 Okay. Okay. Hello and welcome to the February 14th, 2024. Immersed conservation commission meeting. We have Dave Zomek and Aaron present as staff. And let's see if we have. No, I don't see your commissioners in the waiting room. Okay. So we have Laura, Bruce, Jason, myself. And maybe we'll just give them. Okay. So we have Laura, Bruce, Jason, Jason, and Aaron. Okay. Okay. Well, while we're waiting, I'll just announce our continuances. If you are here for. Pure sky on behalf of WD Coles, that will be continued tonight. SWCA on behalf of UMass. For a lot 13 that will be continued tonight. Wetland, Wendell services. We're going to do that one tonight. Stonefield engineering and design LLC on behalf of. Valley community development or ball lane will also be continued tonight. Hi, Alex. Welcome. Did you have trouble getting in? No, I was taking a nap. Good prep time. Hopefully you won't need it for this. We went out for a Valentine's dinner. I laid down while I got home. Okay. Welcome. So we now have Alex. I don't see. Andre. Okay. I'll just keep. I think I'll just keep going on. Aaron, unless you've gotten some word from him that. We need to usher men somehow. You're on mute. No word from Andre yet. Okay. Okay. Um, Chair's reports. My only comment is that. We reached out to town council, or they reached out to us regarding a town council liaison. And we've been in communication with that. It looks like we might have. Anna Gabella. I'm sorry. Anna Debling. Go there. As our liaison. That's not established completely yet. Anna served on con con. Before she was elected to town council. So. I served with her and so did Laura. She's great. We look forward to talking with her more about that. That's it. And I'll hand it over to Dave. Oh, go ahead, Bruce. Is this inappropriate? Can you comment on the interviews? Oh. We will be having interviews for two seats. Um, on February 26th. So I don't know how many applicants we have to fill two seats on the conservation commission, but those are scheduled. Um, For a few hours on the 26th coming up. And if David and Aaron has more to say, I'll hand it over to you. It's been a, been a strong response, Bruce. So. I think we're, we're doing. Five to seven of those. I think I'm in one day back to back to back to back. So, yeah. I'll be in those with Michelle Aaron. And, um, There's a number of the committee and I'm not going to get the name of the committee. The community participation committee or I'm blanking on the official name of the committee and they sit in on those as well. So. Um, so those will happen on February 26th. Oh yeah. Thank you. Um, so, um, What time is your first hearing? Do you need a lot of updates, Michelle? Or do you want me to go very quickly? Our first hearing is at seven 30. So you have time. Okay. Um, No less. Always, always happy to take questions. Um, if there are any out there. So, um, This winter, if we have for calling this a winter, Brad and Anthony have been spending a lot of time maintaining, uh, equipment. They've got a lot of things in the shop. This is a time to, to, um, you know, change oil and lubricate, uh, mowers and, and brush hogs and, and all sorts of things. Uh, we've also been doing a fair bit of, um, kind of mild winter early successional habitat mowing. You may have seen Brad and Anthony around places on Bay Road. Um, Bay Road, the back part of station road. Uh, those kinds of areas that, um, uh, have been mowed. Um, what else is going on? Um, We, I think Aaron may, we may have reported last meeting on, uh, the fact that we submitted that DCR trails grant. Uh, Aaron put a lot of time into that. Uh, very concentrated time. Um, somewhat near the deadline. As is often the case with grants. Uh, no fault around. Uh, but we put in a grant for about $110,000. Um, and Aaron, you know, I know you haven't had time, but happy to have you share that with the commission via email and send that out to them. The narrative. $110,000 for, um, basically additional money to connect the trails at Hickory Ridge. Um, and I'll give you a quick update on the Hickory Ridge trails in a minute, but you know, we don't have enough money to, to connect all of those trails. And it seemed like the DCR trails grant was an opportunity to do that. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. We haven't had one of those trails. The DCR trails grant was an opportunity to do that. We haven't had one of those, uh, those grants. We haven't sought one of those in, in quite a number of years. So we thought Hickory was a pretty compelling project. Uh, for that. Uh, sticking with Hickory for a minute. Uh, we, we, I think I reported the bids were just coming in at your last meeting. So we, we do have the bids in. We are in the process of contracting for that work. But, uh, we are finalizing the selection of the contractor to build the. Two sections of trails at Hickory. One will be that ADA loop trail, which is kind of out near the clubhouse on the south side of the, uh, of the river, as you know, because it was permitted through the commission. And then the same contractor also as part of that bid, bid on the North South, uh, trail. All the way up to the northern edge of the property. So, um, the good news is bids were competitive. We had a robust response. And, um, again, whether all weather dependent, we'll be finalizing contracts and then the project schedule will be based on, you know, uh, uh, weather conditions later this spring. We are under pretty, pretty tight timeline to get that work done by the end of June. So, um, a mother nature is going to be either friend or foe this spring for those, for those grant grant awards. So, um, that'll be about on the order of $500 to $600,000 worth of trail work, um, that, that was permitted through the commission and we went through the zoning board of appeals, uh, the, the DAC, the design review board and, and many other committees and boards. So it's exciting to finally get that work going. And then if we were to get the DCR trails grant, that work would not happen until the summer of 25. Because we would not hear about that grant until the fall. And the only other update I had, um, and, um, you do know, you know, Michelle is your CPA liaison. And, um, the CPA proposals are all coming as a package to the finance committee. And then the town council will take them up in the very near future. Uh, recall that we have $80,000 in requests in, um, under that, uh, CPA, um, CPA request. And, you know, I have every confidence that that, that proposal will stand the test of time and, and get, uh, supported by the council. I hope they'll support it and then that money will be available, uh, after July one of 24. So again, the goal is to, you know, get as much funding from outside town and inside town as possible and line up, uh, both, uh, town staff to do some of these projects, but also augment our small town staff with volunteers and, and contractors where we're applicable. So, uh, we're possible. So, so it's going to be exciting two summers of, of trail work. I think you'll see a lot of progress out there. Um, so that's kind of the quick updates around town. Any questions or about any of those projects or anything else you, you might want to ask me while you have me here before your hearings begin. Jason. I just had a general question about that. It was the OSRP survey. Oh, yes. Um, I know that was just sent out and, um, I'm just curious one, who ultimately does that go to? It looks like it came from planning. And then does anybody have any idea like what the responses were in the past and what kind of like anticipated response for this year and how often does this actually go out? So Aaron can give you a, I'm sure a little more updated information on kind of the survey. Um, but just to give you an idea, um, Typically municipalities are required to do those every five to seven years. The state has kind of, um, uh, fluctuated a little bit on that. You're, you're, you're mandated to do an update. I think every five years and sometimes they've moved it to seven. Um, uh, That allows any city or town to be eligible for state grants. Uh, in recreation as well as conservation. Um, We have not done this format before Jason and answered your question. So in years past, uh, this was pre long pre COVID. Most of the meetings we had, uh, were in person on the open space and recreation plan update. Uh, most of the surveys were paper back then even seven years ago. Um, so we're doing this engage Amherst, uh, approach. And Aaron can say a little bit more about that. I do know that the response, I think it was posted, was it last Friday? Aaron was the first day it went out of the Friday before that. And I think, I think even in day one, there was a pretty robust response to the online survey. Um, it's coordinated. It comes out of the planning department, but Aaron is very much, you know, I've been going to some of the meetings. Aaron has been writing the thick of things, uh, uh, from day one with the planning department. We worked very closely together. So I don't know if Aaron, you want to say a little bit more about the, the profile of how that moves forward. Yeah, maybe just to find it first, the public. Um, so we're not just using acronyms. Thanks, Aaron. Yeah. So, um, what Dave's been referring to is the update of the town's open space and recreation plan. Um, so, um, again, you know, previously it's been, I believe all paper, um, surveys primarily. And, um, I think that, you know, they sort of range between like three to 500 responses are typically what you get. But again, with a online, um, format, we're hopeful that we're going to get a robust response and, you know, a combination of, um, digital responses and probably hard copy responses as well. Um, so the, the response, the digital responses that come in are all tallied in, in the engage Amherst format. And so we're able to sort of extract all different kind of metrics from the data that we collect. And, you know, ultimately the data that we collect is used to, um, gauge what the needs of the needs and desires of the, um, people who use Amherst, um, recreation and open spaces are. Um, so where they want to see improvements, where they want to see land acquisitions or not, um, where they want to see new recreation areas or improvement of existing recreation areas. Um, and, and also, um, it's how we, so there's a group that was formed, which is multiple departments in town that have been meeting