the weather makes it impossible to do so. Awesome. Thanks, Dave. Aaron, do you want to take it away with? Well, first you want to do so talk about land our land use kind of policy plan or plan for tracking that policy and then geothermal wells. Sure. Yeah. So Dave touched on it a bit, but after our last meeting after Laura's review, there was some pretty significant questions that Dave and I discussed offline and came up with some ideas for sort of how to tackle the language in the land use policy to address some of our concerns. I have yet to mark those up, but I will mark those up. And once I do, Jen, I'll be sending it along to you for your comment. I think the sort of our goal was to get it completed before the end of October. So I'll definitely hustle to get that to you as quick as I can, Jen. And then I think really the next questions become how whether we want to take public comment set up some time in like maybe the second meeting in October to take public comment on it and then also giving Alex and Cameron a chance to give the lookover as well. So sort of the goal for October, which is definitely ambitious, but hopefully we'll get there. Erin, do you think maybe Alex and Cameron should look at it before me? If you would prefer, that would be completely fine. I think so. Yeah, that would be fine. We could maybe give each of them a week to just look it over. And, you know, as far as that goes, guys, like I would say it's, I'm not sure how long it is at this point. I want to say it's maybe 10 pages or just under, but really looking at it and if you have comments, suggested markups, track changes, if you look at it and you don't have any suggestions, that's completely fine too. It's really kind of, you know, if you have ideas or suggestions that you want to offer. So we'll move through the pipeline and get it back to you then, Jen. And we'll try to do that before the end of the month. Okay, awesome. Thanks, Erin. Jen, could I just jump in there for one sec, which is just to remind everybody and tell new folks that what we're trying to do is kind of codify what's currently on the books with kind of rules, regulations, land use. It's not to say you all or we as staff don't think there needs to be discussion and perhaps changes. But I think what we're trying to do is say, all right, here's, let's set this all, let's set this all out there now, codify it right now in 2022. But then identify those areas that need more work. You know, what do we think about camping? You know, what do we think about open fires? What do we think about picnicking? You know, what do you as a commission want to ultimately put forth as you're the rules and regulations for conservation areas? And that work will probably happen over the winter. But at least we want to get something up there, you know, online and that we can use as staff. This kind of bleeds into something which is, we also need this to put up in kiosks all over town. I'm not proud to say that many of our kiosks are outdated, old or empty. It's not a good look for us. So we wanna try to start populating some of these kiosks even if we do it in a temporary fashion. But eventually when you all decide these are our rules and regulations on dogs, on horseback riding, you name it, then we will put that up there on kiosks and of course reflect that online. So that's the purposes. Let's get through this in the short term and then we'll identify areas that we need to go more in-depth on. Sounds good. Thanks, Dave. Erin, our first hearing was at 7.30. Can we save? Should we just briefly touch on geothermal wells or do you wanna push that to the back? I'll defer to you, Jen. You tell me what direction you wanna go and we'll go there. Okay, well, do you wanna just, so I mean the geothermal well thing is just that we need to figure out a plan. So why don't we just go over it quickly? Okay. So with climate change, a lot of people are looking for alternative heating sources for their home and one that a lot of people are looking into and moving forward with is geothermal wells. Geothermal wells are sort of a gray area in terms of regulation. The, every region of Massachusetts, DEP regulates geothermal wells as minor activities except for western region. Western region is leaving up to individual conservation commissions to render a decision as to whether or not to regulate geothermal wells. Just to give you an example, like out of say 10 geothermal well permits that come into the Board of Health who regulates geothermal wells, probably two out of 10 approximately are within conservation commission resource area. But as time goes on and this becomes a more popular energy source, we're probably gonna be looking at seeing more and more applications coming in. Very similar to digging a water well in the sense of a drill rig and a lot of spoils coming out. The four sort of more large scale and commercial geothermal, you're looking at a well that's about 500 feet deep for residential, you're looking at a well that's about 300 feet deep. For commercial, you're looking at multiple wells for an individual building versus an individual one for residential. A lot of times the spoils go right into a dumpster and it's done in a really short period of time. There are some sort of ins and outs as far as the system they put actually like a PVC piping underground and it's a closed loop system that has fluid in it which is warmed or cooled throughout the year and utilizing sort of the Earth's natural ability to warm and cool. And so in terms of permitting, there is a potential for it to cause a little bit of a log jam and that's why I wanted to talk to you guys because if we have to, if we end up requiring requests for determination every time one of these comes through, it could end up being sort of an influx of permitting just for that purpose. And so by way of streamlining it, one thought that I had was to have a process established like sort of a, have the commission have sort of a standard set of requirements for these. And again, it's entirely up to the commission. If you wanna require a permit, we can do that. If we wanna sort of have a framework for when one comes in, what we require, for example, we want a plan showing where the well will be located, where erosion controls are gonna be requirements for final stabilization and so forth and also explanation of where the spoils are going. So we could set something like that up. The Board of Health already regulates them. So just kind of two departments that are handling it right now. So it was mostly just to initiate the discussion. We did get an offering for a presentation from a geothermal company who does the well install. We have two geothermal well permits that are sitting right now that are within jurisdictional area and I'm sort of trying to figure out how to guide these folks right now. They're being pulled to file a request for determination, which I don't think people are very happy about. So I wanted to just initiate discussions to see where people stood. And that way I have sort of a general idea of how to guide people until we make further decisions. Yeah, Michelle. I don't know a lot about geothermal in terms of like conservation implications or like larger groundwater implications. Is there like a resource for that that we could look into? I mean, other than, I don't even know if there is any, is it just like the same implications of a well without the discharge of water? But I would be interested to know if there's some kind of like white paper or something on things to consider. Yeah, I mean, I think Dave mentioned something similar like is this like fracking, you know, is it gonna cause issues long-term with how sort of our subsurface systems function. And what I can tell you is that the system is a closed loop system. So it's not drawing up water. It's a piping underground. And a lot of times when, this is the other thing, when entities say, oh, we're doing a test well, they're actually installing the well and they're installing all the infrastructure associated with it. So initially we've been handling it as a boring, an exploratory boring. And that's kind of had the guidance that I had received, but it's really not an exploratory boring, it's actually well installed to test the functionality of the geothermal. So I think there are definitely some unanswered questions and we should look into it a little bit more. And I agree, there's definitely more research to be done as far as, you know, what's happening underground when these are installed. Yeah, I also think one thing to consider is consistency with drinking water wells, right? So the infrastructure, I know it's a closed-loop infrastructure underground as opposed to the equivalent of a straw, but infrastructure is in place and is installed when we have drinking water supply wells, which lots of individual homeowners have in Amherst. So we have to, you know, just because this is a new beast doesn't mean there isn't precedent for like this type of impact on the site. So I think that's something that we have to keep in mind as well. Andre? Yeah. Yeah, I'd be interested in finding whatever was written about, whatever was written in order to justify the Eastern part of the States, incorporating that into their town, into their conservation commissions and that may key us into what we need to be looking at for our permits and so on. So correct me if I'm wrong, Erin, but the point is that in the rest of the DEP divisions, it's considered a minor activity and it's just in the Western division where they've basically delegated it to the towns to deal with it in their bylaws. So good question to ask, right? But the question is, are there other towns in the Western division that have some sort of bylaw or process for these geothermal wells? I've got to be interesting. I don't know. Yeah, no, I kind of had it backwards there, but that does then raise the question of why is it that they're saying the Western part of the state is different from the Eastern part and I'm curious about that. So, but I was, I had it backwards there. Yeah, but the, I mean, following from that, I would say, Erin, is there any way to figure out if any other towns in the Western division have taken this on at all? That could be interesting. Yeah, I'll definitely do a little research and see what I can dig up. Okay, Dave, sorry, I see you have a hand up. Yeah, no, I think this is a great conversation. I know you're short on time, but I guess I was gonna say that I didn't think requiring an RDA does not seem like a huge hurdle. It's really, you know, I mean, I don't know. It doesn't seem like a big lift for the applicant to really submit that. I know we wanna be consistent, but at the same time, if it is within resource area, we wanna know where are those spoils going? What kind of equipment is going in your backyard or your front yard or whatever if it's near resource area? So, you know, it's not a notice of intent. I don't know, it just seems to err on the side of being cautious and let's learn a little bit more about this, you know? And perhaps at a future meeting, if one of these companies wants to come in, I think we could all learn from experts who do this every day. Maybe there's a chance at some upcoming meeting where they could come in and do a 15-minute presentation for us so we could all learn more about it because I think it is relatively new technology around here. And so anyway, I just think an RDA doesn't seem like a very heavy lift to be on the cautious side. I agree with that. I think more of the body of knowledge would inform where's the cutoff between an RDA and an NOI because that's something that we often struggle with. So just having clarity on that in the long haul, I think we'll be good. Yeah, commissioners, I think Dave's right. We got to get going here. Any other pressing thoughts? And if you don't have them now, always email Erin and I and we'll figure it out and get more info so we can discuss it more at our next meeting. So I'm just gonna require RDAs for now until we have further information. And that was kind of my reaction as well. So I'm glad that you guys are all responding similarly. You have some actually coming in, do you think? I mean, people have been told to go that route, yeah. Okay, awesome, thanks Erin. So with that, we're starting a little bit late but that's okay, we'll make it up. We have an RDA for Neal Parks and Leslie Lau for the construction of exterior staircase access to an existing garage structure in Riverfront area. It's 76 Feering Street. Do you, oh, I see. Oh, sorry, I shared a little too soon. Oh, sorry. I think, I saw. I see Leslie there, I think. Yep, I promoted. And then is there another? Anyone else? Neal, do you see Neal Parks? I don't see him separately now. Maybe, oh, they're together there. We're both here, yeah. Awesome, thank you. Hang on guys, I have to open the RDA one second. This public meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and article 3.31 Wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. Leslie Neal, thank you for being here. Just to review quickly the way this is for your benefit but also for the benefit of everyone doing a hearing tonight and for our new commissioners. The way these hearings work is, ah, sorry. I miss you all, sorry. Yeah, no, it's okay. Is that we usually give about 20 minutes per hearing. And what we do is a five minute presentation by the applicant or the applicant's representative. Then five minutes for any comment from the staff, you know, Erin, if she had comments or concerns from her review of the application and site visits. Then we take, we try to limit to five minutes for public comment, but if there's a lot of interest usually two minutes per person and then five minutes for commissioner questions and comments before we move on to the next hearing. So with that, Leslie and Neal, would you be willing to give us a brief overview of your application VRDA? Yeah, hi, I'm Neal Parks. So I am a visual artist and I am building a studio on top of the one car garage structure that was already on a property. And as I got through the process of building, I realized that it's a pretty, pretty small space and the interior spiral staircase was gonna take up quite a bit of room. And so I wanted to explore this option of having an exterior staircase. And so I have come up with a design that has basically one point of contact on the ground and that is a, we're proposing to use a pin pier and from there that would support the bottom of the staircase and then that would take us up to the second floor and then there would be a small deck with big massive brackets that would come down and be supported at the base of the structure itself of the building. And there would be a little roof over that top porch and then there would be a basic shed roof that would go down over the staircase as well. And that's in a nutshell what it is. Okay, thanks, Neil. Yeah. Erin, do you wanna just run through any site visit photos and any concerns you have? Sure, sure. I'm just gonna stop sharing for just a second. So you guys just saw the site plan. Let me grab the site visit photos. So this is a view looking from the Tan Brook side of the structure toward the front of the structure and you can see the pier location right there. I'm gonna point that out so you guys can see where it is and you can be looking for it on the next slides. There's a photo of it, the distance from the existing structure. There's this temporary situation in the back here while they're putting up cloud boards, new cloud boards on the back of the existing garage. But you can see he's already got an erosion control barrier installed there even though no excavation has happened yet. And sorry, the Tan Brook is that's what you see sort of just to the right in the photo. That's the Tan Brook. So that's why this permit is necessary because it's very close to the Tan Brook, the existing garage structure. There's another photo of it. This is the front of the structure. So on the opposite side that faces the house and you can see the pin in the ground as well, a little white pin there. And then I took some photos of the Tan Brook from the- We just took that log out today. Tonight, the last picture, Neil- Oh yeah, looks like a big boot. So those are the site visit photos. I'll also