 Right as we speak. Okay. Good evening everyone today is May 12, 2021. This is the bi-weekly meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission. We have a long agenda, so I would suggest we plow ahead. So no comments for me, Dave. Great. Hello everybody. Nice day out there. Erin, were you able to punch those things into that slide for me? A little prompting slide. I was. So I will, I will also preface my comments by saying that I am a short timer tonight. I am filling in this week. The town manager is away. And our recreation director retired this week. So I am. Doing kind of triple duty this week. So I am going to move on to some other priorities a little bit later. So I will stick with you as long as I can tonight. Erin, Erin has got you covered. I think you'll be great. So yeah, a couple of quick updates. And what I'll try to do is work with Erin to kind of fill this out a little bit more with each, each upcoming meeting, but we are in the process of hiring summer staff. As I mentioned, it is a little challenging right now to bring people on. There are not a lot of applicants. So we are basically in the 30 to 40 plus range in terms of applicants. And we are really struggling to find qualified folks. So if you know anybody that wants to work, work outdoors, work with their hands, do meaningful work this summer by all means, have them visit the town website. We're, we're, we're doing kind of a rolling hire. Basically we will hire until we don't have any positions left, so we'd like to bring on three to five people this summer. And we just want to find willing folks that are not afraid to get dirty and get out there and do trail work and work at buffers pond, et cetera. So we're interviewing now and we will interview until we've filled probably five slots. So if you know of anybody send them, send them our way. We are, there is a, there is a, a project that we're working on that. We're working on a, N and Y, I believe on the agenda tonight, Erin, is that correct? And that will, we will ask for a continuance on that. Is that correct, Erin? Correct. Yep. We really feel like we were kind of rushed to get that in on this agenda. And we, Aaron and I are working with Brad and we're going to A full delineation of some of the trail improvements we want to make along the rubber frost trail. So I think you'll see that continuance coming before you later on this evening and probably need what four weeks there and something like that I don't think two weeks is going to be sufficient. Yeah, I put it on for June 9 that 730. So this is part of our continuing work to improve and update the trail. From, you know, and and in Amherst and this is part of the $30,000 grant we got from the mass department of conservation and recreation. The MET grant, which I've kind of outlined to you this is the project of the, this is the project of the Fort River watershed group for interpretive stations along the Fort River. We are submitting that grants this week I or excuse me next week I don't know how competitive those are but I've, I've gotten one or two MET grants, many, many years ago and they're pretty competitive I don't know what our chances are but it's about a $6,000 grant. We're submitting that in next week. If we're successful working with the with the Connecticut River Conservancy and and the, the Fort River folks. We would need to come before the commission, hopefully with a with a with an RDA to actually carry out that grant. In the installation there'd be two kiosk one on each end of the trail and there would be interpretive stations with QR codes so not a lot of disturbance along the Emily Dickinson trail. Trust partnership projects. That's kind of code for work around Epstein pond down in South Amherst, we will you will be seeing an NOI come to you in June for that trail improvement work. And I are pretty excited about this project and it will include replacement of some crushed culverts so some really, really important stream restoration work. And then some bridge work that'll really I think improve some of the, the headwaters of the various Brooks in South Amherst along Bay Road. And the other things we're working on where where you'll be seeing some proposals come before you for enhanced parking. We're not quite there yet but we have plans well underway for a parking a small parking area near off of Bay Road on sweet Alice conservation area. We are that'll be that's actually out of resource area so that's really just an improvement in upland. And the net worth farm at Stanley Street, do you all know that parking lot there between the, the, the ball field and and the stones. It's really been a mess for years. Aaron got out there took a look around and we believe we can do that through an RDA. We're not talking about a tremendous amount of work there. We've got some fill and then some grading a new kiosk there and kind of rerouting the trail. All of the water right now goes do was that do East I think, and really erodes the trail there so we've been working on some designs for that for a 10 car parking lot there. That's