since last, I think October, November. Um, we've been meeting once or twice a month basically to get this off the ground. And we use the survey basically to, to direct our action items as part of the open space and recreation plan. So, um, it helps us to formulate sort of what the plan is for the next five to seven years for grant application purposes. Uh, so that, you know, um, you know, anything from trails to, to land grants to part grants and, and all of the above sort of give us a sense of what the town wants us to do. And, and that's how we use it to harness that information to direct us. I just want to follow up. I would say that, you know, we fully expect a lot of feedback on things like trail conditions, a puffer's pond, you know, even the simplest of things, you know, Erin and I have been talking about improvements of trails recently. You know, why don't we have more benches along trails? People love to linger at certain overlooks, uh, view sheds, uh, a beautiful bend in a river, wherever it might be. Um, but we don't have many benches. We don't have any picnic tables, you know, so we'll get all of that kind of feedback in 2024. And then that will help us with your help and with the help of the recreation commission as well, because most recreation areas and conservation areas were planned in this, in this town to complement one another. So whether it's Groth Park, whether it's Mill River, most of our recreation areas have trails leading to or from or, or loop around or within. So it's really nice. We also have trails that connect to our elementary schools. So we're expecting a lot of interesting information. We're open to it. Um, a lot of it will depend on resources. What can we do? What can we afford to do? So we're looking forward to it. Thanks, Dave. Do we know how long the, um, window is for responding to the survey? I think it's going to be open for a little while. Um, and we were hoping to do a couple of public information sessions that was actually supposed to be one tomorrow, but we've been so busy. We haven't really had a chance to plan it. Um, but, uh, some information sessions, I think one of them would be a zoom and one of them would be an in person. Um, so once I have dates determined for that, and it's basically to share what we've done so far in terms of meetings and planning and also to, um, share any results that we've received thus far on the survey. Um, so, uh, I'll keep you posted on when we set those, those dates in case you guys want to attend. One great example before we move on is, um, the, uh, the new playground, the relatively new playground at Kendrick Park. When we've been doing some of our outreach years ago, what we heard from many parents of young children was there's not enough green space in downtown Amherst. There's not enough to do for kids when we bring our kids, maybe to go, get a cup of coffee or go to a restaurant or just shop or whatever. There isn't anything to do. We, you know, we can run on the town common, but, you know, and Kendrick Park was just sitting there, you know, it's just green space. What can we do there? So we kind of took that translated that into, oh, there's a plan for Kendrick Park and one element of that plan was to develop a small, modest playground. So we went out and got, uh, uh, grants and CPA dollars to do that. So when there's a whole plan for Kendrick with, with more amenities there. So that's an example of where kind of open space and recreation got together and said, heard the feedback and then put that into action. So we expect a lot of creative ideas. Uh, what do, what do young families want to see out there? Puffers, Mount Pollux and the list goes on in for recreation programs too. Great. Thank you. Thanks for bringing that up, Jason. That kind of slipped by. Okay. Um, we have eight minutes. Can we handle the UMass culvert replacement? Oh, go ahead, Bruce. Minutes. There were no minutes on them. Yes. So I don't know why I'm echoing. Um, my apologies on minutes. Um, I again spent about a solid week working on a grant application. Um, and so it, it took me away from basically everything else. Um, but my hope is that we'll have multiple sets of minutes to approve on the next meeting. Um, I just did not have a chance to review them prior to them getting posted. I appreciate it, Bruce. You keep me honest. Okay. How about that culvert? Yeah. So, um, I've been monitoring the culvert replacement project that's taking place behind the village park, um, apartments off of northeast street, about 950 northeast street. This is the location. It was previously a site of a UMass, um, enforcement because they replaced a culvert without a permit. Um, they filed a new notice of intent and we, we permitted the replacement, the proper replacement of the culvert that had been replaced or that had been, um, replaced in violation. Um, all of the work has been completed. There is stabilization measures in terms of erosion control blankets, straw waddles. They put in, um, uh, willow stakes. There's been, um, monitoring reports that have been submitted to the commission throughout the whole, um, replacement project and, and, um, restoration project really, um, they, they inquired with me, uh, the consultant for UMass inquired with me as to whether they could stop monitoring. And my response was, you know, the work was done in the winter. We don't have any permanent stabilization measures established out there. There's no vegetation that's, that's become established. And so until the erosion controls come out, I'd feel really uncomfortable, um, saying no inspections, but I do think that we could move from weekly inspections to monthly inspections. If the commission is willing to consider that, that's something that I think would be reasonable. Um, but it's really at your discretion. If you want to continue with the, the weekly, or if you are comfortable moving to monthly until the erosion controls come out. Um, which would probably be, I'm guessing, um, mid to late June by the time things get growing. Um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, Adley side where much of the restoration work took place, but that's one of the reasons why I feel really uncomfortable ceasing monitoring at this point. I think some level of monitoring has to happen. Even, I mean, another option is bi-weekly, but again, whatever folks are comfortable with. Laura? Yeah, I support Erin's recommendation. I think it's, I'd be very comfortable moving to it monthly until you actually see some activity. The growing season starts. Okay, I agree with everything said. So I think we can just go ahead and let them know that's the preference of the commission. Sound good? It's entirely up to you guys. Okay, do we need a motion on this or are we just? Do we need to make a motion? I think a motion would be helpful just to make sure that we have a consensus of everyone. All right, so looking for a motion to update the UMass culvert replacement, request to change inspections from weekly to none to instead to monthly until final inspection. I'll give it to Andre. Laura's got the second. Jason? Hi. Bruce? Hi. Laura? Hi. Alex? Hi. Andre? Hi. Anam and I? Great. Okay, we got three minutes. Should we just cover the sewage incident? Sure. So if you look in the correspondence folder of your packet this week, you'll see that there was a sewer overflow at Hickory Ridge. Dave, do you wanna, Dave was on site. I just made a note of that. I wasn't looking at the agenda and I said, oh, I forgot to update the commission on this. But yeah, so Friday, last Friday, we got notified by one of the state folks who was out doing some recon on the site, doing some biological monitoring out on the site that he had observed sewage coming out of a manhole. This is on the northeastern portion of the property. Not visible from West Pomeroy Lane. This is kind of north of the river. And then, yeah, kind of in the northeast corner, if you will, of the property. So I was able to get out there by about one o'clock in the afternoon on Friday after we had heard about the release. DPW crews were already out there. This is an area of what we call a cross-country sewer line, basically a line that goes under large parcels. The sewer lines are forced mains and other sewer lines go under a lot of agricultural land. They go, in this case, they go under the Fort River. And this is an area that is very hard to reach with any kind of equipment or apparatus to unplug these sewer lines. This area does have a, just as a little background, does have a history of getting plugged, even when this was a golf course. This did happen through the years. I don't know how many times, but at the event, DPW crews were out there quickly. We assessed the situation. I won't go into great detail, but most of these sewer line issues are now caused by flushable wipes. Just to give you maybe a little more information, but this is a practical matter for the DPW. And it is something they try to educate Amherst residents on, but it's kind of a losing battle. So anyway, we don't know how long the release was happening, but DPW got on it Friday afternoon. They stopped within an hour of me getting there with DPW. They had the line unplugged, unclogged, and they were moving toward cleaning up the site. I believe they then came back on, I believe on Saturday to finish the work. They did all the necessary DEP reporting of the release. And then what they do is they do an immediate cleanup of the area around the manhole. And then they spread lime for X number of square feet around the release area. Certainly some material was released into the Fort River. The Fort River, I checked the Fort River with the town engineer. It is running very strong right now. There's no estimate right now of how much got into the river, but it certainly did get into the river. I think as Erin and I talked about dilution, is the solution in this case, there's no way to go back in time to know when this first started to happen. It's just great that we were made aware of it and DPW got on it right away. We do wanna talk with some of the folks at the state at DEP and at Natural Heritage and may come back to you. There may be some straightforward solutions for trying to get better access for DPW in the future once this land becomes open space. The open space uses are realized, but this problem will keep happening unless DPW can get in there and maintain this line in a more consistent way. So