just, from my perspective, I don't see any real serious concerns with what they're proposing to do. The addition of impervious concerned me a little bit, but they offered to mitigate some of the proposed additional impervious that's being added with removal of some of the driveway, which they were proposing to remove anyway, the asphalt around the driveway and installing a stone drip edge around the existing structure to provide some more infiltration and less sheet flow off of the site, which I feel like will be a really great mitigation feature. Neil, do you wanna just talk a little bit about sort of the bank stabilization thoughts you had in mind? Great, and so we had talked about utilizing some willow stakes to hold the soil on the bank. I'm basically wanting to create around basically the two sides and the back, actually on the front as well. In essence, a trench, well, it's not really a trench, but to take away the asphalt and to put down crushed stone to be able to have the water be absorbed into the soil, into the ground. And right now, where I'm hoping to put this staircase, there was a, at some point in the past, a stretch of asphalt that was put down that actually angles into the building. And so that creates sort of an issue for the structure itself. And so that's some asphalt that's gonna come out as well. Great. Let me just see if anyone, if there are any questions or comments from the members of the public in attendance in the meeting quickly before commissioners, we get some feedback from you guys. It looks like we have one comment from Rolf. Okay. I just joined as a panelist, I guess that's correct. Yeah, just so you can see. I got it. Yeah, if you could just introduce yourself and get your address, and then two minutes for comments or questions, you know, the drill. Yeah, it's short, very short. So Rolf Carlstrom, I live at 73 Fearing Street, just downstream of this property and across the street from Leslie and Neil. And I wanna say, I'm pretty pleased to hear about this mitigation, the removal of the asphalt. I have absolutely no concern with this project. I support it 100%. It's a very small structure. This outdoor staircase will make a big difference for the structure without impacting the land. And I think actually improve our drainage. As some of you know, I'm very concerned about flooding on Tanbrook because we have a lot of issues of that on my property downstream of Fearing Street where it goes underfearing. And I really just wanna say that I support this project. I'm pleased to hear that it includes a little bit of mitigation. And in fact, I wanna say that Neil and Leslie are both really impressive stewards of the brook. And so they really do their work with the brook in mind. So I'm in favor of it and didn't wanna raise any problems. Just wanted to say it has the endorsement of the neighbors. Thank you. Great, thanks, Rolf. Thanks for calling in. Sure, sure, thank you. All right, we have another comment from Michelle Haas. Sorry, sometimes there's a delay. We see you, Michelle. Yeah. There you are. Sorry. So again, I am across Tanbrook from Leslie and Neil and I also want to, like Rolf said, just say that I'm really pleased with their design and I love taking away the asphalt and including more drainage. And so I agree and support this proposal 100%. I think they are amazing neighbors and wonderful stewards of the brook. So I just want to say that. And as all of us that live near this brook, we are very concerned with the flooding. So yeah, so I appreciate you guys continuing to look at this space and look at this brook, particularly in this particular area where the flooding has been more severe. But I want to offer all of my support and I love their plan and I've been admiring Neil and his building. And so I'm really happy that they're doing this. Great, thank you, Michelle. Could you just, I can see your information but could you just repeat for the record your name and address? Yep, thank you. So Michelle Haas, I'm at 60 and 62 Fearing Street. Awesome, thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Thank you. Good one. All right, if anyone else in attendance has a question or comment about this application, an RDA for installation of a staircase and removal of some impervious surface at 76 Fearing Street, if you could raise your hand. One more, Freddie Manning. Freddie, we can't hear you. Oh. Hi, I'm Freddie Manning. I live diagonally across from this, from my neighbors, Leslie and Neil, across Fearing Street downstream. And so we have a long history with this book and we have been very, very concerned about its life and wanting to keep it healthy. I have to say, I was over there this morning looking again, once again with Neil walking around the building. There's so little of the building itself that even touches the ground. Anything new, there's just the one support for the bottom of the staircase and then a support for the little platform to lead into the outside. I hope Neil will have to correct me if I'm not describing this correctly. But he has gone to extreme lengths to make this building to keep it from becoming an additional project. And I think a lot of the things they're doing are actually improving the whole situation. So I'm very much in support of it. Thank you. Great. Freddie, could you repeat your name and your street address just further? I'm Freddie Manning, W-I-N-N-I-F-R-E-D. And the last name is Manning, 61 Fearing Street. Got it. Thank you for being here. Have a good night. Thank you, Freddie. All right. Last call for comments or questions about this RDA at 76 Fearing Street. Okay. Commissioners, any questions for Leslie, Neil or Erin? Any comments or concerns about the project proposed and the proposed mitigation? Explain that. It's not, what do you say, a diamond pier? Or what's the point? Yeah. It's a diamond pier. Yeah, it's a diamond pier. I called it a pin pier, but yeah, it's a diamond pier. Thank you. That's what I meant. Yeah. It's called a pin pier, but it's a diamond pier. Yeah, exactly. Got it. Cool. I know what those are. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Looks good. Okay. So Erin has some recommended conditions here. Nope, Alex. I see that you have your hand raised. Alex, do you mean to have your? There we are. When Erin gave the walk around, we saw the front of the garage and we saw where the project would be located. And I was just curious what alternatives you considered in deciding where to put this and why you chose that location. These are good questions. Part of the issue is that I wanted more privacy for one. And that is because we, on Fearing Street, we've got a lot of traffic and a lot of students and everybody that dialed in this evening, we're all experiencing at different times trespassing and that sort of thing with students. I guess I just having it out of sight is a better thing. And also it was gonna also become an issue for the historic district to go through a review with that if I had it on the other side. And I had already a window opening that in this case would just simply serve as the doorway already cut open. So those are the essential reasons. Thank you. Yep. All right, commissioner. So it looks like Erin had some recommended conditions. One, installation of erosion and sediment controls, which we saw are already in place. Great. Thank you guys. Proposed mitigation must be completed to compensate for additional proposed impervious service on the site in the resource area, which is technically riverfront. So we've discussed removal of some existing pavement and installation of kind of a catch, what do we call it? Gravel kind of ditch. Fresh drop or? Yeah. Around the property, around the building. Would you say? A drip strip. Drip strip, there it is. Three, all surfaces must be fully stabilized. A seed and mulch or stone to prevent erosion and encourage infiltration. And then for structured drip edges must be stabilized with stone. So drip strip. Commissioner, is there any concerns? Leslie and Neil, is that all expected and sound reasonable to you? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So what this will be is this is a little confusing. I'm gonna explain the language for your benefit, but also we have a couple of new commissioners. So with an RDA, we're essentially it's a request for determination. So it's really an interim between no permit and a notice of intent, which is a full permit application for these projects that are subject to the Wetland Protection Act and Amherst bylaws. So in this case, it is a positive termination. So we do have to submit an RDA under the Wetland Protection for the town of Amherst General bylaw, but it's a negative determination under the Wetlands Protection Act. So if the town didn't have a bylaw, this would be a negative termination. We'd move forward. The town does have a bylaw. It applies here. So we'll condition an RDA. So that language gets a little bit confusing there, but it allows us to have an interim step between no permit at all and a full permit. It's a recondition or a request for determination here. So these conditions will be listed on your permit. Commissioners, any questions about that, Leslie or Neil? No. Awesome. Thank you for taking the time to pull this together and for all the information. Clearly a lot of thought has gone into this and I know this can be a lot of work for just a single, you know, residence. So we appreciate it. Yeah, we appreciate your diligence and your helping us get through it too. Thanks. Great. Yeah, Aaron's the best. Yep. Okay. So commissioners, I think we're looking for a motion. All right, I'll make a motion. Sorry, Michelle. Got it. I moved to issue a positive determination under a wetlands protection town of Amherst general bylaw check in box five and negative determination of the wetlands protection act check in box two with the noted conditions that we've discussed above. Second. Second for Michelle voice vote, Fletcher. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Andre. Aye. Cameron. Aye. Alex. Aye. And I'm also an I. All right. Leslie Neil, best of luck with your project. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. All right. Good night. All right. Moving on. Sorry, just getting back to the agenda. So next item on the agenda is a notice of intent, Nathan Wilson for the construction of an addition to an existing garage and a lean to structure in the buffer zone to BVW at 30 Kestrel lane. Do you know who, if anyone was going to be here for this Aaron? Are you moving? Yes. Yep. I just pulled Jeff Squire from Berkshire design group into the panel. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Let me open this hearing. Hold on a second. This public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general bylaws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended. An article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. Jeff, were you, did you hear our general procedure for these hearings? Yes. Great. And I just, before you start, I just want to make an announcement because we have 14 people in attendance. If you're here for the hearing at 52, the 52 fearing LLC hearing that was scheduled for the next hearing tonight, we are not going to discuss that hearing. So the next time we would possibly talk about that hearing is in our October 12th meeting. And the best way to find out about it is to check our agendas that are posted prior to our meetings. Sorry. Thank you, Jeff. I just, that one gets a lot of attention. So sometimes people stay on the meeting, the whole meeting and only to find we're not going to discuss the hearing. I understand. Yeah. So Jeff, would you give us a five minute overview of your proposed project? Sure. So I'll share a couple of screens just real quick. This, he, Jeff Squire for the record from the Berkshire Design Group here on behalf of Nate Wilson, who has a single family residence located at 30 Kestrel Lane. This image here is just from the Amherst GIS website. Just to give you a quick overview of the property. I think the aerial does a good job. It's a small, slightly over half acre lot single family residence that was permitted back in the early 2000s, I think. And primarily surrounded by, you know, lawn which drops off in grade to wetlands, you know, in the area outside and beyond where this residence is. They are looking to add a small addition. I'll just switch screens here. Oops, sorry. They are looking to add a small two-story addition to the front of the garage over what is existing driveway now. The, it's a two-story addition that will match essentially the existing house. And then they're also proposing a sort of an open air lean to structure off the side of the, structure off the side of the garage roughly about 470 square feet for boat storage. They don't, you know, currently right now they just, they don't have anywhere to store both that they've got. So they're looking for a sort of a covered area to store their boat during this off season. Part of this requires a little bit of re-grading. The lawn slopes slowly down toward the edge of what is the tree line now before it drops off more steeply toward the wetlands. So they'll need to shore this up a little bit. A small timber wall shouldn't be very tall, 18 inches high or so within the confines of what it's, you know, is existing lawn now proposing some native plantings just beyond that, you know, with any disturbance that's created. So we're posing some winter berries just along that edge, but the work is really pretty minimal in that, you know, it's existing lawn and maintained area. Now a couple of small post footings for the lean to structure. And yeah, as I said, the remainder of the work is really over existing driveway and paved surfaces. And so there's no other expansion or any other improvements on the site that are proposed. Aaron, I know you had a site visit out there early in the week I wasn't able to attend. I know there were a couple of questions or comments and I did have a discussion with Nate about removal of some of the existing invasives that are there, particularly the automobile that seems to have established itself around the property. And he's certainly willing to entertain and to the removal of any of those invasives as well as, you know, contributing into a, you know, into a fund if that seems appropriate. So with that, I'll open it up to any questions or comments. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah, so the benefits of the commission, this is, can you actually pull back up that plan? I'm answering that again. I just want to make it really clear kind of the resource. Yeah, sorry, I should have pointed that out. Yeah, so the dark kind of dash dot line. Thanks, Jeff, that Jeff's going over is the limit of the BVW. And then it looks like you have the 35 foot buffer call out. Right, yep. And technically we have a fifth, we have no disturb in a 50 foot buffer is the town by law regulation. So a very good portion of this project is within that 50 foot no disturb commissioners just so you understand kind of what we're dealing with here. Thank you, Jeff, sorry. You can stop sharing. And then I just had one more kind of procedural question. Jeff, do you know if you have a DEP permit number yet? No, and I think it's just a hiccup today. And that was my error that I forgot to hit the submit button on the last step of the DEP. And I realized that late this afternoon when I went back to check. So we do have receipt now, but that was, yeah, that was the hiccup. Okay, so the best thing, so we can't close this hearing tonight everyone. So the best thing that we can hope for from this hearing is just very clear kind of information for Jeff to make any proposed revisions, including things like mitigation for the impact within the 50 foot buffer kind of the extent of that. So we just need to clarify that for Jeff so that hopefully at our next hearing we'll have a DEP file number and we could condition and close the hearing. Erin, do you wanna go over any site visit photos and your comments and concerns? Yes. So the staked area with flagging shows the proposed lean to location and it does have sort of a, it's flat and then there is a gradual slope that goes down to the vegetated buffer that's currently exists around the wetland boundary. This is just a photo of the front corner and looking into the wetland. There is a wetland flag back there somewhere. I could see it. Oh, there it is. You can see it's, see if I can get it for you guys. It's like, let's see now my photo went black and white. Hold on one second. It is right here under this hand if you can see it. So right about there, set back. Just to give you a sense of how much vegetated buffer there is between the proposed structure and the well and flag. And this is looking back into the backyard. One of the things I observed right away was the stand of Autumn Olive which is right immediately next to this work area. It leans into the work area and so I thought that that would be a potential mitigation item that they could do to remove those and potentially putting in some additional plantings. So I had proposed the invasives removal without chemical treatment, just cutting and removal. And I also had proposed that they consider some plantings and it looks like they incorporated some winter berry. This is the front of the structure where they were hoping to tie in with the existing driveway with the addition of the garage on the front. And then this is just another photo of the Autumn Olive bushes that are next to the work area, proposed work area. Thanks, Erin. Were any commissioners out there with you? Okay. So let me quick see if we have any public questions or comments. So if anyone is here with a questionnaire comment about the project proposed at 30 Kestrel Lane, you could raise your hand. I'm not seeing anyone. Okay, commissioners, any questions about the proposed work or comments about proposed mitigation? Yeah, Michelle. So Erin, I was just in that picture I was looking at the Autumn Olive. They're fairly large shrubs in a larger shrubby area. I mean, is it mostly like herbaceous around them? I'm just wondering how easy is it for them to take out the Autumn Olive and, you know, not be more detrimental to the BVD than not leaving in Autumn Olive and to plant something new there because they look fairly well-established. Yeah, they do look really well-established and they're definitely starting to take over that area which is why I had suggested it. It's pretty well-established with herbaceous vegetation around. It was pretty much the highest woody vegetation in the buffer that I could see. So I mean, I think it's really discretionary. I was just trying to come up with suggestions for mitigation for the proposed structure, things that... Yeah, I'm just trying to envision, like they would have to like pull it out by the roots or something to replant something else there. I'm just, I guess I'm just wondering about what we're accepting or proposing for mitigation in terms of the Autumn Olive. Yeah, I mean, it's tough because, you know, he didn't want to use any chemicals and I completely understand that. So, you know, it's... Anybody who takes on an invasive removal project, I think it's kind of a catch-22 because you cut it, but then, you know, it's gonna be coming back because it's still on the ground there, but at the same time does cutting it back offer any benefit to knocking it back a little bit so it's not as dominant in that specific area less able to take over. Like I recently walked through a conservation area that was completely taken over with buckthorn. Like the entire vegetative area was nothing but buckthorn and I was thinking to myself, if somebody had just like gotten rid of this when it first started growing, you know? And that's kind of where I was coming from was just maybe it would have helped a little bit somewhat, but I don't know. I mean, I think that's really your discretion to make that decision. I just suggest you take out the automob and then put the plantings right there. Like the plantings are gonna be on the turf. We hadn't really gotten that far. My suggestion was, you know, maybe just cut it back and bag it up and get it out of there or put it in a dumpster and get it out of there, but I think your point's well taken that if you're... I wasn't suggesting that they excavate out the root systems. I said, you know, optional to treat if they wanted to or whatever, but it was just an idea I threw out. So I'm not really sure, you know, we could provide more guidance to them if you guys feel strongly one way or another. But on the plant, that was winterberry shone planted along the edge of the like lean to structure flutter. So that's a native. Correct, but I was just confused that it wasn't take out the automob and replant that multiple areas. It's where the turf, where the extent of the lean to is coming out. Right. Where the plant is. Yeah, got it. So at debate here is just, is it worth it to take back those automob given that we're unlikely to excavate the roots and it would probably disturb the co-located native herbaceous vegetation kind of. And it seems like flutter and Michelle, maybe you don't think so. I mean, if you're going to cut it and then treat it, sure. Then you're going to knock it back and get rid of it. If you're going to cut it and sprout gangbusters. I think it's just going to sprout again. Like I think it needs a dab. It needs to be treated. Yeah, I agree. I mean, And then you put the winterberry in there. Hey, maybe, you know. Automob just grows so much faster and leaves out so much faster that I just am skeptical the winterberry is going to, I don't know. Maybe we could reopen the idea of like, you know, just spot treating with an herbicide for that autumn olive if that's still on the table. Jeff, do you have any sense of that or was that conversation with the homeowner, Erin? It was a conversation with the homeowner, but this could give us an opportunity for Jeff to check in with the homeowner and see if they would be okay with that. And then we could condition that as part of the permit. And Jeff, the message is I'm sure you've gathered is just that based on the experience of the commission with natives or removal, the just cutting of the autumn olive won't, it'll only encourage it to come back faster and harder and stronger. And so we're suggesting a spot treatment of herbicide on the cut stem can help actually kill it. I would completely concur. Yes. Okay, great. That's our experience tonight. Yeah, I would definitely suggest not digging it out and just spot treating the cut exposed wood and hope for the best. Okay, yeah. So if you, I think that is the clear message here. So if we can have the, you know, if their homeowner's willing to do the native plantings and then removal of the autumn olive with some sort of spot treatment of herbicide, then that would be sufficient mitigation for the impact in the buffer. Sure. Great. So we need a motion to continue to the October 12th meeting, but hopefully then we'll have the DEP file number and we can condition permanent accordingly. Commissioners, any other questions or, oh, Alex, I see you have your hand up. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, can you bring the plan up please again? Absolutely. Commissioners are gonna have to help me here. This house was permitted previously and that part of the dwelling is in the 35 foot buffer and you now have a 50 foot buffer. So if the purpose, as I understand it, to be served is boat storage. And my question is, what are the alternatives for providing that need? You've selected a shed, which will become a general storage area, but what are the alternatives for boat storage for these people that wouldn't necessarily require a shed? Yeah, I mean, if you're asking me, I'm not, I mean, I'm entirely sure. I mean, I don't know what their options are. I mean, I know they could probably rent out storage space somewhere at another third party location, but as far as relatives, yards, or other things that are available to them, I really don't know. I think primarily the goal is to store their vehicles, their equipment, whatever it may be on their own property. Is my understanding? I have a boat and many boats are covered with a vinyl for the winter and stored outdoors. It doesn't hurt them. It appears to me that if the need is boat storage, there are other ways to satisfy that need. Yeah, just there may be other storage needs that are incorporated as part of this structure. I don't know if it's primarily boat storage. That was how it was pitched, but they're, it's obviously bigger than they need for a single small boat. So there's likely other boat storage or other storage needs on the property because there is no Cheds or anything else that I'm aware of that offer any sort of coverage storage, but that's my limited knowledge. Thank you. Sure. All right. Commissioners, any other comments or questions? And they put it on the other side of the house. I mean... So I don't know much about setbacks. Jeff, do you know, would it fit on the other side of the house? I think to your point, Aaron, with setbacks, they're pretty tight on this side. So I guess one thing if you could answer for us before the next hearing is if it's possible, given ZBA and our local setback regulations, if it would be possible to relocate any kind of storage shed onto the other side of the house. I think the other thing that I can see already is just access to it would be certainly more problematic. I would just state it would require a larger driveway because right now the driveway comes in straight. And so if it was put on the other side of the house, they'd have to actually have driveway installed going crisscrossing the lawn, which would add a larger... I mean, it's existing lawn, but it would, I'm assuming, require some sort of hard surface to drive over it so it doesn't get rutted out to get access to that side of the driveway or that side of the other. So Jeff, just before the next meeting, if you could just give us the numbers behind that, just so that we've done the due diligence on alternatives, that would be fantastic. Okay, commissioners, any further questions or comments? All right, I think we're looking for a motion to continue to October 12th at what time, Aaron? 7.40 p.m. Okay. I may have to continue the public hearing to October 12th, 2022 at 7.40 p.m. The 30 Castrol lane. Second that. Second from Andre, voice vote, Michelle. Hi. Andre. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm also an I. All right, Jeff. Thank you. I think we've clarified what we need to know. We'll see you on October 12th. Great. Yes. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Good night. All right, guys, I realized I forgot that we're also continuing the New England Central Railroad hearing. So that's exciting. We are still waiting for them to notify about us. So our 7.40 hearing, the notice of intent SWCA for 52 Fearing Street, LLC for relocation and reconstruction of single family house for the associated state work and preparation in the 100 foot buffer zone BVW at 46 Fearing Street is being continued. So we need a motion to continue to October 12th at 7.30. I moved to continue the public hearing on 46 Fearing Street to October 12th, 2022 at 7.30 p.m. Second. Second from Fletcher, voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Andre. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Alex. Hi. All right. And same here. So we're still waiting for a better notification from New England Central Railroad. Have we, I guess we can't even talk about it. No one. Yeah. No one. Camille Aaron. Sorry. So you're like a motion to move. Yeah. Yeah, I'll make a motion to move to continue the public hearing to October 12th, 2022 at 7.35 p.m. for New England Central Railroad, request for a termination. Second. The second from Michelle, voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Andre. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm also an I. All right. So, we still haven't caught up, but we're getting better here. So this is a notice of intent that we opened at our last meeting, Wood, Massachusetts, Inc. on behalf of BWC Eastman Brook, LLC and Blue Wave for a proposed battery energy storage facility in the buffer zone to BBW at 515 Sunderland Road. So who would be here? I don't remember their names, Erin. So I know Drew Verdakis is here. And I'm, if anybody else, oh, there we go, Josh. Yeah. Okay. There's Drew and Josh. And Drew, if anyone else is here, raise your hand. Okay. So, okay. So since our last meeting, we've done a site visit and have a fair amount of documentation of back and forth with questions and clarification on this. Josh and Drew, you guys know the drill for this continuation. And I think what we should do is, if you can give us a short overview of the project because we've seen it before and any changes since we last saw the plans, that would be helpful. And then I would love the bulk of the time to go to an update from Erin on site visit photos and her concerns with the project as presented. Yeah. That's okay with you guys. Yep, absolutely. Thanks for your time tonight. Just to kind of give a concise, short and deep version of the presentation last week. I'll share my screen with the site plan, especially for the benefit of the new commissioners. This project is a proposed 18.87 megawatt AC energy storage. Let me just make sure it looks like it was not. Let me know if everyone can see that. Got it. Yeah. So it's an 18.87 megawatt AC, 75 megawatt hour battery energy storage system at 515 Sunderland Road. This parcel is at the edge of Amherst, toward the north at the edge of bound. This is the town boundary right here at the top left between Sunderland and Amherst. The site today is currently vacant. There was a farmhouse building on the lot that was since demolished in the last few years. So the site is currently has no buildings or structures on it. As noted, there are some resource areas on the site. Actually, let me just go here, a little clear. To the east boundary of the site, there is a perennial stream and associated riverfront area to feed from that stream. There is a well into the northwest corner of the site between the adjacent property and 515 Sunderland. And then as well, there is a wetland here, an associated well and boundary here. This is a 75 foot actually, excuse me, 50 foot to the southwest corner of the site. Additionally, there were wetlands flagged in the drainage ditch that runs along Sunderland Road. So those have been flagged and marked as well. And Aaron, look over that at the site visit. Going back down to the proposed site. So this is the proposed layout for the site. These are again stationary lithium ion batteries. They would connect directly to the distribution grid along Sunderland Road running down to the substation just to the south of the site off of Sunderland Road as well. In terms of work that is proposed within the buffer zones. So again, zoom in here. There is a, all work is outside of as proposed the 50 foot no disturbance zone from the town's updated well and bylaw. So all the work in the buffer zone lies between the 50 and 100 foot buffer area. So that is contained to a portion of the access road, fence line and vegetative screen plantings on the northern boundary along the western side of the proposed layout. Again, additional plantings and a portion of the access road. And then along the south as well, just plantings and fence line. There are no, there's no equipment, either batteries or associated electrical equipment proposed within the 50 or 75 foot setbacks from the wetland. The plan, this is one of Aaron's comments. The plan doesn't show the 100 foot buffer that will be added to the plan to show exactly what is being proposed within the 100 foot buffer as well. I will stop there just because, I wanted to defer to Aaron to review and go through her comments. And also just happy to go through any, address Aaron, your comments as you go through them, your letter, which I have up as well, but I'll stop there. Great. Thanks, Josh. Aaron, do you wanna take it from here and maybe go through some site photos? Yes, yep. Sorry, there's a delay and I don't really know why, but here it's coming. Okay, so this is standing in the driveway facing south, looking down Route 116. There's a wet swale that runs along Route 116 moving south. This is facing more toward the road and what struck me immediately looking at this is like, where is the culvert outlet? It's gotta be here. And I could see that there was some soil deposition there, but it, what it appears