about what it holds now but it's kind of a mess, if you will. And then we will also be coming before you again. Put it Catherine Cole we believe will be out of resource area. So there won't, there will likely not be a filing for that but I'd like to, you know, outline ideas for a new parking lot there at put it Catherine Cole. I think those were the main things it's, it's a lot for this summer, and this is just kind of one part of the projects will be working on but you'll see some filings for the for the improvements that are in resource areas. In particular the Kestrel. Partnership projects down there on Vera. So, that's my quick update if there are any questions. Happy to take them. No, as always Dave sounds like there's a lot going on and yeah, and you have even more on your plate than usual so good luck. No questions for me to other folks have questions. Okay, no we look forward to seeing this stuff brought in in front of us at some point and we'll be in OIs for those that require them RDAs, we're getting advice from Aaron, and then, then we'll just be showing you some of the plans will have plans for all the parking areas with the number of parking spaces and we want to really try to work toward a standard trail head. And it will a standard design so that when you get off your bike or you're walking or hiking or running, you arrive at a trailhead and it's a it's a consistent feel and look, and there's consistent signage so that's the direction we're headed. Okay, good. I think you're only going to be with us a short time today. I don't know if this works for you Aaron if we want to do the land use application soon before we get into the hearings that might work well. Sure. Are we ready to jump on that. I think so. Okay. So as far as the Mount Pollux. There was questions last time about days and so. I did email the gentleman and he said that his ideal time would be Sundays from 8pm to 3am. Sundays, as in, from when to when. Monday morning. It sounded like he, he just wants to do this kind of as an open ended thing but if the commission wants to put an end date on it, then I think that's totally appropriate. And we can just respond to him and say we're only approving this until such time and then from there you'll have to request again. Let's just approve it on nights it's going to rain. Can we say like three months and then come back. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. Yeah, we definitely need some sort of closed end. Let's say September one. I don't know what it is. That sounds good. Yeah, that gives June, July, August. Could you remind me is this charging people to do this with him or no. No, no, it's just I guess a couple neighbors who get together with a telescope and gather there to look. Stars. They basically this person about the mem politics. And I love that they're asking I just I definitely think like three months and then just come back and let us know you want to do it for another three months, you know that's. Yeah. So could I add two things there and one is, I would say that we require. Require this person to notify the Amherst police department that they're up there and they have the conservation commission and department's permission to be there. And then I believe we're going to be generating a permit, if you will, right. So they would have a copy of that permit and they should keep that copy of that permit because APD will likely go up there and say, Hey, what are you doing here? Do you have permission to be there? And if we close that loop, meaning they let, they let APD know they're being there and they have a copy of the permit. And so I think that's a great idea. But are you talking about each night that they're going to be up there that day they contact them or just. I would think they could just send APD an email. Introducing themselves and they could even scan a copy of their permit and that way it's on file with APD. Because I know the police department does routinely go up there because we unfortunately do have some activities up there after dark that are not appropriate. Sure. Okay, excellent. Anything else on this one? And just so that you guys know I've been sort of trying to standardize the land use application so that what people get is consistent from us and I did add some standard conditions like carry in carry out trash. That they, you know, there's just some basics, no smoking, no alcohol, that kind of thing. So there's some sort of standard stuff that I've been attaching to the permits that is very basic and kind of standard expectations, I guess. And the thing about what Dave was saying could probably get added to the template if they're going to be there in closed hours, dark hours, if they'll be required to contact APD. Yeah. Okay. So this might be a different conversation, but almost like it might be like posting their permit, you know, while they're there, you know what I mean. Anyway, that might be a different when you think about the standardization when people are actually because the guy would show other folks at the conservation areas that these