anyway, I'll stop there. Probably more information than you'd like on a Wednesday night, but that's the reality. So fortunate. Thanks, Sarah. Yeah, it sounds like it's gonna be important to keep an eye on that particular issue, especially when we're gonna be calling this open space for endangered species. And just sort of noting that I feel like every time we have a meeting, we're talking about a sewage overflow and I'm not sure what's going on there, but maybe we can talk about that when we have some more time. It just seems to be a recurring issue and lots of emergency sorts. Okay, I think that was just an update for the commission. There's no action to be taken, is that right, Erin? Yeah, I mean, Dave and I had talked about issuing an emergency certification to cover the work. I just ran out of time to do that on Monday, but it was basically because this particular incident sort of required a little more by way of cleanup than a typical sewer overflow in terms of like they actually had to use equipment to scrape up a lot of the material and so it's really kind of now that we're here, we can talk about that. Does the commission, the cleanup work is done. Does the commission, we did file all the appropriate paperwork with DEP in terms of the sewer overflow, but if the commission feels like we should issue an emergency response just to cover the DPW in terms of the work that they completed last week, we can certainly do that. It's really sort of at our discretion at this point. If I could, Michelle, I would prefer to just do the emergency cert just so we have a, so we have that both on the DEP side, but also on the town side to do an emergency cert for the work, even though it's after the fact, we often, not often do this, but in these types of circumstances, we will do an emergency cert even after the fact. And Erin and I talked about it Friday. She just, the week has been very busy this week. So I think doing one makes sense just so we have that paper trail. And as we discuss with DEP and with the commission and with natural heritage, how do we address this situation moving forward so that we avoid these things in the past or in the future, sorry. Yeah, I agree. I think that's our standard and I'd like to just keep track of it. Go ahead, Alex. It seems like an easy decision and at 7.34, maybe we could just decide to move on. Go ahead and make a motion. Good. I move that there be an order issued to cover the sewer. I don't, you can dress it up however you want. Yeah, just an emergency certification. That's second. Alex on the motion, Andre on the second, Alex. Hi. Jason. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Andre, did I already get in? Hi. Laura. Hi. I'm an I. You got everyone right? Okay. All right, we can move on to our first hearing. So this is, do we have our hearing procedures slider? Yes. Thank you. While she's pulling that up, if you're here for Pure Sky, for W.D. Coles-Unshootsbury Road, SWCA, Berlotte 13, UMass, Wendell-Wetland Services on Leverett Road for Stonefield Engineering, for Valley CDC on Ball Lane, those are gonna be continued tonight. Okay, hearing the general procedure for banners to all applicants, each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda. The structure is five minutes for staff, five minutes for the applicant, five minutes for public comment or two minutes per person and then five minutes for conservation commissioners. The commission requires all submitted and revised materials to be submitted by Wednesday to prior week to the meeting at Closet Business. And for all presenters, please clearly state your name, address of the project we're representing and preferred pronouns. For the public, please state your name, address and also preferred pronouns. Okay, so this is for notice of intent for Karen Environmental Consulting LLC on behalf of LLSE-FORNAX LLC and W.D. Coles, Incorporated for the Construction of Battery Storage System associated access road improvements and stormwater management within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands on Montague Road, Route 63, Map 2A, Law 18. 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 Laws of the Commonwealth and Act Relative to the Protection of the Wetlands as most recently amended and Article 3.31 Wetlands Protection under the Town of Amherst General bylaws. Okay, and for the public, I'll be keeping an eye on the room. So if you have any questions related to this hearing, just please raise your hand and we'll get to you. So Erin, do you wanna give us an update on this? So this was a site visit that needed to be rescheduled because of the not snow day. So we're a little behind on where we thought we'd be on this, but go ahead, Erin. Yes, so our site visit was canceled. I have started reviewing the materials. This is a permit that requires approval through the Zoning Board of Appeals as well as the Conservation Commission as well. I know the fire department has their eyes on it and is starting to sort of delve into the review process. So we'll be rescheduling the site visit so that staff and the commission can get out to the site just by way of sort of background in consideration of the project. A couple of things to keep in mind is that this project will require a waiver of the 50 foot no disturb buffer as well as a waiver of the 75 foot commercial and industrial building setback to wetlands. And I'm gonna yield the rest of my time to the applicant to present the project and take questions, but I'll be prepared to provide a full review to the commission prior to the next meeting. Thanks, Erin. And it looks like Eric Anderson is here on behalf of the applicant. Yes. Eric, and I just let Chuck or Charles in. And if anybody else from the applicant side wants to join the Zoom call as a panelist, just raise your hand and we'll pull you in. Hi, Eric, hi, Chuck. Hey, how are you doing? Hi, everyone. Good. How are you? Doing great. Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you guys. My name is Eric Anderson. I'm a representative of the applicant LSE Forenex who is proposing to construct a battery energy storage system within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. The property is off Pulpit Hill Road, but the project site is more closely located to Montague Road. It's right next to 451 Montague Road, just across from Old Montague Road. For some quick background on the project, this battery project was actually approved by the town of Amherst back in 2020. At the time we got our special permit and had an interconnection services agreement secured with Eversource. After getting our approval with the town, we moved forward to procurement. And at that point, Eversource broke the terms of their interconnection services agreement with us due to a conflict with the location that we had chosen at that point. We were pretty mature with the project at this point. So we had to go to the Department of Public Utilities to settle the matter. And after working with them over the past couple of years, we've agreed to move the project to a location that works with Eversource's revised standards for battery projects. With that, we are within a wetland buffer zone now. So we come back to the town asking for approval on our notice of intent that we filed due to being in a wetland buffer zone. And then in the event that we're able to move forward, we would also move forward with a special permit with the zoning board of appeals. The project is 9,642 square feet in total. And that includes the electrical equipment for the project containment structure. We have chain link fencing and access road, associated utility poles and electrical connections. The development area that we're proposing represents only 3% of the total wetlands buffer area on the property. And approximately half of that is already disturbed. So we are proposing to serve about 1.4%, I think, percent of the total wetland buffer area on the property. And before I hand it over to Chuck to maybe fill in some of the blanks that I've left, the project's not within an area that would impact a estimated habitat of state-listed rare wetlands wildlife, nor is the project in an area of critical environmental concern, an area designated as outstanding water resource or an area that would be subject to the wetlands restriction order. So Chuck, is there anything I missed that you can speak to? I think it's just that, you know, we delineated the wetlands there. The area had been flagged by the England Environmental SWCA. I'm not sure the exact timing of that. At the time that the solo project had been done on the far end of this site, I found the fewer means that they have flags when I was doing my delineation, it pretty much followed along where they were. A couple of spots, I think I was a little, a few feet further up the slope to where they had it. It's all a combination of, well, it's all overgrown field, basically in various stages of reverting back to forest. Where the project itself is proposed is an entirely old field that's just very recently been abandoned. It's still all grass on our basest vegetation and unfortunately a lot of bittersweet coming in. There's also, in addition to the BVW, there is a perennial stream to the east of the site, but yeah, east of the project, it kind of cuts through the site. We've also, it's a very clearly defined stream. We've delineated that also when the project is entirely outside of the riverfront area from that. On that, we've got the standard erosion controls proposed around it. And as part of the mitigation for this, we've proposed about a 30,000 square foot area where the invasive species will be maintained, or not maintained, controlled. It's kind of to be adding some site improvements outside of where the actual work is for this. I came up, I don't think anyone mentioned it. We had initially filed this close to a year ago and Erin had a lot of questions and things that she wanted us to address. We've spent the last several months working through and one of the things that did come up was trying to do this invasives management in the area of it too. Basically it is some type of mitigation and site improvement. I don't think I have anything else to add wetlands wise. Thanks Chuck, thanks Eric. Okay, I see a hand up from the public. So I'm gonna take public comments. Timothy Kuhn, I'm gonna allow you to talk so just unmute yourself. Good evening. Actually I am Tim Kuhn with JR Russo and associates, we