is either the end of the culvert has been crushed or material has been deposited over the top of the culvert. So we couldn't actually find the culvert outlet in that location, but it's pretty clear that there is an outlet that pops out there. Looking across the street, this was one of the notes in the PowerPoint presentation from the site visit is that there are wetlands across the street which have not been delineated and those wetlands do cast buffers onto this site and just for the sake of record clarity that those wetlands were not delineated as part of this project. And so the commission would not be approving those as part of this project. So any decision we make, we would need to make that clear, that that has not been delineated. This is a photo of the culvert inlet that I found on the north side. So there's two driveways, one driveway comes in and then it, it's kind of a U shape and then you pull back out. The driveway itself appears to have a culvert going under it. And so this is the north side where the inlet of the culvert is. And one thing that struck me about this side of the delineation is that those wetland flags, the flagging itself doesn't connect to where the culvert is located. So that was one of my comments in the field is that the wetland flagging should be connected to the culvert. So it's clear that there's a hydrologic connection that carries the water underneath that driveway and that the culvert itself should probably be noted on the plan set. This is walking a little bit further north. So there's a culvert that carries water underneath Route 116, which is also grossly undersized and provides absolutely no wildlife passage whatsoever, which probably accounts for why there's so much wildlife fatality on Route 116. So anyways, this is looking in an easterly direction from that same corner, the northwestern corner of the property looking east. And you can see the corners, I'm sorry to buzz past that one. You can see the pink flagging represents the, I think this pink one here is wetland flag, but these corners up here represent the turnaround area from the plan that Josh was showing you guys. And then further, these flags here show the corner of where the limit of work would be located for the battery storage and then the vegetated buffer in between the wetland and the storage facility. This is just looking into the wetland and back towards the cabbage field in an easterly direction. And then standing in that back corner looking south. This is looking north. And I was just walking along, walking south along that border, trying to take pictures of the wetland and the border, trying to take pictures to give you guys a really good sense of the lay of the land out there for this meeting tonight. And then this is looking back towards the site at the limit of work. This tree I was told would be remaining, it wouldn't be taken down. This is the driveway, so you can get a good sense of the existing driveway footprint. And so that's about all I have to share for the site visit photos. Hopefully that gave you guys a good sense of what the property looks like. Okay. Josh, I wanna give you a chance to, I mean, I know Aaron's center comments, you guys haven't responded kind of in writing yet. I think that would be the next step here. But I'm happy if you need more clarification in order to do that, we can do that during this meeting. So we can kind of move this, nudge this project forward here. I wanna ask quickly though first, Aaron, do you think there's a need for a third party delineation at the site? Are you comfortable with the delineation? And it's just a matter of indicating more hydrologic connection on the plans than it is currently. Yeah, I mean, I was pretty comfortable with the delineation. I just think that hydrologic connection of the culvert needs to be clear and that the wetland flagging needs to be connected to the culvert to show that that's where water's moving. I was a little bit like concerned about the fact that there was wetlands across the street that hadn't been flagged. I know they're off-site, but they do have buffers that cast over. And then further south, there's a pond, which again, it's over 100 feet away. But just to make it clear that the wetlands that were flagged were on this property and that there are wetlands off property that would cast buffer onto this property. But they're looking at it really sort of strategically from the standpoint. They don't want to put buffers on there when they've already got the closest buffers to the flagged wetlands closest to the work area. So you'd have multiple buffers cast from multiple wetlands surrounding the site. So as long as we make that clear in the order of conditions, I think that would be fine. But to address your question, I think there's a very clear vegetative line that I could observe to be accurate when I was on the site. Okay, great. Josh, do you have anything to add? Sure, yeah. I do think there's maybe a few comments, Erin, that you made that, well, I know a few of your comments were directed toward the commission to kind of clarify their, I guess, opinion on certain aspects of the design. And then there are some comments that will need more time to go through with wood. Mainly from a stormwater perspective, I think your question's on the stormwater design and the road and kind of the treatment is in the filtration trench. So I do want to make sure we take our time on those and we can circle up with Erin outside of this commission meeting and have a bit more productive discussion on that when we're more prepared. But I think there are a few, maybe a few, like in comments, we can just go ahead and affirmatively say, yes, we'll be able to do this or that and then also just kind of direct any questions or clarifications to the commissioners. And I'm happy, I can share my screen. I have your letter up Erin and we can just kind of go through some, I think called low hanging fruit that I think we can definitely just check off or confirm for the commission. Okay, great. Yeah, so just share my screen, let me know if no one can see it. Just kind of going through quickly. And again, for items that I think require more time for us to circle with Erin, I'll just note that. Great. So I'm sorry, could I just interrupt for one second before I start? I just wanted to make it clear that the document that Josh has up is a memo that I provided to the Conservation Commission as well as to the Zoning Board of Appeals that was dated September 23rd. And it was my comments from my review of the Notice of Intent application. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear this document. What are you commenting on here? Sorry, I didn't skip down too quickly and leave out here. Yes, so thank you. That's important clarification. I spoke again just kind of quickly right through. Erin has spoke a little bit on the buffer zone. We'll make sure that on the plan said, we'll add in the 100 foot buffer. So that's very clear where that falls in addition to the 1575 foot setbacks. And in terms of one thing we did want to clarify with the commission, and I'll slip over to the plans here. So the floodplain that kind of to a degree surrounds the project area and the proposed limit of work. So the FEMA firm maps up until last year, like it is Tentacalli, but to date those FEMA firm maps, I'm sure the BLSF of elevation of 166 feet. And I'll zoom in here so you can see this dashed line is the 166 foot elevation. The town, we were directed to newer resources that the town I think went through an effort last year with ACOM to update those maps on those new firm maps. The elevation has now been shown as 165 and that's, and then once, so once we obtain that update information, we were showing that here. With the previous elevation that we did have some work, you can see where that elevation falls. A lot of them ever clipped into that a little bit with some vegetative plans here and then more so up here with a little bit of the access road. So I wasn't sure how the commission wanted to handle, I know those maps have been published as preliminary maps. I'm not sure if they've been finalized yet, but just how, yeah. So Erin, if you want to jump in and just how you guys want to handle that. Yeah, so we've had this situation come up before and Chris Brestrup is the floodplain administrator for the town of Amherst and I inquired with her and her stance on how we handle this until the final maps are approved by FEMA is that the old maps are basically, we're using whatever is more conservative until the final maps are approved. So in this case, the old maps are the more conservative map and so she has directed me that in those situations that we use the old maps until the new maps come into effect. I'm glad that's the policy and also Josh, that makes the most sense of the LSF. You want to use the conservative value for a battery bank. Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, and I want to make it clear in both circumstances that where all the proposed equipment on site is outside of the LSF with the exception of these overhead wires and poles here. So I do want to make that clear. So Erin, I think what we'll do is we'll likely just, again, we'll circle with wood, take a look at this site from the perspective of the 166 foot elevation and just, and we can discuss with you in terms of, how the commission might move on, commit the story, flood storage or anything, any of the work we have, if that might be viewed as required, we can discuss that. I'll skip through just this item number three here, just because again, that require more work with wood to discuss and we can circle with Erin. And I do want to make clear, Commissioner Fair that we've had made any updates to the plan since the last meeting. So this is the same plan the commission saw last meeting. So we will be making updates to it based on this letter or a memo. So item four here relates to stormwater. Again, we'll address that with Erin, I think separately. In terms of plantings, the need for a planting plan, we can certainly provide that. And there was the commission requires all plans to be native. I would just defer to the commission if there's a representative planting mix or species mix that the commission's been comfortable with in the past, when in terms of for the purposes of visual screening, we're happy to defer to that and utilize whatever species mix has been approved in the past or that the commission's already comfortable with. Okay, yeah. Fletcher, Michelle, anyone want to give Josh a couple key words for that effort so they can start with the right revision on their plan? Native seed mix. You're talking about like grass in between the batteries? Are you talking about the screening specifically? The specific visual screening, like tree species are, yeah. Hey man, get creative. You've got a red cedar, got some dogwood in there. I mean, if you guys, I'm not talking about evergreen stuff, but I mean, red cedar or the evergreen, but something creative, that'd be great. Sure. You know, obviously something native, really all you have to do is look across the street and kind of just get an idea, you know, of what's going on in that gradient that goes across from that wetland up into that upland. I mean, I guess you guys can't go with big, like you're not going to want something that's going to get grow too tall, I'm assuming. Yeah, nothing too tall. And obviously we're just trying to balance something that can provide. Well, if it's a mix of deciduous and evergreen in terms of providing like year-round coverage from a visual perspective, but yeah, we can certainly just take a look and we'll provide a plan to plan. But yeah, I mean, I know it was just the, we just provide detail for, you know, North American Arbor Biddy, but obviously that's pretty simple and straightforward and we can do, again, look at doing more there. So. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chris Fletcher. There's a next question was just on snow storage. We will add in a few proposed locations for where snow might be. Stock balance site during times when it's plowed, you know, it wouldn't be significant areas or amounts, just with the length of access drive here. So, but we can specify that as well. No herbicides or pesticides used on site, no problem there. And we can, you know, if that's just a condition or a note, we can specify the plans. There was this question on material storage, Aaron. And we can clarify a few, maybe off, you know, outside of the meeting, it's, you know, there won't be ongoing material storage and there might be some very, some pretty temporary staging of materials that are put in place specifically just crushed down for the access road or the area within the fence line. But for the most part, there won't, you know, won't be significant material. There'll be more temporary staging of materials, but no, no long-term storage materials. But we can clarify that with that with you separately. Yeah. And if you could also indicate on the plan, if you have a temporary staging area, that would be really useful to see. Yeah. Moving along. So I know there was a sign on the, the BBW with the construction and trends. I do want to make it, so I think to your point, you know, we can make sure to note the hydrological connection and the culvert between the wetlands to the north and south of it. We're not, you know, proposing to expand the footprint of the driveway that sits on the culvert or, you know, as adjacent to this wetland. So we did just want to make that clear. We're not, you know, but, and I know that I think it's a separate note, but we would be putting sediment and erosion control around the entire limit of work to just to make sure, you know, even though we're not expanding, you know, there's no work in that area beyond the current footprint that we would still make sure that there's no, there's appropriate controls in place for the wetlands. Josh, can I just jump in with a quick, oh, sorry. Yeah. We might be asking the same question. What is the condition of that culvert? Like are we worried about running construction equipment over that culvert crushing it and causing flooding, introducing the high turbidity waters are already kind of sensitive wetland system. Sure. So I think, you know, as Aaron noted, it's, it is a older culvert. I think the, the tragedy has been when the place in the fifties and I'm not sure when the state and town would have constructed the culvert. I'm not a little unsure as to the exact age of it. I think one thing we could do or, you know, we'd be happy to just, you know, see as a condition is that we have to maintain the, you know, the integrity and the current condition of the culvert. And if it's compromising to any degree or to any extent from the construction process that we would have to repair that and make sure that, you know, any ability to, to convey water between the, the, or convey water along the drainage ditch is maintained. Or, you know, I guess ideally during the entirety of construction. So, um, so I think, you know, I, my assumption would be that would have made its ways that condition through either the concom, the NOI process or with, um, the ZBA once we're in front of them, but, um, I would, unless the commission has other thoughts on that. I mean, you know, we have a lot of discussion of in kind versus improvement of culverts like that. Um, so any ability to improve and come close to stream crossing standards in the state of Massachusetts are always much appreciated. I mean, I did not see that culvert. Chances are if it was installed in the fifties, um, it probably isn't going to do well with heavy machinery running over it. So chances are you're going to be replacing it at the project or at the end of the project. Um, so we should think about, you know, if there's a way we can improve the situation as opposed to just putting it back the way it is, which probably isn't sufficient, especially given increased intensity of rainfall projected in our area over the next few decades. And, um, we're happy to reach out to the town engineer, DPW maybe to talk with them about maybe, you know, have a side visit with them and look at the culvert and get their thoughts on, on the status and maybe how it could be improved. So. Great. Aaron also has a