people actually went through us to get this permit. If that makes sense, you know what I mean? Yeah, that might not be a bad idea. You have to post your, like, you don't literally like show your permit while you're doing the activity, and that will give maybe other folks the incentive to be like, Oh, actually, well, these guys actually went through it. There's actually a process. Just throwing that out there. We've definitely been talking about the sort of like Dave was saying at the standard standardized kiosk locations, maybe having like a community post section, and that that might be a good place for people to hang that when they're having their event or something. So that's a good idea. Sort of that because we don't have kiosk everywhere and we're, you know, we're working toward more standardization. It might be good for this gentleman just to put something on his car, you know, because he's going to be he's going to be up at the top of the hill with other people and, you know, again, the police would be like, Hmm, what's this car doing here should it be here and it'd be great. You know, I've done this when I when I go birding or sometimes you see people at trailhead still put a sign on their car that says no money or valuables in their car to kind of discourage people from breaking into their cars. So, again, it might make sense for him to put his permit on on his windshield or something like that. The parking lot is way down at the bottom and so anyway, I don't want to overthink this but we're just kind of moving toward more standardization and clear expectation. Excellent. Okay, so if there's nothing else looking for a motion on this one. I moved to approve this stargazing with the condition that will have it and by September one. Again. Okay, looking for a voice vote on. Hi. Excuse me Fletcher. Hi, Larry. Hi, Leroy. Hi, and I for me as well. So next one please, Aaron. So we received a request for a plant survey to be conducted in the Lawrence swamp for the native climbing fern, which is, I believe threatened in this area. And so, it was all in your packets but they're starting June 15 and they're ending November 1 and three volunteers. So the survey parking during the survey. Non profit event. It's done in cooperation with the the organization out of framing him garden in the woods, I think is like the partner organization that's sponsoring this or assisting with it. Yeah, they've been monitoring this population for years. So this is something we've, we've approved for years that you know it's a sanctioned event they gather the data and I think it goes into databases there and with natural heritage. And have we ever received reports from them Dave on what they found. You know, it's a great question. We never get reports from people what they find on conservation lands. That's what people find on conservation lands. We probably have it may not have risen to a high priority level with me. Yes, but but they're, you know, a lot of the researchers are pretty good about sending their things to us I think we can get better at at disseminating those to you all and also storing them for future reference. Yeah. And so I would just like I didn't see that on here, and I could have just missed it but I would just like to see that added to order of conditions. Sure. That might be another another standardization thing to add to the permit to because I remember, I think you mastered the game camera study like five years ago putting up game cameras across conservation lands to track wildlife populations. We haven't seen anything but I see those cameras everywhere. Because the PI is now in Scotland Fletcher. Yeah, I know. I heard. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think that this all looks fine. Yeah, particularly since I've been doing it for a while. Yeah, I think it's cool stuff. So if I have any questions or issues with it. Okay, so then looking for a motion. This land use application with the addition of reporting back findings upon completion. Second. A voice vote on a. Aye. Roy. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. And I as well. Next please. So, this is a request that came in. I just discovered that this event was happening on. Amethyst Brook. It's like a Tai Chi type meditation that people do. A gathering of people do it there once a month or so and they've been holding it there and charging people for it. So it came to our attention and we. Tracked them down and asked them to submit a land use application. So, um, I off as nonprofit. It's checked off as nonprofit indeed, but they, but there, there was a listing on next door for this that was asking between 35 and $45 for attendance at the event. Um, that was prior to the town reaching out to them and addressing it with them. So I don't know if they're changing it to being, you know, a nonprofit event or how they're doing this. That's, that's really my only question on it is if they're going to continue to charge people or maybe we should condition it that they not charge people. I mean, it's up to, it's entirely up to you guys. And