were the sub engineer. I just wanted to make my presence known that I am here if there are any engineering related questions regarding the site plan. Got it, thanks Tim. Okay, in that case I don't see any other comments from the public commissioners, comments, questions. Alex, go ahead, you're muted. On the drawings, I believe I saw a roof over the batteries and I think I got the project correct. And it was my understanding that fire department didn't really want roofs over batteries. I understand that's to keep the elements from the, I don't know what that was all about, but anyways, so I was just gonna ask about the roof and your understanding of how the fire department thinks about roofs, I'll just say it's my understanding that they think it interferes with putting out a fire if there is one, but that's all from memory. And then I have one other question or statement and I'll come back for that after they answer. Okay, thanks Alex. Aaron, do you wanna jump in on that first? Yeah, if I could. So I just wanna mention that Jason Skeels and I met with the applicant back in May of 2023 and thoroughly reviewed the plan and there was a series of recommendations based on stormwater management and also recommendations in terms of containment of stormwater and containment of any potential contaminants coming off of the equipment pad. And so at that point, it was a recommendation of the town engineer that we put a roof over the top and sort of some containment under the structures for the equipment pad. But obviously the discussions we've recently had, this is just within the last few weeks, the information from the fire department came to light. This is new information that they were concerned about. The coverings over at the top of the batteries. Now, I think it's something that the fire department needs to review and comment on. So, and I think we need to give them an opportunity to do that. So before we get too deep in it, I think I'd like to get some comment from the fire department regarding the design concept that they've developed. But I recognize that that comment did come up at the last meeting relative to the battery containment. Thanks, Erin. Alex, did you have a follow-up or should I move on? We move on, but I was kind of open to hear from them, but maybe Erin has said enough. Okay. I don't see anyone chiming in. It looks like Alex has raised his hand to respond, Michelle. I'll come back later. Oh, Eric. Okay, go ahead, Eric. So I was trying to stay in line with your brazing in procedure and just not jump in. Thank you. So yeah, I was just going to, you know, pee you back what Erin was saying. We had worked with her and Mr. Skeels on the containment design. It was what they recommended at the time. And, you know, we are just looking to follow what the town's requirements are in the event that the fire department has a different opinion at this time. We're certainly looking for their guidance and we've reached out to them for comment and haven't heard back. So, you know, in the interest of adhering to all the concerns that the town has, we're just looking forward to continuing to work with them. And if they have any design considerations, we're happy to adopt them. Great, thanks. Sorry, it's hard to see your hand on the brick in the background. Andre, you wanna go next? Yeah. Well, thanks, Eric and Chuck for your presentation. Chuck, my question was to you. You mentioned earlier mitigation of, with 30,000 square feet area. Would you mind just clarifying what the mitigation work would be? Um, let me see what, basically, at this point, we haven't got into great detail. The area has a lot of invasive, as happens every time a field's banned in these days. There's a lot of bittersweet, European buckthorn and the multi-floor rows and some other things. We were, at this point, just looking to, as part of the approval of the 30,000 square feet. And basically, as part of the mitigation work with a vegetation control specialist to come up with the exact specifics of what they would need to do to treat everything. I think a lot of it may be pulled up, but I'm not a big fan of thinking we can control evasives without some herbicide use, at least in some limited manner. But we really haven't got into the specifics other than outlining the area that will be managed. So just for clarification, what you're proposing to do is to essentially clear out in one way or another the invasives out of that 30,000 square foot area, is that right? Yeah, exactly. Thank you. And then we had, make sure I get this right. It's gonna have to be over, obviously, but not just a single treatment. It's probably gonna have to be to make a meaningful difference, go back for at least one or two years and try to give the native vegetation a chance to out-compete the invasives. Okay, thank you. Eric, is your hand raised again? Yeah, sorry. I wanted to second what Chuck had said. So the way that we got to that square footage is we were doing a 100 foot buffer zone from our limit of disturbance. And given that there's a wetland buffer area that hugs kind of the southwestern corner of our limit of disturbance, that's where we're looking to do our invasive species management in a wetland buffer zone area. And then also on the other side of the project as well. The intent is to do that for three years and hire someone that's licensed to mechanically remove the invasive species. And then also to have that person be a licensed applicator for an herbicide that is approved for aquatic use. And we would do that through cut stem methods on body plants or plants that have like those thick rhizomes just seconding what Chuck's saying about not being able to necessarily through mechanical means get rid of a lot of those deep rooted plants. So. Thanks, Eric. Laura, go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate that. Actually, that was one of my follow-up questions was mitigation plan. I guess two questions now. I remember when this proposal came in front of the commission. Erin, can you tell me when you and Jason provided feedback to the applicant, did they make all of the requested changes because it looks like they've addressed, I was going through earlier today, they've addressed most of them. Are there any that have yet to be addressed? That's the first question. And then second question is, as part of a, you know it sounds as though we would want some sort of, you know, report on what the plan is for mitigation. You know, a formal plan of what the intentions are of the applicant. Yeah, so that was, thank you. So I was going to recommend to the applicant that prior to the next meeting, you might want to get some sort of, sort of a specific prescription methodology related to the mitigation area for the commission to consider. You know, the commission will certainly consider what you're proposing, but I think you might need to get a little more specificity with regard to what the mechanical treatments you're proposing to do on site are, as well as, you know, your means of removal of the invasives once they're cut. And then the specifics for what the treatment would actually be and what chemical treatment is proposed to be used on site. So those details will be necessary. So I would say those are my recommendations prior to the next meeting for something they could get started on in terms of response. I would like to say that the response to our comments was really great. They definitely worked to address all of our comments. So I really appreciate that. One of the sort of challenges, and I think if you read through the application, you'll see this is that they're extremely limited with where they can, because this is an ever sourced interconnection project and there are certain rules related to safety of the interconnection, they were really limited in terms of their ability to move further away or shift to different location on the site. So that was, I think that's kind of the biggest challenge of this project is the, you know, the site location and the proximity. And that's something that the applicant doesn't, it seemed to have a ton of control over. So I think that they have addressed staff comments that have been provided to them thus far. And one question to Eric, or I think you're the right person, I'm certainly familiar with the ever sourced and DPU delays. What was the reason, what was the reason, did your timeline expire or it's unusual for the utility to not honor an interconnection agreement. So I'm curious. Yeah, you're definitely right that it's unusual. It wasn't something that we were expecting after getting so far along in our process. The reason why is ever source was requiring that the facility be within the line of sight of the point of common coupling for the project. And that wasn't something that was shown in our site plan or line diagram or any material that we had reviewed with them throughout the entirety of our interconnection process. And it was only after we had agreed to the site planning line diagram on file and signed a whole ISA regarding it and began to procure our equipment that that was a new requirement that hadn't been brought up before. So that's why we ended up going to the Department of Public Utilities because it's highly unusual to have an agreement signed just for new requirements or whatever to be put on it. Can I ask a follow-up question? I don't wanna... Yeah, go ahead. Michelle, so when I look at this project as a whole, it's been the development for a long time. It is most unfortunate that it's now touching wetland area. I guess the question to you, Erin is, is there precedent with the commission when you are, I think everyone here would agree we prefer not to touch sensitive area, but is there precedent with allowing projects with certain parameters to be developed? I think it was like 1% or 1.5% of the site or something like that, was that right? So the project is within 3% of the total wetland buffer area on the property, but if half of that has already been altered by every source's transmission easement, so the new proposed alteration as a result of the project is 1.5%. Got it. Yeah, Erin, so I guess the question is precedent here. Yeah, so this is our new bylaw, and so it's kind of, we're sort of paving the way to some degree with how the commission considers this. In terms of the new bylaw, one of the requirements per site was a 20% alteration limitation. And so I think that they're, correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the materials, I think that they're with this project would be at about 30%, but I may have gotten that wrong. 