great deal of expertise on the stream crossing standards. So she's a great resource on that too. Alex, I see you have your hand raised. I'm sorry if that's been a while. No, I just put it up. Um, and I didn't know if you wanted to ask the public for comments before the members of the commission, but I have a question for, for them, for Josh. Um, the batteries leak. And if so, what, what could leak out that would contaminate the water? Groundwater. And what provision do you have to contain any leakage? I appreciate that question, Alex. Um, let's put that in the parking lot for a second and get through this letter, Josh, if that's okay. And then, um, I would love you to field that and additional questions that might not be in Aaron's review. Yep. And that, that question is more or less an Aaron's review. So, um, I can touch on that as well. So. Yeah. Are you okay with that, Alex? Yeah. When, um, Yes. Yeah. We'll be very shortly. We can touch on that. Um, great. Thank you. But yes, on the cover. We definitely, so yeah, we can circle up Aaron to discuss once we have our follow up call and then, um, as well with the town engineer and TPW on the cover. Is that okay, Aaron? Good with that. Yeah. I was just going to ask one other quick follow up, which is, um, Um, something that was sort of unclear to me and I would guess I was a little confused about on the plans that it showed a wetland flag extending into the gravel construction entrance. And that sort of put a little alarm bell in my mind to ask this, what were the wetland flags surveyed and or was the topography on the site surveyed or what, what mechanism of, of ground survey was used here. So, uh, can we get a little bit of the information on existing information on site? Sure. Drew, I think true verdict. What is on the call? I'll just let him take that one. Yep. I can take that drew vertical. Some civil engineer and project manager for wood. Actually order of business. My, my company would has recently been acquired by WSP. So you may be seeing communication from wood. Transitioning to WSP, just as a matter of the reality business, To answer the question, the delineation was done prior to the ground survey, so the delineation was done via GPS, and those points were imported to the ground survey. So on the plans, as a point of clarification as well, we're in the field, I was looking at the proposed site plan, but on the survey plan on sheet one shows that Culver was surveyed. So the ground survey was done, the topography was done during the time of the ground survey, which came after the delineation done by GPS, which indicates why that flag may be off a little bit in terms of the discussion of connecting the flags, the Culver areas in that area as well. So would you be picking up the wetland flags by survey so that we can get a little bit more accurate? And you guys, I always say this, I just want to point this out because this is an excellent example here why I always want wetland flags surveyed because you can see where the difference is. It can make a big difference in the project design, and I think that that is exactly what we're picking up here is the difference between GPS and survey. So anyway, if that could be done so that we could get a more accurate point on where the wetland flags are located on the site. Is that a possibility, Jerome? Yep, we can do that. Sorry. I'll just keep going. Go ahead, Josh. Keep rolling. Keep rolling. So to the other commission, to Alex's question on are there any chemicals in the battery system? First, the system is capable of surface or ground water contamination, and then what kind of, how are these, if any, materials contain? So the systems are again lithium ions, specifically lithium ion phosphate batteries. So each enclosure has a certain number of battery cells within them. Each cell has a certain material composition from both the structure and the cathode, the anode and the electrolyte, which make up the primary components of the battery. Typically the only substance that is typically of concern for, if we're to somehow make its way to the ground or seep into the ground is the liquid electrolyte that's in the battery, which is typically a lithium salt chemical or compound. So each battery cell has a little under a liter of this liquid electrolyte, or I should say aqueous electrolyte at each time. The electrolyte itself, it's not the density of water. It's a little more thick, like more of a slurry mix. So it's not going to necessarily, or if we're to sit on the ground, it's not going to just only kind of drain or infiltrate into the ground very quickly. It's going to sit there kind of in a more solid, you know, somewhere between liquid and solid state. But each battery cell has that liquid electrolyte. Each of those cells are chromatically sealed and contained and contain the entirety of the electrolyte. So during the normal course and operation of the battery, that electrolyte, you know, is never intended or designed to come out of the battery cell at any time or be exposed to the environment in any way. So each of those cells again, and so each of those cells have under, slightly under a liter of that electrolyte. And then the entirety of the enclosure contains all of the cells as well. The enclosures are NEMA rated to at least 65, or excuse me, NEMA 4, IP 65. So the containers are also a very well designed against ingress and egress of any material. So in the event that, say, and again, the likelihood that a large amount or any significant amount of cells were just kind of be ruptured or any potential for that liquid electrolyte to come out of the battery cells, it's pretty low. Just in the normal operation of the battery or any kind of accident, you'd have to kind of imagine some kind of scenario where something were to kind of somehow rupture every, you know, all the cells throughout all the enclosures to a large extent simultaneously. So in the normal course and operation of the system, if a cell within an enclosure were to somehow rupture and some amount of liquid electrolyte were to come out, the enclosure would contain a liquid electrolyte. There'd be a response to the site. There'd be, you know, a spill cleanup and response done within the confines of that container for whatever's come out of any cells if there has been, and then that would be contained kind of basically through those methods. And then typically what happens with electrolyte in instances where there are accidents to say if there were to be some kind of a fire or emergency event that electrolyte typically evaporates, it doesn't just come out of the cells in the container. So there wouldn't be a risk and say a fire, that electrolyte spilling out and draining to the ground, it would likely evaporate. Obviously there's a concern there from a first responder standpoint of making sure they're responding to site with the appropriate gear and taking necessary safety precautions, but otherwise, you know, minimal risk to site surface water or groundwater. Erin, it looks like you have a question. I was just going to ask if the explanation you just gave, Josh, you could give me in writing, because I'd really like to have sort of a something on the record that explains what the process would be so that it's clear that that's sort of part of the operation and maintenance plan for the facility of how a response would be dealt with in the event that there was a spill or a rupture. Sure, I can do that. Alex, it looks like you have a follow-up question. Yeah. Alex, it looks like you have a follow-up question. He's on mute. Yeah. There, everyone on mute. Is there anything about this operation that would make it subject to a lightning strike? I would say nothing beyond any, I guess, other similar metal structure that would attract lightning. There's no, the height of the structures at max or currently proposed is going to be, you know, is around the 10 to 12 foot mark. I could get the specific elevation. So they're, you know, elevated off the ground, but they're not particularly high off the ground or there's no large metal structure that sits, you know, kind of in a function as a lightning rod or any kind of lightning attracting setup. So I have nothing to my knowledge on these sites. Generates any kind of additional concern over lightning strikes beyond just normal. It doesn't generate a particular charge that might attract lightning. No, I don't think that's. Thank you. And Aaron, when he provides you that written thing with the fire department, be able to look at it. Like you would want us to send it to them to, to get them, to get us comments back if it's adequate. Is that what you're getting at? Just went on. Went on mute. Yes. Okay. And we, we did meet with the fire department last Friday and had a conversation with the fire chief and a few other folks from the fire department. So we have initiated kind of their review of the project as well. Thank you. If we can, I want it. So I think we should limit this to about four more minutes because we have, we still have other like very hefty hearings on our agenda tonight. It's nine o'clock. Got it. The last, last two things I don't want to have anything else to say through the comments. I think the last two things are really for the commission and maybe this can be taken. You can discuss and then we can, if it needs to be decided the next meeting is Aaron's coming here on limited project status. And then the other item would be as part of the storm water analysis. What we propose is that the containers are elevated off the ground on concrete peers. So they're not concrete slabs flush with the ground. And that's been factored into the storm water calculations for water to be allowed to infiltrate underneath the containers. So I think that's a question from Aaron. How the commission wants to treat. Impervious surface as it relates to that proposed design and storm water function. Okay. Would you mind stopping sharing Josh for a second? Yes. See everyone. Aaron, do you have a comment? Yeah, I just wanted to, I basically wanted to reiterate what you were saying, but also like the, the, I think the key question that the commission needs to answer tonight is whether they are considering this to be impervious or not. And the remaining things I feel like are sort of secondary that they need to know that information to move tonight, to move forward from a design standpoint. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Josh, for going through that. I think it's important that the commission understands kind of the intricacies of this and gets a chance to get into those details. So thank you. I'm sorry to rush you at the end, but I think that is kind of the headline here commission is so basically because these battery banks are up on peers, you know, not in contact with the earth. They own, you know, they are not being considered impervious cover. Is that okay with us? Because that really impacts the storm water. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Calculations. For the site. How far Josh. So sorry, can you say that again? So the peers will be how tall before the bottom of what I'm imagining is like a big. Yeah. Yeah. As proposed right now, they'd be six inches off the ground. There's six inches off the ground. So they're just sitting on what they're used for. We had the last guy had diamond peers. Where are they sitting on? Yeah. They're sitting on four corners of the. Yeah. They're just set directly on the ground. Correct. So the idea being like eight inch diameter, 10 inch, 12 inch diameter. I would, I'd have to, I can get the specific diameter to you. In my final configuration and structural. But yeah, I can get that. So probably the logic of saying that, you know, you know, if those battery banks don't add to impervious services, that technically water could flow underneath the battery banks and infiltrate infiltrate. So. You know, the question is, are we comfortable with that? Or as, you know, do we think that. Those battery banks elevated only six inches off the ground are contributing to impervious area on the site. It's an infiltration question. Yeah. So, do you think they're, apart they are battery banks? Sure. So, um, they're, most of them are in pairs back to back and in between the pairs. Horizontally, they have door clearance. So it's about, um, 12 feet, I believe, currently between the containers. And then on the short side of the containers, it's about four or five feet. Is the spacing. So basically you need to be able to have a vehicle going between those roads. Yeah. Exactly. Yep. And you're proposing. Gravel. I mean, those roads. Correct. Right. Cause you need to drive a vehicle. So it'd be gravel wouldn't be just like soil and grass. So it'd be gravel in between. So you can drive in between the banks that are sitting on these concrete. Corners. Yeah. That are not in the ground or just set on the ground. Right. But. I'm sorry. I didn't clarify that. I guess we can. They will likely go into the ground to some extent, you know, just from a structural standpoint. So, um, you know, that I, I didn't mention it, but we're going to be looking to do test fits that was part of Aaron's comments. Um, to make sure we confirm subsurface conditions on the site. So that also the results of those would factor into. Likely the depth of those beers. So basically you would get the site. You, you'd cuff off the topsoil. And regrade it to whatever level you need to get to it. At some point it's pretty flat for the most part, but you probably have to cup off the, the topsoil. Put in this gravel roads in between the. The battery banks, but underneath those battery banks, you're probably going to take off the. Topsoil anyway. Are you going to plan on just grappling the whole thing to put everything on. Yeah. Sorry. I'm trying to get this. No, no, no, no, no. No, that would be the, that would be the intent. So, um, yeah, we were ideally were basically proposing no grading just because it is more or less flat. So, um, yeah. So just be kind of, like you said, that, um, that topsoil layer, um, kind of just preparing the, the. Taking off the top vegetative layer laying down the crushed down and then setting those concrete piers. So let me ask Aaron, when we were doing the Hickory Ridge solar. Permit. I remember having this discussion about the posts holding up the solar panels and whether or not those, the diameter, like the cross-sectional area of those posts. Counted as impervious area. Do you remember this? Well, I wasn't here when Hickory was a pro. If I was, it would have been a much more approval. I can assure you that. My language. Fletcher. Do you remember? Because this is, this is the question, like. Should those concrete piers count as impervious area? Should the entire battery bank. Count as impervious area. What is the precedent? Um, I do want to comment on that Jen really quickly. Because I know some information about Hickory Ridge that I think is relevant here. And it's very important, which is Hickory, the Hickory development never even gave us a footing design. We still don't know what they're using as a footing. And that is a big problem because we never, never finalized what the footing would even be. And it was determined not to be impervious on that. There is no stormwater whatsoever associated. Nothing. There's no stormwater plan associated with Hickory Ridge, which is very important. I'm sort of mortified and terrified of, to be honest, but it's a relatively flat site, well vegetated. So it might not be as bad as I'm concerned that it will be from a stormwater management standpoint. Um, but. Yeah. Okay. I'm drew. Did you have. Just real quick point of clarification. We did account for the piers to be impervious. Okay. So that is how it's proven. We did not account for the large, better units themselves. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay. The difference with like a solar array obviously is that. The height. Well, there's height and this is grass underneath. You know, it's pretty straight. That's so, but thank you, Drew, for making that clarification that you are calculating imperviousness. What the battery banks are sitting on. That's helpful. Yeah. Also keep in mind, like there's a lot of, you know, the reason that Aaron is paying so much attention to the delineation and the reason that Josh is bringing and bringing up, you know, is because of the, you know, you know, you have to understand how the water is flowing and would be, could be flowing or moving on the site. And what we know because of these various delineations is that this would be kind of total rainfall from above on the site. We'd have to come up above those battery banks in order for those battery banks to be seen as area that was not infiltrating. But chances are, you know, it's not, we're not talking about lateral flow. You know, we're talking about rain from above and if it can infiltrate on this site. Around, you know, between those battery banks and the cement piers. Look at the substation to the south. Right. It's just the body of water. Yeah. The test will tell us a lot more about this too. I feel like that is a critical piece of information understanding kind of infiltration rates that you can expect here. Like, are we going to see ponding? I mean, hopefully not. I think that will be a helpful piece of information. From like a hydrology standpoint, I would want to see the test pits before I like gave a technical opinion here. But I'm interested to hear what other commissioners, if you can give Josh and Drew anything to go on that they could provide as additional information as we try to move this permit forward, I think that would be critical. But I'm going to go ahead and make that decision. And I'm going to go ahead and make the decision. Fletcher, is there any additional information you'd need in order to kind of make this decision? For example, it's pretty straightforward. Okay. Not seeing anything. Okay. So I'm going to say barring. Information from the test pits. That would indicate otherwise. I'm comfortable with the way that the impervious surface is calculated. So I'm going to go ahead and make that decision. Questions, concerns. Okay. Does that give you guys enough to go on Drew and Josh? Okay. All right. Great. So quickly, I'm going to take public comment on this. And then I think we kind of know hopefully. What we need to know and to keep this moving. In our next hearing. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the member of the public. And you've a question or comment about the. Proposed work at 515 Sunderland road. Please raise your hand. All right. I'm not seeing anyone. So. Barring any last minute questions or guidance. Commissioners. I think we're looking for a motion to continue. And I think it's two October. 12th. I think we're looking for a motion to continue. Yeah. 745. 745. You can just say so moved. So moved. Looking for a second. Second. Second from Andre voice vote Fletcher. Hi. Andre. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm also an I. Hi. All right. Thanks for your time. Josh. Drew. Thank you. In October. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Commissioners hang in there. Remember when that used to be Annie's garden center. Yeah. I do. I found some mint on the site and I was like, oh yeah. Yeah. Do you have a home. Anybody had an AP area there last year and they were honey. All right. Or 755 hearing at nine 14. This is for 47 Olympia drive. So this is SB associates on behalf of our Palago investments. LLC and 47 Olympia drive. LLC for redevelopment of 47 Olympia drive, including demolition of existing structure and construction and apartment style dormitory associated driveway parking, drainage and utilities in the buffer zone to BVW and an intermittent stream at 47 Olympia Drive. Can you remind me who I'm looking for, Erin? Yes. It would be, let's see, oh, yeah, Mark, there we go. Mark, oh, there we go, thanks. Down at the bottom where I couldn't see him. Yeah. I don't know if Kyle wants to join as a panelist or not, but if you do, Kyle, just raise your hand. Okay, hi, Mark. Hello. So as it's getting pretty late and we're not gonna be able to close this hearing tonight, I just kind of want to face this off a little bit with just an overview that we don't really have the information we need to move forward with this review. So commissioners, just so you understand, Erin sent some detailed plan review comments and there's some major outstanding items. The one that sticks up the most to me is test pits because as you guys saw at our last meeting at this site where BVW and BVW tuning are ordering within the buffer of an intermittent stream, so there's just not a lot of space to work with and stormwater is a really big deal. So in order to kind of move forward with a lot of the outstanding questions about stormwater, direction, amount, flow, we really need understanding of the test pits. So I'm not really sure what there is to discuss tonight with that information not yet available. Mark, do you have any, I guess, yeah. So I guess the question is, Mark, are you willing to continue until we have that information and can have a better discussion about the stormwater at the site? I mean, you're going to continue anyways based on the time and such. We based a stormwater system off of previous test points of adjacent development and there was going to be new ones that would be happening prior to construction of the building. I've reviewed Erin's comments and responded to her yesterday, so she has all of those with the updated and revised plans. As for that, I would have to talk to the client about getting the test pits and soil information to you guys. If you want specific to the site prior to... Yeah, so our stormwater standards require us to have stormwater pit data prior to approval. So we couldn't move forward with this hearing until we have the test fit information. So it sounds like that is a conversation that you would have to have for your client, but we can't really move forward with this review until we have that information. Commissioners, Erin, any comments or concerns on that? No, I did forward the stuff came in sort of, I guess, Tuesday late afternoon. I did forward that all along to you guys. It was, I know that the plans were being delivered to me today, so give us a chance to review everything that was resubmitted in the revisions and then hopefully give you guys some time for the test pits before we reconvene. Usually just for your benefit mark, if we can have anything that needs to be reviewed prior to the meeting, at least by the Friday before the meeting. That gives us enough time to review and have something more substantial to discuss. Given the requirement for the test pits, do you, should we continue to the October 12th meeting or to a later date in October? On the October 12th would be good. Okay, great. So is that a continuation to October 12th, Erin at 7.50? 50, yep. Okay, all we need is a so moved commissioners. So move. Can I just say something? Cause I'm not going to be here on the October 12th meeting. This is in the no disturb buffer, which, you know, we just re-read those. I can't comment on that. We adjusted the disturbance to be outside of the 50 foot no disturb buffer. The building, however, will still be in the 75 foot building setback. But there's a dish or the bottles within the 50 foot no disturbance. And it was within the 35 foot. There's disturbance within the 30 or 35 foot no disturbance as well. Yeah. So I mean, we're working with the new rules now. That's a new, it's a new permit application. So I just, I wanted to bring that up since I won't be here next time, but just encourage commissioners to pay attention to that specifically. Thanks, Michelle. It looks like we have a comment from Kyle. So I'm going to bring him into the meeting. Good evening. Hi, Kyle. Hi, how is everybody? Running out of steam. Yeah. I appreciate your time. I just wanted to comment on this, if I could. We can absolutely get the test bits. We're obviously trying to balance a lot of different things with this project. There are, we developed the property next door, which is lower and closer to the wetlands. We're obviously between changing of rules. And this building has been, is the last remaining tax paying parcel in the RF district where student housing can be built in this town. So while we have to obviously adhere to the new rules that have just changed, we also have to maintain a big picture here to make sure that we're satisfying all the needs that the town of Amherst has as we proceed. So we can definitely get the test bit information. I think Mark's done a lot of work to satisfy or to answer Aaron's questions, to clarify stormwater. The retainer structures and the height of those are all based on the information that we have from next door as well as the basement in this building. And so if there's anything that we could discuss on this that would help to expedite the hearing on the 12th, that would be great if that would be appreciated. Yeah, loud and clear. I think if those test bits confirm that they're the same as the neighboring property and we can move forward with the information we have, Aaron will review Mark's response to her comments and we will have more feedback to give you at the next meeting. I, you probably heard me say to Mark, in order for us to have time to review it, both Aaron and as a commission, we really needed the Friday before a Wednesday meeting. So just, we need to get through all this and you've seen, we have a really full agenda and these projects are complicated. So we're doing our best to work with you and we will continue to do that. I appreciate that. Thank you. It's a galleon effort, I will say, to get responses to be so quick. Hell no, definitely recognize that. With Mark's work and I wanted to make sure that. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely appreciated. And we know this is in the weeds, it's a complicated site. So we just wanna make sure that we give you solid information to move forward. I would hate to send you in the wrong direction based on this meeting because we haven't had a chance to process Mark's. I appreciate that. And we're just trying to balance the planning board meeting that we have coming in October as well. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, I think we're looking for a motion to continue. October 12th, again. October 12th at 7.50. Yes. So is that gonna be. Great. Seconded by Andre Voice Vote Plutcher. Hi. Andre. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Alex. Hi. And I'm an I. Mark, Kyle, thank you for your time. We will see you on October 12th. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Yep, you guys too. All right. Last but not least. Two can have Mark Stanton on behalf of Wilson Property Group LLC for the construction of a single family house and associated site work in the buffer zone to BVW at lot two can have. I see Patrice Wilson and Peter Wilson. Could you already move in? Mark, I'm not sure if I'm not sure, I'm assuming one or both of the other Wilson's would probably like to join. Yeah. Mark, do you know we can see you but can't hear you? Yeah, Pete Wilson should be here as well as Dan from Berkshire. Okay. The engineer. Okay. Oh, great. Brought those both in. Awesome. Awesome. So I think first of all, Mark, Dan, Pete, thank you for your patience tonight. This has been a long meeting. We appreciate your endurance. And that also stands for this permitting process for this project. I know that everybody's been working hard to figure this out. It's a complicated site. We appreciate your patience and we know you've been working hard to kind of respond to all of our requests and we really appreciate that. And that includes today some fast movement on potential kind of mitigation donations. So I really appreciate that. I just wanna say that upfront. So I think the best way, and Erin correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the best way to move forward with this, if Mark, if you would just be willing to update the commission on changes since our last hearing and that mainly that additional fill that has led to the need for some mitigation, that would be really helpful. And then if you'd be willing to just kind of go over kind of how you got to the Wetland Mitigation Fund donation amount, that would be great. And then Erin, after that, if you can just give us any further comments or any further hesitations, I think we're really close and I would really like to try to close this hearing tonight. So. Do you want me to share a screen, my screen there, Erin? That would be great. Yes. Okay. Thanks Mark. So, all right. Are you seeing the plan? Yes. Okay. So the first plan we submitted was this angle here and the driveway, instead of 20 feet, fire department one was reduced to 19.5 feet. And then the... Are you still seeing the same plan or the next plan? Next plan. Okay. So we straightened it out. So there's, this shows 12 foot wide, paved surface, four foot wide gravel, either side. And we were filling about 100 square feet of BVW right here. So that was basically the major design change and that was in consultation with Erin and with Peter and with Dan, Dan love it. So I do agree that, you know, contributing to the mitigation fund, in this case makes more sense than trying to replicate two to one, 200 square feet of BVW. I think you'll get more back for the buck with the mitigation fund than you would with the replication. And then in discussion with Erin today, we are exceeding the 20% of the allowed buffer zone alteration and there's really no place to do any additional mitigation on site. There's really not much for invasive species. So we came up with, I came up with some additional mitigation funding and coordinating with Peter. That if we did do some mitigation, these are the recommended plans to the square footage of the buffer zone alteration over the 20%. So I came up with Blueberry, Arbivite, and Red Maple. It was all locally sourced. So I came up with Peter Greed with the total mitigation amount. I don't know if everyone has seen that dollar amount. So commissioners, Erin boarded us this at 3.15, 17 this afternoon, the subject is updated mitigation fund slash donation proposal. And if you look at that word document, the mitigation fund calculation based on less than a hundred square feet of BVW fill and that total proposed in lieu of replication is $1,500. And then additional mitigation for the buffer zone work is what Mark is referring to. And that's Blueberry Bushes, Arbivite, Red Maple with a total cost of $1,092. So total of all mitigation as a donation to the Amherst Con Con Mitigation Fund would be $2,592. So Erin, Mark, is that fair? Yes, yes. And then Dan, I know the commission has had a few concerns on the runoff to stormwater. So Dan loved it along. If you guys have any direct questions on the runoff of the soil or anything like that. Okay, great. Thank you. Erin, did you have any outstanding concerns or questions or updates that you wanna share? So I would just, the one, I guess, thank you so much, Mark. That was great. That was awesome. It gives us a starting point for this discussion. And I think we all feel really close. What I, one thing that I did do was pull out the old mitigation guidance that we gave Eversource back when they did their Montague to Fairmont cause I just wanted to see what the calculation was that we required for payment for each tree. So what we had required for Eversource, I just wanted to point out, and I have the slide back from the presentation that Eversource or back from the PowerPoint presentation that was during their hearing that we had required $75 per tree, which was a four to six foot sapling in a five gallon pot. So just, I did a quick number crunch for they proposed 10 trees. The four Arbivide and the six Red Maple. And so if I was to use the same monetary calculation that we use for Eversource, that would put the total for the trees at $750. And then the total for the mitigation area, if I use that calculation, would put it at $1,610. So it's pretty close. It's like a little less than $600 short of the tree calculation that we use for Eversource for replacement trees. And we didn't do anything with shrubs there. So I didn't mess with Mark's number on that. But I just wanted to give a comparison from the previous cause that was a site that we required a mitigation contribution to our wetland mitigation fund. If I can jump in, I mean, Wilson Construction does not have the financial resources that Eversource does. Mark, I think if I can, Erin correct me if I'm wrong, I'm