it clearly states in here that they're not charging. It's a very little no be something else. It's a very little no, compared to the other nose. Yeah, no. Yeah, so we have to make sure that yeah when they get it that, you know, that is part of this if they do want to charge they need to come back to us and we can have a different conversation. Okay, what's your thoughts on this on, especially it just I guess really at my thoughts is amethyst brook because it's so busy all the time. Yeah, I mean I have two thoughts. I think I've been through the years I, I am not supportive of folks charging fee to be fees to be on public land conservation land. But for any purpose I can't, I can't think of one that I've supported through the years. There may be an exception maybe a fundraiser or something like that. But I, I think by charging a fee that assumes also two things one is responsibility and two is liability. I, I'm a little dubious that somebody was, you know, I know this person reached out to us after I think we discovered it on Facebook or something online. And they were, they were, they were super they they were really responsive which is wonderful and this is what we want them to do but I just want to make sure that you know that that they are accurate and authentic and what they're reporting here. So, as long as they're not charging a fee, I'm, I'm okay with it. I, you know, I do wonder a little bit, you know, we, we've required that people list the town as a as an additional insured for some, some activities so, I think that's something we need to investigate. I, I, I don't have an issue with this going forward but I do think we should keep that door open. What happens if somebody were I know this is a very gentle type of activity but what if somebody gets hurt out there, who is responsible and who is liable for that, for that injury. What happens and what do we do if this organization has this activity, which you have, they charge for to be part of the activity, and at times they go places like here like once a month. Well I think what we're saying with the recommendation from staff is that that you cannot charge for this event. That's what I'm saying they can they can you can use these little words to get around this. They're belonging. It's like if I belong to a club and I paid a belong to the club and then we go to this place. I'm not charging you to go to this place but because I have to belong to that club, I'm being charged. I think we, I'm taking the high road here Larry and, and taking the person at their word and and trusting that they recognize that town of Amherst conservation land cannot be used for for profit events and that they may once a month off for a free class. On conservation land you may recall in years past, we allowed we approved you approved Kestrel trust to do low impact yoga at the And Kestrel sponsored those but they were free, I believe to seniors or other, anyone who wanted to do yoga in the arboretum so I kind of equate that with with this, but we should make that in the motion that it has this is a free event. I would strongly support that and recommend that. And then the other issue, particularly with this being at Amethyst Brook, it probably best if it was outside of it was after 10 o'clock in the morning, because after 10 o'clock, all the dogs are always unleashes. So, so there'll be no issues there. And are they specifying Aaron where in Amethyst, is it like you know the front field or back in the woods I don't know if that really matters. It's actually in the woods I'm not sure I seem to recall reading something in. Okay. Yeah, healing in the presence of nature in their application there so that means sort of like it's in the woods. Yeah I mean there's, I probably know where it is it's probably that stone circle. I think it is there brother I think it's in that area. Yeah. I do think Aaron and I should look into the whole insurance liability piece but I'm comfortable moving forward with this as long as they're not charging a fee. And then we can book, and probably have a conversation with our as we as we as this forum and your discussions evolve about activities research, etc use of conservation land. And then we can talk to our town attorney about the whole liability question and where does that really come in and when do we, when do we require additional insurance for people to hold these events on our land. Okay, so that's good. And this is actually somebody from outside of town who's applying though. They're kind of cute they didn't put their address they just put their zip code. I mean 01035 standing nowhere near here. Hadley. Oh that's just Hadley commons road yeah. Okay. zip codes are weird. So, okay, leave it's coming through which isn't happening. Okay, thank you. So the other thing we might just want to ask them as much as possible to minimize the amount of parking that they're going to take I mean amethyst parking is awful. So, granted with COVID not easy to do but we will be through that soon enough. So, again, if people can carpool as appropriate, that would be