30% of the site buffer would be altered essentially in total, I mean, the existing alteration coupled with the new. And I wanna make sure that that's correct with the applicant, but I think that the end sort of results here is to mitigate the impact of what's proposed. And so the commission I think can consider mitigation kind of at their discretion, right? So if the invasive species treatment is adequate mitigation, that's one potential option to consider. If the commission would like to see additional mitigation, that's another option to consider. But I think there's a lot of discretion here for the commission to whether the commission will consider it an extenuating circumstance, and if they would be willing to consider potential mitigation measures to compensate for the impact. Is the 30% impact inclusive of ever sources work on the site with the transmission? It is nearly entirely ever sources transmission easement onsite, which the applicant has not contributed to that work. We're not the property owner either. And I imagine you all understand ever sources process of doing things. So yeah, I would say 20, if not all of the existing wetland buffer area deserved onsite is due to ever sources transmission. And that easement disturbance is a vegetative disturbance of like overhead lines or what exactly is it? Since I mean, a lot of these questions will be asked onsite, but just to give me a picture of what that is, is it rock? It's their transmission lines that cut through lengthwise the entire site. And it's their standard transmission structures that host those lines. There are some like associated access roads just for ever source to service those lines that run alongside it. And then there's likely some vegetated clearing within the buffer zone of those lines just so that trees don't get involved. Got it. And can someone just remind me or confirm how many square feet are in the five, the 50 foot no disturb like specifically? Does anybody know? I wouldn't know specifically, but I would say it is more than, it is the majority of the project, maybe 50%, it's about half and half that's within the 50 foot, I believe. Chuck, do you know offhand? No, we never broke that number down that way. I would guess that at the battery storage site itself, it is, I would say, like you said, probably 40, just about half and half is probably in that 30 to 50 foot zone. And then the remainder is outside of that. But we can break that number down for you if you'd like to see that. Yeah, it's looking for a ballpark now. So that's fine for an answer. Go ahead, Bruce, I see you. I think we've gone over the line of too much detail given that we haven't even gone to the site. Yeah. And we're looking at a continuance. Well, I wanted to say in regards to that Erin had mentioned getting a detailed restoration plan, but I'm wondering if we can squeeze in a site visit to give us some context about how we might interpret that plan before you guys expend tremendous amounts of energy doing that. I think that would be helpful for me to see. I don't know if that's reasonable, but maybe you guys could talk to Erin and we could convene with the commission about availability. Go ahead, Alex. We can do it anytime we want. We'll probably trigger another snowstorm. We'll schedule it. Right. For the regard to the 20% of the 100-foot buffer, we often talk about a project going into 20% of the buffer, but there's a phrase that follows in our rules which we hardly ever talk about. And then there's a comma after the 20% and it says provided that the applicant shows that going into the 20% of the 100-foot does not damage the functions and values of the wetland. So one of the questions that we really need to address is what functions and values of the wetland are being affected and then match the mitigation to it. And you've already mentioned that the area is prior disturbed and so when we go on a site visit, one of the things that I'd like to look at is what does it look like? The functions and values of the area are and I bring it up now so you folks can give some thought to that. That might give us some guidance on what mitigation is appropriate. I'm sorry I didn't go back and review those rules before speaking and then what I just said is from memory but Erin has it, we all have it and you can probably look it up on our website. It's right in the first paragraph. Thanks Alex. Jason. Yeah, just the invasive species management you know, based on what Alex was just saying and I'm looking at it now. Are we considering, I mean, we're considering the invasive species management to be improving the function of the area, correct? Of the resource? That's the intent, yeah. Okay. It's like a ecological lift, not necessarily a replication. Sure. All right. And then on the site plans it shows an underground gas line coming in. Is that proposed or is that existing? Don't believe that we are proposing a gas line. I don't think anything. Em, do you, can you speak to this? I will, it says UG, so I just assumed it was underground gas but. No, the UG just stands for underground utility. That's just the transmission line and conduit that'll carry the electric. So is that proposed or is that existing? It's proposed, that would be proposed. Okay. So I see on the site plans, silt fence, temporary erosion control blanket around the battery storage area but I don't see any BMPs around then the proposed trench for the underground utilities for the roadway, any other BMPs for, and then where's the rest of the plan? Where does that underground utility go? It just kind of goes off the page. So what other BMPs are proposed for this additional work, just this pad for the battery storage? Well, the proposed BMPs will handle the extension of the driveway as well because if you look at the existing contours out there where that road, the driveway extension is being constructed all grades down and basically any runoff from that area would come down to the area where our silt fence is. With regard to the underground utility trench as you continue to the left off the page, there is another sheet provided in the plan set which shows it basically extending up adjacent to the existing access road to the utility poles that are up closer to the site entrance. And for that, we are not showing any specific silt fence or anything like that because the installation of that conduit would be like a day. You're gonna open up the trench, put in your conduit and then backfill the trench. So there's a very minor disturbance of however wide the trench is and we don't feel that it's really necessary to put in a silt fence along that entire thing that there's sufficient vegetated filter strip for that small area of disturbance and especially based on the limited time that'll be open. And that area of disturbance is, it appears between the 30 and the 100 foot buffer. So presumably within the 50 foot buffer. So are you including that in your overall you know, square footage for alteration? I believe it was. Yeah, I would confirm that. We did our alteration based on the entire project not just the equipment pad or the battery itself. You good, Jason? Yep. Okay, Bruce. For the record, who is Mr. Kuhn? Yeah. Oh, can you just state your... I don't know who he is. Can you state your affiliation and... I apologize again. My name is Timothy Kuhn. I'm a professional engineer with JR Roots on dissociates who prepared the silt fence. JR Roots? Rootso. Rootso, okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any public comment left. So unless there's any further questions for the applicant, we're going to hopefully... We're going to continue this tonight and hopefully have a near term site visit and talk about mitigation plans and next steps. So looking for a motion. I will move to continue the public hearing for the Montague Road Battery Storage, NOI 2735 PM on 22824. I'll second that. Jason on the motion, Laura on the second. Jason? Aye. Laura? Aye. Bruce? Aye. Alex? Aye. Andre? Aye. Anam and I. All right. Thank you, Tim, Chuck and Eric. Have a good night. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So next up is the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for Peer Sky Development Incorporated on behalf of WD Coles, Inc. represented by Goddard Consulting for the Confirmation Resource Area Boundaries on site limited to areas that fall within 100 feet of the proposed solar installation at Shootspray Road, map nine B lots 11 and 12 and map nine D lots 27. So there's still some communication with a third party reviewer and the project applicant. Is that correct, Erin? So they need some more time to work things out and we are looking to continue this tonight. I don't know if you want to give any more updates and if there's any public comment, I'm willing to take that. So raise your hand. Yeah, I'll just provide a quick update. And I updated materials in the project folder, but Emily Stockman did an initial review of the revised wetland delineation and came back with a series of recommendations for additional revisions to the updated plan. The applicant is currently working to update the plans to address Emily's comments. And once that plan is revised, it will come back to us, back to Emily to give it a final look before it comes to the conservation commission for consideration. Thanks, Erin. Okay, I've seen their questions from commissioners or public. I'm looking for a motion to continue. I will move to continue the public hearing for Shootspray, Berry Road and Rad to 740 PM on 22824. Second. Based on the motion, Andrea on a second, Laura. Andre. Hi. Bruce. Bruce is muted. Hi. Alex. Hi. I'm an I. Can I get everyone? I. Minute. Okay, Jason. Unanimous. Okay. Next up, SWCA, notice of intent on behalf of University of Massachusetts for the construction of a gravel parking lot and associated stormwater structures in the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland at lot 13, Olympia Drive map 80 lots, 15, 16 and three. So I think Erin indicated that we were going to maybe look for a more meaningful continuation date for this one rather than recycle it every other two weeks. But you want to give us any updates on it, Erin? Yes. So the applicant did give confirmation that we could do a one month continuation which would put us to March 13th at 