interpreting you're saying that this is ballpark equivalent, very fair. I think the proposal for the mitigation dollars for this project is reasonable. And what Erin is giving us as background as commissioners is that this, because of our recent bylaw amendments, this wetland mitigation fund concept is new. And we wanna make sure that we're making these decisions based on the information that we have. And I think that's what Erin's doing is giving us another data point just to show that we're in the right ballpark. And these are certainly different applications and don't need to be exactly the same. So I am comfortable with the proposed donation, but we need to hear from commissioners. So Erin, before Andrea see your hand, before we open for commission discussion and questions, is there anything else about this permit application that we need to resolve? I think that the one question that was asked at the last hearing was whether the rain garden was adequate to handle the stormwater proposed impervious surface on the site. And I think that was a question that was asked of the engineer and that he was attending tonight to address that question. Okay. So Dan, I see that you're here. You're muted so we can't hear you, but are you willing to fill us in on that question? I hope he didn't fall asleep. I keep seeing his mute. Yeah. He's coming and going. Sorry, sorry, sorry. There he is. There he is. Sorry about that. Yeah, so we did calculations on the rain garden and it's more than adequate to handle the two 10 and 100 year storms. We also did a test pit out there with Pete and his son. And we dug down to three feet and we found Sandy Loam and we didn't detect any groundwater whatsoever where the rain garden is going. And I understand that it was kind of dry conditions at the time, but it was very dry at that point. And so I'm confident that the stormwater runoff will be, will basically be infiltrated through the rain garden and treated. And then it'll travel, after it's treated, it'll travel through the soils and aid in actually replenishing the existing wetland system there. So we're confident in our calculations there. Okay, thank you, Dan. So I want to go now open this up to commissioners. And I see your hand, Michelle, but I feel like I should let Andre ask his question first. If you want to go ahead, Andre. Yeah, sure. Really, it shouldn't be brief. Just looking to figure out what the mitigation fund actually is for perhaps I should know it already, but what's the fund? Mitigation, wetland mitigation fund was established with the Eversource Montague to Fairmont project. And it was basically to, because we recognize that there is a need in town in instances where wetlands can't be replicated on site or it might not be appropriate or really beneficial for the resource to do the replication or mitigation on site, that there are opportunities to do much more successful mitigation offsite. And so a couple of examples of those would be, we've done wetland creation projects on old farm fields, on PODEC conservation area. We also did a vernal pool creation project with the funds from that. We have funding available that have been earmarked for bank restoration along Amethyst Brook on the very popular Amethyst Brook Trail where there's a lot of erosion and compaction happening. We have used those funds for culvert replacement in areas where there were grossly undersized culverts and really bad environmental conditions happening as a result of that. And as a matter of fact, we have another project happening before the end of October to daylight a section of perennial stream that's currently in failed culverts. So it's an account we use for multi-purpose wetland restoration projects throughout town. And sometimes Andre, we know where that money's going. So we can estimate the cost based on the cost of that project. And sometimes we don't. And that's the point of the fund is in order to have a collection place so that in aggregate, these funds can replicate in places that we know that they're gonna have a huge environmental benefit and ecosystem service benefit. Yeah, well, thanks for that explanation. It was great. Shine's a good light on it. Thank you. Michelle, did you have a question? Yeah, so regarding the amount of the mitigation fund, I did follow the link for the plant estimates and that link while it's a current link is dated 2011. So I'm skeptical that they are necessarily consistent with current inflationary adjustments on plants and everything. So I would like to have some confirmation that those are actually consistent with current prices of those plants at the size classes that we would require if this was going to happen on site. Second, if we were gonna do this on site, it would be a three-year monitoring period, right? So Erin would be going out there or somebody would be going out there spending staff time monitoring it, reporting to us on it, and there would be a success criteria. And so I don't know typically what the success criteria is or the actual success has been. So maybe Erin, you can comment on that. Is it normally like there's people have to replant? So like sometimes, I mean, do plants take and that's fine. Normally there's no need to replant. And what I'm getting at is, should there be a contingency on that amount? Because if this was really happening on the ground, should there might be some additional costs associated that I just wanna make sure that this, we're not low balling the Amherst Conservation Commission by just having this very, very baseline cost. Okay, so one, I appreciate that. One point of compromise might be, Mark, would you and the applicant, if in the condition for the donation, if we specified the number of plantings as opposed to the cost of the plantings, would that be something you guys would be open to? It just allows for the cost to account for the actual costs of the plants at the time of planting or purchase, I guess. I found this data today from their websites. So if they're posting this information, I presumed that those were the correct prices they're getting. Or they haven't updated that webpage in a while. I mean, it's a page, it's a sub page on their page. It's titled 2011 Preclist. So I mean, that's just what it is. So maybe it's the same and maybe they haven't changed it, but based on Aaron's reporting back of whatever source had as their price list, it seems somewhat different. And $600 difference is somewhat of a big difference in trail maintenance or culvert replacement to the Amherst Conservation Commission. And really we're talking about like the permanent loss of BBW and wetland. So I just wanna make sure that we're not low balling that. Well, there is a proposal already in the mitigation for the wetland. There already is a dollar amount for the potential for three years of monitoring that was already included. So if you're already monitoring for the BBW, you also monitor for the buffer zone restoration. Let me just throw something in here, if you don't mind. Yeah, go ahead. I think the idea here, Mark, is that we're just trying to find, trying to double check and make sure that these prices are current and not something that's obsolete right now. So the solution to the question is a fairly quick check on that. And then we'll deal with the results after that. But that's the way I understand it. And I think that that's a reasonable proposal with a fairly quick answer. Yeah, so Aaron, is there anything procedural we can do to close this hearing tonight and then do that check and just permit? What I was gonna suggest is exactly what Jen originally did, which is do you guys think the planting plan is acceptable as it's been proposed for the pricing? And we close it approving the planting list and the wetland mitigation piece and ask them to come back to, prior to our next meeting when we issue the order of conditions that confirms the pricing of the plant list that they've submitted to us. Okay. I mean, I'd like to talk to see what Peter's thinks. He's online, so. Yeah, Pete, we can see that you're there, but we can't hear you. He just muted himself. Oh. There you go. Oh, there you go, Pete. There you are, we see you now. Okay, great, good evening. Thanks. I'm agreeable to that. Great, thank you. Is that commissioners is everyone okay with that plan of action? I mean, I guess so, but I'm still concerned that, like, so should there be an administrative fee for taking this money and putting it in account and managing the money and applying it to something? I mean, we're now taking the burden to do the mitigation ourselves rather than putting it on the applicant. So should there be an additional cost besides plants in the ground? I mean, this is for tonight and also for the future, but if this isn't, I just wanna put these considerations on the table for people. Yeah, I appreciate that. We've never really had an administrative cost included in the past. It seems like it's something that we can't decide to do in this application tonight. But I think it's a valid point and it's maybe something that we need to think about framing out so that we have, I mean, Erin and I had this conversation earlier today. It's just that, I mean, this is shaky, right? Like it is not appropriate to negotiate these dollar amounts that go into this wetland mitigation fund. It is really needs to be factual and kind of based on costs at the time and also what our precedent is in the past. So it's not something that we take lightly, but given the small amount of land area we're talking about here and the likelihood that this, these dollars would be aggregated with other dollars in the fund to do whatever future need we have for it. I'm comfortable moving forward with this as outlined. But I'm really interested to hear what other commissioners have to say with respect to this permit. If we want to put wetland mitigation fund parameters as an agenda item to kind of figure this out in the future. I'm 100% supportive of that. Yeah, if you're moving for that, I second it. Okay, thanks, Andre. Meaning that, yeah, I think that we should come up with a plan on it and perhaps find some more current pricing and so on. Fletcher, any input on this? Yeah, this has been a pain tuggist. I think getting some mitigation money in the funds, I hear you're saying Michelle, but yeah, I'm happy to move on this project. It's too bad we have to do a little bit of fill, but it's part of the deal. So just make sure nobody asks for a salamander crossing. Sorry. Okay, we're gonna ignore that curveball. All right, so, Aaron, what do we do procedurally from here? Well, I think we're stating on the record that we're comfortable with the plant list as proposed for the buffer zone replantings. We just like to get confirmation on the pricing of that specific plant list. The proposal for the wetland mitigation seems reasonable and that we would make a motion to close the public hearing and issue the order of conditions at the next meeting. But at the next meeting, we would need to have that confirmed information so we could include that in the order of conditions. I mean, do we have standards for size classes for this kind of thing? Because that's obviously a component to the price list. Yeah, so the standards that we used previously were four to six foot saplings in five gallon pots. Okay, it wasn't included on their estimate, but maybe that could just be specified in the price estimate. Yeah, I mean, that was also not a detail provided to Mark. That was what we required for Eversource. And part of the reason for that was because those trees were specifically being removed in wetlands and we were trying to get up one for one replacement value on those. So again, I just tried to use something as a comparison, but I didn't wanna, I mean, we may wanna revisit that and have more specifics for different scenarios. I'm sorry, with the impact, which is difficult to assess, right? All right, so should I then for the record, Aaron? I mean, we have the documentation of the Mitigation Fund calculation. So I can read that again. It sounds like we are comfortable with the Mitigation Fund calculation for less than 100 square feet of BBW fill. In lieu of replication, that's $1,500. And then additional mitigation for the buffer zone work is 30 blueberry bushes for arbor vitae and six red maple costs to be confirmed before we issue the conditions at the next hearing. Yes, Aaron? So I'm very sorry. Michelle said she's not gonna be here at the next meeting. Cameron and Alex are both new. That means that we don't have a quorum of the commission at the next meeting to issue the order of conditions for this specific one. So we could close tonight, but we wouldn't be able to issue the order of conditions within 21 days with a quorum of commissioners. The only way we could do that is either if the applicant granted us an extension of the 21 day period to issue the order of conditions on October 26th when I think, yeah, October 26th when Michelle would be theoretically back with the board. So we'd have four voting members that could vote on the project. Otherwise at the next meeting, we won't have a quorum. Isn't there a stipulation where Alex or Cameron could come up to speed with the hearings by listening to all the, watching all the hearing recordings? Under the Mullen rule, you can only miss one meeting as a commissioner participating in the hearing. And there was more than one hearing associated with this that they were not members for. Could we do a, go ahead, Andre. I was just gonna say special meeting. I'm just like, I'm hesitant to ask this applicant to wait for more than a month or just a month for an order of conditions. Yeah, so it wouldn't be a hearing. So we could convene a special meeting to issue it if we needed to. That's also an option. I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out now so we weren't surprised on the 12th. Yeah, no, thanks, Aaron. Good catch. I guess Mark and Pete, we can ask you guys, would you prefer that we try to convene a special meeting to issue the order of conditions when we have a quorum or are you okay waiting until the 26th of October? If I can ask a procedural question, so you would vote tonight to close the hearing. Yeah. Would you not vote on the order itself? We couldn't issue the order of conditions. Yeah. Well, I'm getting into approving the order versus just signing the order. Right, but they would actually need a vote for approval from the majority. That's right. No, okay. So let me ask Pete if he's the one who wants to build. He's the one who wants to build. So let's see what Peter says about your question about a special meeting versus waiting until four weeks. Pete, you still there? Yeah. There you go. Oh, there you go. So I think we have no choice but to wait. The member's not gonna be here. And I don't know when we're gonna be in front of the ZBA to address the plan change specifically. So I don't know that it's gonna be a big issue to wait the 30 days. Okay. And we have your permission to exceed 21 days from the close of the public hearing for the issuance. Yes, as long as Mark's agreeable with it too and that I'm not doing something I shouldn't. No. I mean, the regulations require that the order of conditions be issued within 21 days of the close of the hearing. So if the hearing is closed tonight, legally they have to issue in three weeks. But the only option we have that is to appeal. And if all we have to do is wait an additional week versus appealing, I'm all for waiting the additional week. I don't see the need to, see any need to appeal. So they're just looking for your okay to exceed the 21 days to issue. Yeah, I'm good with that. Thank you. Okay. So we're all set. Thank you. All right. So it sounds like we, Erin, we need a motion to close the public hearing. And then do we also, we have a question from Alex. I mean, Alex, your questions are welcome. Alex, go ahead. Yeah, so I mute. No, you're good. We hear you. I have a look at a bunch of this file and I have been on for a number of meetings. I wanted to ask a question about impervious services. And the driveway is long and the driveway is steep. And there's public comments about water problems on the street. And I understand the driveway is going to be sloped to try and move much of it so it doesn't go to the street. But would