appreciated as well. Okay so yeah and I appreciate the insurance issue Dave and I agree that that's, yeah some of that should get resolved. Any other questions or comments on this one. Okay. So looking for motion then. I move we approve this wellness and nature program for amethyst brook with the following conditions. I'm going to let the ones that were already said be filled in the bulk of the boilerplate. The boilerplate and then the two specific ones that we added. Yeah, just to reiterate that nothing is allowed. No fees are allowed to be charged associated with the event. That's why I said free. Yep. Okay. Thank you. And yeah I'm just going to, I'm going to data and cross it Larry. And then yeah minimize the parking if possible. Can remember there was something else in there after 10am. Oh, thank you. Yep. Okay. I'm going to go back to 10am. They can go earlier if they want, but that's their may not be quite as relaxing. So, is there Brett, could I just add before that? I don't know if you got a second on that motion, but we did not get a second yet. I'll second, I'll second. Okay, so. Yeah, so I think we need to go ahead and vote on this Dave and then we'll then can we come back to you. We don't have any further discussion right before you vote or. Yeah. I just wondered, is there any harm is no real harm and Aaron saying, would it be an issue for you to get your insurance company to list the town of Amherst as an additional insured on your policy. I don't think there's any harm and in us asking that you're not requiring it, but let's see what the response is I would just put that up. Thanks. Okay, thank you. And so with that looking for a voice vote so Larry, I, Anna, I, let your eye, Roy, I, and I for me as well. Okay, so is that it for land use. Yes. Okay, is there anything else that while we have Dave that would be appropriate I mean I'm sure he wants to go over all the minutes and all of that. I have a quick question for Dave and it's, it's more of kind of the like it's okay here's my question. So I know that this isn't under our jurisdiction but back in the Holy Oak range on the Robert Frost trail someone's been putting up a lot of signs, saying watch for skiers and this is a privilege not a right respect the trail. There's about 12 of them within a mile, and they're all nailed to trees about 10 feet up. And it wasn't DCR. Who, where do I go, like what do we do, what are, who do I talk to. Those are in like, you know, those are happening, like behind my house too. Yeah, like, Oh, so don't cross country, don't hike on the cross country ski path. We neighbors. Yeah. Where is this on roughly between Harris Mountain Road and going west from Harris Mountain Road on the Robert Frost. Yeah, on the Robert Frost trail. You think it's town of Amherst land or no I guess my question is like, is there anything that we can say to mass DCR and say, Hey, can we take these down or anything or I'm just not even sure I wasn't sure what my next step would be. I know you're talking about on Long Mountain. Yeah. Below below before you get to Long Mountain. One thing you could do. We could send you and I'm blanking on his name Paul Janicki Paul Janicki. If you look up Paul Janicki and I'm not going to spell that right now but Paul is the trails coordinator for DCR is offices on Damon Road in North Hampton. Okay. His number is 5858 680706 can't spell his name but you know his number. That was great. I made for 58680706. And you could call him or email him and pose your question and your concerns about people over signing. I just yeah I wasn't I was going to email Brad but then we had this meeting so I was like I'll just ask what I know if it Brad. Yeah, it's a rough trail. Yeah. Perfect. All right. Thank you. All right. That was a little off topic. Thank you. Okay. So is there anything else Aaron that would be appropriate for us to deal with while Dave is still here. Um, I mean it's for a bit. I think you should proceed. I know you have applicants and you have a schedule so. Oh yeah, yeah, we're going to keep on going. So don't worry about that we're not hold. So, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know if folks have already had a chance to review minutes and if you had we can actually just kind of plow through I looked through them and I didn't see any issues with what I was looking at. I agree. Okay. Let's start with the minutes just in the order that Aaron has them. So 324 21 looking for a motion to accept. I move that we accept the minutes of 324 21. Second. Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. We are good 414 21. I move we accept the minutes of 414 21. Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Aye for me as well. 428 21. I move we accept the minutes of 428 21. Second. Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Aye for me as well and the final one one eight 2020. Yes, those are old. I'm catching up on 2020 right now. Okay. I move we accept the minutes of 1 820. Second. Sorry. I took a bite. Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Aye for me as well. Minutes are done. Great. Okay. So I have. Yeah. So we can actually go into our hearings at this point, except for the first one is going to be a continuation. So is there anything else to add about. About this one? Erin. They're, they're still working on developing a farm plan with. And RCS. And so that's, that's basically that. I'll give you a little update under enforcement, just a very brief update on the restoration. Sounds good. Any questions or comments? If not looking for a motion. I moved to continue the public hearing for two 14 from Marine Lane to five 2620. And I moved to continue the public hearing for two 14 from Marine Lane to five 2621 and 725. Second. Okay. Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. And I for me as well. Okay. So by my clock, we are fine to move on to the next one. And Erin, I thought that we already opened this one or am I mistaken on that? We did. At the last meeting, we reviewed the. I'm just going to stop sharing for just a second to see if we have attendees. At the last meeting, we. I had shown you guys that I had done like a desktop sensitivity analysis of the railroad spray zones and that there was some areas that were sensitive that. Were needed to review. And I did speak with the, the gentleman Keith Morris, who's the consultant for the railroad. And he said that. First, he requested a continuance. I did get a quote from Emily Stockman to, to go get out and look at the areas of concern that I raised about the railroad spray zone. And I said, you know, I'm just going to do a little analysis just to make sure I didn't miss anything. He's like, Oh, we could go out. It'll just take a few hours. And I kind of explained, like, typically if we get an application and staff spends a few hours on it, it's literally like. You know, a hundred acre A and R application, you know, like not a RDA application and. Not checking is not really what we're looking for for the, from the railroad. Like I feel like a lot of the stuff. If it changes year to year, we might not even see the area. It might not even be accessible from the road. So we're, we're still sort of sorting it out. They're looking to get approval from the railroad to proceed with the peer review, but he, he said it's unorthodox for them to have a peer review. But I did look back at the application from 2016 and it was literally the exact same no spray zone. It looked like they literally just photocopied the paperwork and said it sent it to us again. So. Yeah. So I'm perfectly fine with us continuing, but yeah, I mean, it's probably going to be third party review. So without them here, it's probably more appropriate for continuation. Yeah, I don't see him on the call. I thought he was going to be here again, but it seems like the, he's, he's pretty lax with these applications. I'm not even sure he shows up to the hearings to be honest with you. But we, if you guys are comfortable with continuing until we hear from the applicant again, we do have a slot open for the continuation. Okay. So I'm just checking on the five 26 meeting at, I would say seven 45. So he wants to continue. So does anybody have any comments or questions before we hear a motion to continue? Okay. If not, and I'm just checking, make sure that he's not here under a different name, but if you are here for this application or if you ever need to once say anything, just use a little raise hand. Feature in zoom. So looking for a motion for continuation to seven 45. On the 26th. I moved to. Set this up. The railroad. What was it? The railroad. It was an RDA. It wasn't that even the NLI. Yeah. It's an RDA. Yeah. Continuance for five 26. 745. Second. Larry. I'm sorry, Larry. You're on mute. Still there. In yet. If your mouse isn't in the right window, the space bar doesn't work. Larry. I'm sorry. I know. And I for me as well. So this is being continued. Okay. So we're going to move on to the 29 mil lane. And so if you are here for that hearing, you can raise your hand and then Aaron can make you a panelist. So I don't think I have that ability. Yeah, let me. I'm going to make you a co-host first so that you can have full control and then I will. Okay. So since this is a new hearing in front of us, I will formally open it. Okay. 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 wetlands as most recently amended. An article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. And this is a new hearing by GCA. G. O. Environmental Incorporated behalf of Lisa Kittridge for the construction of a tennis court and associated drainage at 29 mill lane map 17 C parcel 174. So welcome everyone. And I'm not quite sure who on your crew would like to do the basic introduction for us. Hi, this is Adrian dunk from GCA. And I'm going to start with my presentation. I'm going to start with my presentation. I'm going to start with my project. I'm going to begin sharing my screen. So the property of interest is 29 mill lane. It's located at the corner of mill lane and West street near graph park. The reference. The plan involves the installation of a tennis court at a particular area where the