7.30 p.m. so we can adjust that time accordingly. And I'll update the motion as well. That makes things easier. Okay, any questions? Public questioners? Bruce, go ahead. The third bullet from the bottom which is I think carried over from past meetings asked a question. I look back at the minutes and I don't see in the last meeting that we answered the question. So is it, Erin, is this still a question or it's just you can let it go or we've decided or? Still a question. I mean. Yeah, that was my understanding. It was still a question. I think the applicant asked the commission to give them additional time to do some site due diligence and come back to the commission with a revised plan. I know they're working on some stuff as well. So I would just say I've kind of left that alone on the slide since that meeting. And so I think it's still something that needs to be answered based on what they come back with. Okay. Thanks, Erin. Thanks, Bruce. Okay, with that, looking for a motion to continue and we have an updated date there. I would move that to continue the public hearing for lot 13 Olympia Drive notice of intent to 730 PM on March 13th, 24. Second that. Bruce on the motion. Andre on the second. Bruce. Hi. Jason. Hi. Laura. Hi. Andre. Alex. You're muted. Try again. Purple, I mean, visual confirmation that he's an eye. I'm an eye. Okay. unanimous. Moving on. Notice of intent. Have we opened this one? Yes. Okay, thanks. Wendell Wetland services on behalf of Kevin and Mary O'Brien for the construction of a new 1200 square foot single family home and associated site work within riverfront area of Eastman Brook at 260 Leverett Road, map 3A lots 50. This project is proposed as a riverfront redevelopment project replacing existing garage and chicken coop structure. I don't see any project applicants here, but I think Erin, this was going to be a courtesy continuation since we haven't gotten any confirmation otherwise or is there an update on that? No, but I would just refer the commission to the project folder if you'd like to get some greater insight into why this is being continued. And I can just give you a quick snapshot of that. The original submission was a hand drawn plan that was not to scale and it didn't include all of the work that was proposed. Town staff have met with the applicants. Several departments met with the applicant and he was given detailed instructions that we need a site plan and all the information that needs to be included on the site plan. It's been a little challenging to, I guess, translate what's needed to the engineer so I've asked to speak to them directly and I'm hoping that that communication will take place but I think that the applicant's a little unsure or unfamiliar with the commission's process. And so when I asked for a continuation, they said they wanted the commission to review the project and approve it and I said, well, we can't review anything without a plan that shows the work. So I'd like to just request a courtesy continuation on their behalf to give them some additional time to try to work with their engineer to provide a plan that addresses what the commission needs to see. Thanks, Aaron. Go ahead, Jason. Is this the project that DEP gave them a file or a file and that's why they have a, I was just curious why they have an NOI. If I had an NOI. Yes, your 100% DEP number. Okay. Yes, I don't think DEP even looked at the plan. I think if, well, maybe they did, but I did ask them, I said, is this an acceptable plan for a notice of intent application? And they said, oh, the commission will figure it out. Oh, well, thanks. Yeah, exactly. That's kind of how I felt as well. I was like, yeah, that puts us in a really unfair position because really it should have, I wouldn't have, I was not, I was gonna actually reject the application and say it's not sufficient. But because DEP issued the file number so quickly, we had 21 days to open the public hearing. So our options are basically to continue or to deny. And I think in fairness to the applicant to try to make the necessary changes to the plan and give them a little more time, this would just be sort of the fair thing to do at this point. Do we have a timeframe in which we cease to give them courtesy extensions and just deny it and then they have to go through the whole process again? Yeah, I mean, so I just, just for the commission, and I think this is a really great conversation to have. The commission has a lot of discretion. I have seen public hearings. I'm not exaggerating. I've seen public hearings get continued for two years straight. And at the end of that two years after requesting extension after extension, the commission has said, if you're gonna continue to do this, you're gonna have to re-notify a butters and repost a legal ad because it starts to become unfair to a butters. They can't follow the ongoing continuances and keep any sort of finger on the pulse of what's going on. And so yeah, I think, and I think that that's not just applicable to this application, but it's applicable to every application. When you start to see, I would say over 15 continuances on a given application starts to sort of, unless it's a really extenuating circumstance and the applicant is working overtime to try to address comments or issues or it's an appeal situation or something like that, we've got to draw the line somewhere and I think that's really at the commission's discretion to decide. 15 still seems excessive to me, but yeah. I was just throwing out a number, but I... Yeah. I mean, I'm at the point with the UMAPS one where I would prefer to not continually continue it and coming in a project like this, coming in with plans that were not in any way adequate, like I understand that a personal, a homeowner has, there's no reason why you would expect that a homeowner would have any experience in doing this if they've never done it before, but somebody had to engineer, like they had to get engineering to build a structure. And I would expect that those folks would have some experience in this and to, I'm fine with the continuation now, but I really would err more on the side of like, oh, we make two or three courtesy continuations and then we make a decision there to either just, I guess, I don't know what the term is, either reject it or just continue it and... Yeah, so... A couple ideas to consider are, and I don't want to jump ahead of Bruce, but just some ideas to consider are giving them a deadline and saying we're going to need additional information within 30 days, within 60 days. Otherwise, if we don't get an update within that period of time, the commission's going to ask you to withdraw the application and resubmit when you're prepared to actually share the necessary information or the commission could deny for lack of information. And the denial for lack of information and any denial basically has to detail from a regulatory standpoint what information is missing and why it is necessary in order for the commission to make a decision. So those are absolutely avenues that we could take and I'd look forward to talking to the commission more about that once we're ready to have that conversation whenever that is. Yeah, as one last comment, you know, I say all this, you know, we've extended the UMass project now so many times, I feel it only fair. Everybody else gets that same grace period then, but I would like to see some sort of precedent set. Thanks Jason, go ahead Bruce. Lines of process questions, so I yield to Laura. Go ahead Laura. Yeah, no, I'm going to completely echo Aaron here and that in my, however many years, four years on the three years on the commission, we have had so many hearings that have been, it's difficult to track and difficult for, you know, community members to stand top of things. So I think it would be a really good conversation to have that unless someone's actively working to advance the process, it's not fair just to have it stall out, not only to the commissioners who have to then, you know, pick everything up and kind of remember what was said, but also to the community members. Thanks Laura, and I think if we're going to have that discussion and precedent and process, then we'd probably need to start with UMath Lot 13 and start getting some progress reports from that so that we have something tangible and, you know, attractable to work with. And then this I think is the third continuance and has there been a site visit? Like have we had any benchmarks with this one? No, because there's really no point of having a site visit. You know, if we don't have the area of work identified, the limit of work identified, the extent of what's being proposed even identified on a plan, it's, I mean, we can have a site visit, but the reality is that once the plan comes through, we're probably going to want another one in order to go see where everything is and the configuration, the layout on the land of what they're proposing to do. So, I mean, my preference is before having a site visit is to get a plan because otherwise it's kind of a waste of our time. But I mean, if the commission feels otherwise, you know, that's completely fine. I just want to be fair to everybody's time. So my question is a more overarching one and it starts with how do we have overarching conversations? And the two issues here are if we wanted to set a maximum number of continuances, how do we do that? We don't do it inside one area. And in addition to that, my other question is, what's the downside of pushing back against DEP and asking them to rescind the number? So these are not appropriate for this because we maybe can't do it in this one, but down the road, maybe, so how do we have those other conversations? Well, so my recommendation would be that the commission actually set a time on the meeting agenda to set aside a half an hour to have this conversation. You know, we could certainly put it on the February 28th meeting agenda, but I think it's extremely important for the commission to set policy guidance for applicants because similar to like our requirements for revisions being submitted a week before the meeting, things like that, it's nice to have clear, concise guidance for applicants because we can then put it on the website and share it with people so they know what the expectations are. If we don't tell people, then, yeah, you know. Yeah, absolutely. That's all I wanted, just the pathway. Yep. Yeah, I was wondering about that. Okay, so why don't we set aside some time on the agenda next week, maybe like 20 minutes and we'll probably take more than that, but my inkling is generally like a 60 day, because it's 30 can go quick, but we'll cover out that next. Well, my request would be that Erin come to us, Erin and Dave come to us with a proposal. Yeah, and maybe that could be applicable to the two case in points we have. Yeah, if it takes a month to get to that point, that's fine with me, I just, yeah. Thank you, Bruce, for making us more efficient. Go ahead, Jason. Yeah, just on that note, not just a, if we're looking for Erin or Dave or anybody to come with any kind of suggestions regarding timeframe, I also would request that we have suggestions regarding essentially the definition of actionable steps that applicants can take to continue moving forward. You know, we don't want to, I don't think that we want to set a precedent for a timeframe for people who are actively working, right? It's just these kind of- Oh, true. Continuation. So what does it mean to be actively working then? Yeah. Fair enough. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, I mean, I think all these things are items that we can discuss when we have a more concentrated time to do that. But, you know, if there's nothing happening, then there's nothing happening. If, you know, I think maybe including something, some kind of wording, where exceptions will be made under extenuating circumstances. So, you know, if, and the communication has to be there between the applicants and staff as well. So I'm just gonna- Absolutely, yep. All right, great points, everyone. Please come ready to talk about them next meeting. And with that, we're looking for a motion to continue. And move to continue the public hearing for 260 Leverett Road to 750 p.m. on 728-24. I second that. Andrea in the motion. Jason on the second. Jason? Aye. Andre? Aye. Bruce? Aye. Alex? Aye. Laura? Aye. And I'm an aye. Okay. Next up is notice of intent for Tetra Tech, but before we dive into that one, if anybody is here for our last hearing, which is the NOI for Stonefield Engineering for Valley CDC on Ball Lane, that will be continued tonight. So you don't have to stick around too late. Okay. So we're up to notice of intent for Tetra Tech on behalf of Fort River Solar II LLC for construction of an operation of a 6.35 megawatt direct current ground-multed photovoltaic solar facility. In pertinent components at 191 West Primary Lane, map 19 D Lott 10. I think it's appurtenances. Well, it's not plural on this, but I'll yield to you appurtenances. Okay, how's that intro, Matt? Hi, welcome. Good evening, everyone. And I see Lawrence and Sean. Okay, Erin, you wanna give us the update, Lewis? Yes. So since the last meeting, there's been a lot of communication, a lot of plan reviewing going on. I did send a draft special conditions for both Wetland Protection Act and our local Wetland bylaw to commissioners sort of kind of late this afternoon, but with some additional updates based on my final review of the plans. I think I've given commissioners an update on most everything. I think the big piece, and I'm not sure how well I communicated this or if I communicated this to the commission, but last Wednesday, a final plan was sent to me. I started reviewing it. There were some issues with the notes, and so I reached out to Matt and we got that issue resolved. Some transfer of some of the note revisions that had been made on a previous iteration didn't make it to the final plan set. So we got a new final plan set. I was able to review the final plans and feel confident that all updates have been made. I did have some sort of last-minute edits to the order of conditions just to clarify things. I also drafted a finding a fact, which I felt as I reviewed everything became more and more important just to make sure we detailed because there was so many iterations of back and forth between myself and the applicant through this review process that I wanted to make sure certain things were documented. So that's all been shared with the commission. I'm happy to pull those items up on the screen so that we can all take a quick look at them, but or if you want me to go through what changes I made to the order of conditions I shared, that would have been a version I shared about a month ago that we had already talked about. So I'm happy to go through those with the commission if you'd like. Thanks, Aaron. I'm gonna give the floor to the project applicants and then maybe we can pull that up. Yeah, Matt Moyan with Touch for Tech here on behalf of the applicant. Not really anything to say tonight. We're here to answer any final questions the commission may have and discuss the conditions and finding a facts as you see fit. Thanks, Matt. If there's any public comment, please raise your hand and I'll keep an eye on the room. Okay, not immediately seeing any. So Aaron, do you wanna pull up the, because the order of conditions is what we're looking to discuss specifically. And while you're doing that commissioners, please raise your hand if you have any questions for the applicants or Aaron. Go ahead, Alex. Aaron, there's a lot of stuff in the folder for us this time. And I know I went through it. Perhaps the other commissioners went through it sufficiently that they don't need to go through it now. And that would be a big time saver because there's a lot in there. So I would just ask commissioners to speak up if they want Aaron to go through that. I would favor her just going to the order and showing us what the changes are rather than going through all the transpired. Thanks, Alex Bruce. My question is it appears to me that attachment one and attachment two are identical except that attachment one is under the State Wetlands Protection Act and number two is under the town of Amherst Wetlands Bylaw. And I'm curious why there needs to be, why they are not, they're separated because I couldn't find any differences between them. There is one difference between them but I'm really glad that you brought that up Bruce because I think this is a good sort of educational moment for the commission. So whenever you get a notice of intent application it is through the state and that is through the Wetland Protection Act process but in the town of Amherst and in many towns we have our local wetland protection bylaw and regulations. And so frequently commissions are reviewing permits sort of in tandem. They're reviewing the application under state and under local law. And so it becomes extremely important when we issue orders of conditions that we have conditions that are specific to wetland protection and conditions that are specific to the bylaw because if there's ever an appeal to a permit it's appealed under both and they're under separate avenues. Under state, it goes to the DEP and under our local bylaw it goes to Superior Court. So it's very important. Mary and you're breaking up. That they be separated even if the conditions are. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, you seem to have some connectivity maybe just turn off your camera or keep going and maybe it's done with. Okay. If you look at condition number three under the Wetland Protection Town of Amherst bordering lands subject to flooding is subject to a 100 foot buffer zone. That buffer zone is not shown on the plans of record. And I'm not suggesting that the applicant should have to add the 100 foot buffer zone at this late stage in the process. It's more or less just to document that that buffer zone does exist. It's not shown on the plans and that the commission's not yielding their jurisdiction to that buffer. But that's an example. Well, but number three is the same on both of these sheets. There's no, I'm just in general curious why there has to be two different attachments. Because the reading of number three is essentially identical on both attachment one and attachment two. Yes, it should be. Okay. Erin, I think you're frozen. Do you think you could just shut your camera off so we can take advantage of you? Maybe it's not that important right now. I'm just trying to understand. You're, Bruce? Yeah. I think what you have is you have two different sets of laws that need to be addressed and they both need to be, you need to be permitted under state law and under law. Okay. I yield to the process. It's fine. Intentional redundancy. Okay. Erin, do we have you or are you? I'm here. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I can try to share my screen again if I run into issues. It's fine. I just want to make sure that you guys can see the changes. Do you want me to run through them really quickly? What the change is? No, I don't. They were on the web this afternoon. Yeah. So are there any other commissioners that want to review the changes that Erin has made and didn't have a chance before or have any questions? Okay. And also maybe the applicant might like to as well but just give them the option to go through that. I'm not seeing any raised hands from the applicants. Okay. Well, I think this is reflective of the amount of time and effort and conversations that has gone into this as far. So that's great. But go ahead, Alex. I said the commissioners have had time to look at this where I've had opportunity and KetterTech was sent the draft order previously. I sort of assumed that they were sent the document this afternoon after she had finished with it. Am I mistaken, Matt? Have you seen, have you not seen this? Yeah. Over the last few weeks, Erin and I have been I mean, this document about, yeah, this latest draft order, I've seen it with the exception of one Erin just discussed about the 100 foot buffer to BLSF and the understanding she has that it's jurisdictional. There's some conflicting language in the local bylaw that maybe worth taking a look at but our read on the jurisdictional section of it was that area was not jurisdictional. So we hadn't shown our plan. And as Erin indicated, there's no expectation for us to add that to our plans at this time. So we've seen it, we understand what's in there and we're ready to move forward. Okay. Yeah. So just so that you're aware she provided about every email back and forth and her own explanation of conversations. So there was a lot to read. So just for the record, this is also the finding a fact. The finding a fact was to document a number of things about this project. The first is the fact that