it be possible to have a driveway which is permeable? If I may, if this was going to be a major parking lot or, you know, a commercial development then it can make financial sense to make an impervious or a porous driveway. But for a driveway this size, it doesn't make any financial sense to do it. It's cost prohibitive for a single family house. Do you think it might solve the problem with the water running down the hill to the road and into the neighbor's yards? Well, you know, there's no evidence. Pete was out there during a major rainstorm and there was no evidence that it was actually impacting anyone else's driveway or house. I can let Pete answer that directly if you'd like. Yeah, we all met out there with Aaron. It's I think been a few weeks now since then. And the neighbor across the street, Gaston, we talked with him, I talked to them at length. I was out there for that heavy runoff storm, that little micro storm that hit back in the end of August. Unfortunately, his situation is his building, his house lot and the house and so forth is below the grade of the street. So we showed Aaron that, we showed him the, he's got a drain there in his yard. He's got a little berm that at the street edge keeps the water, most of it flowing down Canton Avenue. And so his situation doesn't seem to be water from our lot. The other lady who owns two lots and two houses on him, Joan Hart, we've got a berm along that South property line, which doesn't allow water from our property onto hers. But because she has two lots, the one adjacent to us at the corner and one back up on that next side street, you see the topography and slope, the second house further up, that topography flows into her house down by the corner of Canton and that side street. And whatever water she's had her experience looks like it's coming from further up on that side, but not relative to ours. And I tried to catch her at her house four different times, but no one would come to the door. It was a dog barking, because I also tried to clear any question up and her basin flooding, which is what she maintained. No one could, you know, Erin tried to qualify. Like when that happened, was it surface water coming in from her lawn through a basin window or was it groundwater coming in from the floor of the basin? So I did my best to try to talk to that, but the situation there is we don't see any possible way where water is getting over that berm and flowing south onto her property from ours. Okay, Alex, any further questions or comments with that additional information? I hear the explanation. I thought I had read comments that there was water problems and when I talked to the neighbors, they were quite vocal about it. So I thought I would ask if there's possible to have a driveway which is permeable and that maybe that would help solve some of the problem. It's a large impermeable surface and a large percentage of the site is impermeable. So I thought I'd bring it up. I'm sorry, it's late in the game. I understand that. No, no, no. I don't have any other opportunity and I know I can't vote on this, but I understood from Erin that I could ask a question. Absolutely, no. Your question is 100% appreciated, Alex. This has been a really tricky application it has gone on for years and years and it's just a tough neighborhood and a tough site. Fletcher, was that a comment? It's been going on for seven years. Yeah, this application. I'm in a tough situation because it was approved previously. There was a building approved on this property before. So our options are limited here. Erin helped me get up to speed on the file. She's provided me in preparation for this. She provided me the whole file. Yeah, great. Thank you for being up to speed on that, Alex. I have one other quick question to try to address Alex's question and maybe other commissioners. So we've owned the property since the late summer of 19 and we met a number of the neighbors. And only recently, Gaston at the July 27th meeting did he raise an issue of water. He's got my cell number, I've got his cell number. So I made it a point to go right over and see him to kind of qualify what his concern was over water. And I've mentioned it already, but since the fall of 19, when I first met him through to the July 27th first meeting on this, he never once called me about a water issue. Now, I know Joan Hart from a distance. I think we did some work for them for a number of years ago. And so I did again, like I reported, tried to reach her to talk to her. But, you know, the topography tells a different story. And if, you know, don't wanna disparage anyone, but truthfully and honestly, we don't really have this potential water runoff coming off of this property, either onto Canton or onto the neighbor across the street Gaston's. And certainly we can't find any kind of way this water is coming from our lot onto Joan Hart's. It's really more of the topography on below us to the South and going West. There's another house above hers. And then if you get right out onto that very main road, which the name escapes me, you know, you've got other water patterns, but they really don't involve this piece of land. Okay. I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Peter. I think there's, I'm not up on all the rules, but I think one lot's not allowed to send water onto another lot. And if there was a water issue, is it possible to have a bond to resolve it? That is pretty far outside of our jurisdiction here, Alex, especially because we can't really show that water is moving from one site to the other. So we've required that the storm water management plan absorb the rain that falls onto that site. And that's the reason for the rain garden design. Well, if you stand on the street where the driveway is going to be and you look at all the sand in the street that comes off the property, it came from somewhere. I don't want to belabor it, but I just thought I'd bring it up, see what the other commissioners think. Yeah, if I could address that, I'm sorry. Alex, I know I have pictures and there is no sand. There is no kind of erosion that's occurring or running out on Canton Avenue in front of that lot. Okay. Yeah, that I can clear up. Do any other commissioners have any further questions or concerns on this topic? Yeah, and I've got a picture in front of me. So I can get that to Erin through Mark. I've shot some pictures that day that that rainstorm occurred. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Jen, for giving me a chance to just raise them. No, this is important. Thank you. It's actually a good reminder that I should take any public comment right now. So anyone in attendance or this hearing about a planned structure at Canton Ave Lot 2, would you please raise your hand? All right, I'm not seeing anyone. So commissioners, I'm looking for a motion to close the public hearing. With the plan to issue an order of vote on an order of conditions during the October 28th, 26th meeting. Erin, is there anything else we need to say? Okay. So I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for two months, but with the permission of the applicant, we'll have the, we'll give the order conditions on the October 26th meeting, eight o'clock. We don't have to set a time because it's not a public hearing. It'll just be in the course of the meeting we'll issue. Close the public hearing now, but then we're not gonna, with the permission of the applicant, we will then put the order conditions on the October 26th meeting. Second. Second for Mandre. Voice of vote, Fletcher. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Andre. Hi. I'm an I, and I believe Alex and Cameron have to stay. Do they need to say that out loud? You could just ask them their vote, yeah. Alex. I'm staying. Alex, if you could just unmute, and I'm staying from the vote. I'm sorry, you have to constantly remind me, I'm staying. Thank you. Cameron. I have seen. Great. All right. So Mark, you'll be in touch with Erin just to confirm the costs of those plantings. And then we will bring the final order of conditions to a vote on the October 26th meeting. All right. Thank you and good night everyone. Good night. Thanks. Thanks everyone. Good night. Great. So that was the last hearing. Other business. But we have to issue the order of conditions for the DPW pedestrian bridge replacement on West Street, 371 West Street. Yes. Next. Yes. I'll share my screen to make this a little easier. We can burn through both of these items really quickly. Why is, what is, why is McKee Marcus still on? Because for the enforcement order for UMass. Oh, I got it. And I think we, I talked with Mickey briefly and we were very much on the same page as far as the restoration was concerned. So I don't think this is going to be a lengthy discussion, but. Okay. Great. Yeah. So commissioners, we're looking for this motion to issue the order of conditions for 371 West Street. And if you could please read the whole shebangs. That would be great. I move to issue the order of conditions for DEP number 089 0705 371 West Street, DPW pedestrian bridge with the recommended conditions that all applicable state and local boilerplate conditions. Debris on the existing abutments must be cleaned off such that material debris does not enter the river. Erosion and sediment control inspections shall be completed by the wetlands administrator prior to the start of work. All disturbed surfaces caused by excavation or vehicle access must be fully stabilized with seed and straw mulch. The final inspection shall be completed by wetlands administrator prior to the removal of erosion controls. Second. The second from Fletcher voice vote Fletcher. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Cameron. Aye. Oh, can Cameron vote? Oh, Cameron should have seen. Sorry. Andre. Aye. Alex. Am I supposed to abstain on this one too? Yes. I abstain. And I'm an aye. Be great. Thank you. And then emergency certification. This was for a decommissioning of a failed septic system that was within Conservation Commission jurisdiction. They were crushing the tank, doing what they do to, they pump it, they put flowable fill into it and cover it over and stabilize it within jurisdiction. So this was an emergency certification because it was a failed septic system that was leaking effluent. So an emergency certification was issued and work is currently underway on this. We just need to ratify the emergency cert. I move to ratify the emergency certification for 375 Bay Road for the failed septic system. Second. Second for Michelle. Voice vote, Michelle. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Cameron. Do I abstain on this one? You're good to vote. You can vote. I was very aye. Good question. Andre. Aye. Alex. Aye. And I'm also an aye. Unanimous. Beautiful. Pull Mickey in. Mickey. Mickey, hopefully we can make this quick. Pass my bedtime. Oh, my God. I'm sorry. I feel like I've been as efficient as really, like I don't know how to make this go faster, friends. I'm doing my best. No, it's great. We're doing really good, actually. OK. Hi, Mickey. I passed my bedtime. Same. Same. Enforcement order. UMass. Are we asking for an update from Mickey on the plan? Erin. Yeah, so at the last meeting, so I was out several times. I've met with UMass several times. I've met with SWCA on site. I had a conversation with Mickey as well. The commission already ratified the enforcement order. Mickey and I had a long conversation. Basically, my thoughts for restoration were the two culverts that were replaced without a permit replace those with a crossing that meets stream crossing standards. There's also a very close proximity 60-inch culvert, which is basically failed. The head walls washed out. There's scour on the outlet side in really bad shape. That one should also be replaced with a stream crossing standard that meets current standard. And then to restore the areas that were damaged during this work that was done. I think that was basically the extent of it. And Mickey even suggested on the outlet side of the failed culvert there was some scour from the wash out on the downstream side that could be addressed as mitigation as well. So I felt like we were really on the same page with what needed to happen for the after-the-fact notice of intent. But if Mickey has anything else to add, that was kind of my takeaway. I think Erin and I agree that of what needs to happen, the work's been done, so this will be an after-the-fact notice of intent and mitigation. We did meet yesterday with the Hadley Conservation Commission. And UMass will also be filing a notice of intent for the Hadley portion of the work. First step is I'm trying to get a surveyor to survey the streams out of their wetlands. There's no good surveying plan right now in that area. So we can't replace the culverts. We shouldn't have put in culverts without a survey that they did. So that's the first step is to get a good survey. And I'll go over the mitigation plans and the restoration plans with a commission before we send it to the NOI. What do you think your realistic timeline is for this work? I would say wetlands work survey where this fall, the design work will probably take a month or two in the winter, file early next year, and presumably they do the work in 2023. OK. Is that picture behind you, the access road, Mickey? Yeah. Wow, it's looking really good. Yeah, they did a good job stabilizing it. Yeah, everything's stable. I was out there yesterday. There's no issues. You've been out for the recent rainstorm. So it's a stable site for right now. And we'll keep track of it. Yeah, that's what I was looking for is to button it up for the winter, because I knew that with the design, the survey, everything, that it was going to take a little time to get the permit assembled and submitted. So yeah. So that's update, unless you have any other direction you want us to look at. I'm comfortable with that plan, commissioners. Does anyone have any questions? I mean, this will come before us as a full permit application. So we will see all the details of this. I think that's just given the severity of the violation. I think Mickey and Aaron are doing their best to figure out the best plan moving forward. Wanted to keep us in the loop. I'm seeing a lot of nodding and glazed over faces. So thank you, Mickey, for being here. I'm sorry this is late. We have we our agendas have just been insane. Yeah, sorry. Thanks for your patience. OK, well, good night. Yeah, good night. Thanks. All right. Was that it? That was it. I will not be here on the 12th as well. I'm going on the 12th. OK. So double time. Yeah. I didn't want to. Thanks, but this is OK because well, it's not OK. It's not OK. But Olympia Olympic driver, whatever that one is. And then 515 Sunderland. Well, well, they can technically Alex and Cameron could come up to speed on those and vote. Yeah, I think Alex already did. And Cameron could if, you know, if she's able to. Oh, yeah, so I'm just thinking through what we wouldn't be able to deal with. But yeah, we wouldn't be able to deal. Well, we haven't taken any testimony on either 52 or the railroad. So if either one of those came to fruition, which I don't think they will, then neither one has been taken any any comment yet. Yeah, I don't think they will. So I think we're in good shape. OK, yeah. Look at that. You guys came on the right time. Thank you. Yeah, just in time. Yeah, just in time. And Laura, hypothetically, will be back too. Oh, right. OK, well, I think that's all we have. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn at 10, 15. Cameron, Alex, it's not always like this. This is the worst we've ever had. This is the worst. This is the worst. Awesome. Welcome, guys. I don't know, it went a long time on the 14th. But wasn't it riveting the whole time? It went to like 9.45. I think that was the checkout time. Yep. This is, this is a long record. I'm sorry for whatever my part is. You don't have to apologize. You did, we did great. Everybody did their part. It was totally fine. It's just loaded agendas. No apologies needed. But I do second your motion, Clutcher. I was waiting for that. Hi. Voice vote, Clutcher. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. I'm also. Hi. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Bye, guys. Bye, guys. Good night. Bye.