there was previously an approved order of conditions for this project and that we're following DEP guidance relative to having essentially two orders of conditions recorded on the property at one time. Erin, I'm sorry, sorry. You need to make it one sheet or no one can read it. There, thank you. Yes. So just to document that we're following DEP guidance relative to the two open essentially orders of conditions even though one's expired. I did want to document in here that the applicant already provided $25,000 donation to the town of Amherst Trail Fund as mitigation to support the construction of a footbridge boardwalk to accommodate relocation of the existing trail around the project area that was impacted by the project's redesign. I also went through the compliance with the DEP wetland policy. And basically this was just my read of the overall project relative to compliance with the DEP wetlands policy based on my review of the project. So I'll just flip through this. I don't want to go item by item but these more or less cover things that have been reviewed, discussed that they've responded to and or things that we've kind of glazed over for example like the replacement of the stream crossings is going from small undersized culverts to mass stream standard compliant crossings. The incorporation of BMPs, the change of the fixed array from the original filing to a tracking system, the project reduced in size in the sense that there's less resource area impact on this project than the original filing. Fence lines have been pulled back. The proposed mitigation associated with the project and so on and so forth. I don't again want to cover everything but a lot of these are commentary that were provided directly by the applicant to us that note how they comply with a given DEP guidance on this item relative to the guidance policy that DEP sets. So I thought this was important just to document and attach to the order of conditions that we've been reviewing all of these issues. Thanks, Aaron. I found that very helpful a historical account to this project. So I'm not seeing any hands from the public and I just want to say this represents a lot of conversation and back and forth in cooperation from the applicant staff and this commission. So thank you everybody for being cooperative there and the patience and time that it's taken to get to this point. And with that, I'm not seeing any questions. So we're looking for a motion to close this hearing and issue the order of conditions. And maybe, Aaron, you could throw that up on the screen. Can you make it bigger, Aaron? I moved to close the public hearing and issue order of conditions DEP number 0890728 under the Wetlands Protection Act and Wetlands Protection Town of Amherst General Bylaws, Article 3.31 and regulations with finding of fact attachment. Second. Andre on the motion, Alex on the second. Jason. Aye. Bruce. Aye. Andre. Aye. Alex. Aye. Laura. Aye. And I'm an aye. Yeah, I'll second the words of Michelle. Everybody here has done a lot of work on this. Thank you all for the work and for the patience and hope it goes well. Thanks, everyone. Appreciate your time. Thank you. All the time I had this far longer than we expected and we'll come fully prepared with the battery stuff at a later date. Bruce. Yeah, Bruce, go ahead. I just, I was thinking while I was revealing all this way out there, five years from now, when this project inside the bigger project are all done and there's an extraordinary protection of the Fort River, there's the actual moving of electrical things into the grid from the panels and that it could be a model for other places but it's very difficult. I appreciate everyone really trying hard to make this work. Yep. Thank you, everyone. Good luck. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night. Bye. Okay. Well, cheers. Yeah. That was a long one. Cheers. And we can tie it up easily and be out early, I think. Yeah. By the way, Michelle, by my comment, I didn't mean to belittle the amount of time that had gone into this. I am well aware of how much time went in. Oh, I didn't read that in any way. So I think everyone is fully aware of that fact. Anyway, I think we all did a great job so thank you everybody for your attention to this and Aaron for the immense amount of time that you've spent making sure that resources are protected and this project can move forward. Okay. I think it's also her negotiative skill. Yeah, all of the above. Okay. Next and last, News of Intent for Stonefield Engineering and Design, LLC on behalf of Valley Community Development for the construction of 15 residential duplex structures and associated site work, including parking utilities, stormwater management and landscaping within the buffer zone at 20 to 40 ball lane map 5A lot 56. Any updates on this one, Aaron? The applicant is working to resolve a design issue with one of the basins. And so they're hoping to have an updated plan set for us by the next meeting. Right. Okay. And they're working with the ZBA on that one. Yes, okay. Okay. So we're just looking for a motion to continue. I move to continue the public hearing for 2040 ball lane NOI to 755 PM on 228 24. I'll second it. Alex on the motion, Bruce on the second, Jason. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Laura. Hi. And I'm an I. Oh, okay. We do have some stragglers here. Okay. We were there. Enforcement issue. I was just checking in with everyone. We right now don't have much snow cover. It is frozen conditions. So I just wanted to check in on the enforcement order. Again, we have a temporary stabilization measures that have been installed and they can't do a whole lot in terms of removal of the sediment until the ground thaws. But just checking in because we have sort of no snowpack at the moment. And if folks want to wait until things start to thaw out a little bit in the next couple of weeks or in the next month, or if you're feeling like you're eager to get out there, either way, I can go in one direction or another. I just didn't want you to think that I'd forgotten about it because I haven't. Thanks, Erin. Is there, so the movement of sediment down that hill is pretty visible and it's probably just frozen in time at this point. Is there, what is the benefit or the cost or whatever to waiting for the ground to thaw? Or what do we lose by not going out? Or going out while it's frozen? So they've put a temporary cover of wood chips over the sediment and over the material that was the work area that was where work was done that was outside of the scope of the original project. So they've temporarily stabilized it. You essentially, I'm not sure you're gonna be able to see because it just looks like a covering of wood chips, but obviously underneath the wood chips, there's all of the sediment material. So I think it's just, I mean, that's basically the site conditions at the current time. All that material is gonna have to come out, but I know that there were some concerns about what the sort of long range response of the commission was gonna be to this enforcement order in terms of requiring them to restore the site, potential stabilization measures and or potential mitigation that would be required to compensate for the violation. So that might give the commission some insight into what those requirements might be if the commission got boots on the ground. But I can't guarantee it's not gonna snow again next week or even by the, I'm just not sure what the site conditions are gonna look like in the next few weeks. Got it, thanks. Go ahead, Alex. So what's your recommendation? I mean, I guess since we're sort of at an impasse right now and it's late in the night that we, my recommendation would be that we wait until the 28th and maybe the commission could think about it now and then and we could, between now and then and we could see what the conditions look like on the 28th and potentially schedule a time. It's probably gonna start warming up in the next six weeks. So I don't think much is gonna be lost if we wait a little while. Okay, so you're saying that we should consider it for our next round of site visits for the next like meeting date? Potentially, so we have, we're gonna be rescheduling the meeting for Karen construction. So I could piggyback it onto the Karen construction site visit or if you're feeling like you'd rather get out there after things thaw out a little bit, I can, we can put it off and do it after that meeting. I'm kind of at an impasse myself if that's not clear to everyone. I'm not really sure. Enforcement is not my favorite. And so I have a tendency to, unless we have a clear path forward, I think that waiting is not a bad approach to see what the conditions are like on the site, but I think it's really a matter of discretion of the commission. So from what I understand, there is this erosion problem and now it's covered with wood chips. So which nothing has happened in terms of rain or any precipitation events that would have made anything visible past that. So my inclination would be to wait for it to thaw out of it so we can see how the site's moving and how it's looking rather than just sort of frozen wood chips on frozen grounds where we can't actually see what happened. I mean, am I reading that site condition correctly? That's kind of my inclination as well, yeah. Okay, any thoughts, comments, commissioners, questions? No moved. I agree, I agree. All right, so kick the can to a more vernal situation. Okay. Sounds like a good plan. All right, thank you. All right, that's it, right? Yes. Okay, looking for a motion to it. There are two members of the public still. And I wanted to check if they have any comment before we close. Thanks first, please raise your hand if you have a comment. Seeing none. I move to adjourn. Any second? Jason on the motion, Alex on the second, Bruce? Aye. Alex? Aye. Jason? Aye. Andre? Aye. Laura? Aye. And I'm an aye. All right, good work guys. Nice to see Laura. Nice to see you guys. Happy Valentine's Day. Nice to see you guys. I have to admit when I looked when I looked at the PowerPoint, they said, we only got one one project to work on. Everything else was continued. And I said it would be an early night. Yeah, it still is. If there's a, you know, nature hates a vacuum, we will fill it. Yeah, well, I think we covered some important things today. So we did fill it well. All right, thanks everyone. Have a good night. Good night guys. Bye.