tennis court will be going is in the northeast corner of the property. This is the plan that was submitted. Our existing conditions include a barn. And a paved driveway. And a fence along the edge of this field. A wetland delineation was conducted in the fall of 2020. And a wetland was delineated at the. In the fall of 2020. The land of the field and a stream was delineated. It's not depicted in this screen, but it's further south. Because the project requires a building permit. We included the 50 foot no touch zone on our map. And then that's the 100 foot wetland buffer zone for the BVW. As we move over to our, our proposed conditions, it includes the tennis court, the field, a surrounding fence. Minor grading is proposed to make a flat surface. The field is already relatively flat. However, it'll just be. Leveled out materials proposed to be reused. On site. Any excess will be disposed off site. And a drain, a perforated pipe with gravel or French drain is disposed off site. So that's where we'll be able to convey. Any runoff. Around the court. On the downhill side, minor grading is proposed. It will be at a three to one. Grade and stabilized in place following. Grading completion with matting and seeding. Standard soil erosion instead of in control practices are proposed. All of this work, the grading, the silt fence, the tennis court is located outside of that 50 foot no touch zone. So that's really it. The project is rather minor and entirely in upland. Okay. Thank you, Adrian. Okay. So, Aaron, would you like to add your comments at this point? Yes. Yeah. The first thing is that DEP did provide comments to us. And in the DEP comments, there was mention of. They always do a review of the, the aerial imagery. And they indicated that there was evidence that. There had appeared to be a swale located on the property previously. And let me just apologize. Let me just. Is it okay if I take over share on this? Absolutely. Okay. All right. So here's the comments from DEP false cover. Imagering imagery does suggest additional areas that may be determined to be BVW. So the aerial show a swale on the eastern portion of the property. And so he, they, this, these things were called out to us. And Adrian did provide a response to that in writing, which is great. When I went out to look at the property. This is basically what it looked like. And this is the aerial imagery from 2019. It shows a fence line here. This is like a lawn area. It does look like there's some disturbance there. But anyways, the. Issue that Mark Stinson was talking about, I'm just going to get the. It's going to let me, I don't think it's going to let me mark this up actually. Oh, there we go. Annotate. Is this. Swale that you can see here. So when I was out there. I'm just going to flip through this. It was, it was really wet. It had just rained. And these are, these are Brett's photos. Sorry about that. So it had just rained when I was out there and there was. Just annotate again here. So this is the, this is right here, the channel. It looks like that the channel has been relocated. To running along the fence line previously it ran. I think maybe through the fence line or maybe on the right hand side of the fence line. But it was running, there was water running in it. It was flowing from. To the south. What I believe is a wetland on the north side of the property down through this swale, which was providing a hydrologic connection to the wetland to the south. And so there you can see again, you can see the water in the center area there flowing down. And once it reached sort of the end of the swale. Which is kind of here. What was happening is it looked like the water was then flowing down to the north side of the property. And so it was. These, these are the photos that were taken of the wetland that is to the north that I believe is, is a jurisdictional wetland that was not included on the plans. What was that fence for? What, what does that fence delineate? It delineate the new fence that was installed delineates a new lawn that was installed. So it looks like what happened was. It was. Graded out at some point in time. And why isn't it letting me go backwards? The swale was graded and. Lawn was put in and a fence line was put in. And then the swale was recreated on the other side of the. On the other side of the fence. And actually, I don't know. Do you remember that last picture? Yes. Yes, it is. Yeah. I, I did a little comparison here. And Eric, you remind me when the earlier. Aerial photo was from. 2012. Well, okay. Yeah. So happened sometime after 12. Yeah. So the. The red arrow here points to the fence. That is new. The red circle is the area that was graded and seeded. And then the red. Rectangle here is the re recreated swale. Coming down. But you know, you can see it in the 2015. Imagery. Circle there kind of. Messy, but you can see the swale. Existing. In 2015 and then again in 2013, 14, you can see the swale. And then this, this arrow on the top points to the location that I believe to be another wetland that was not shown. Now. To last fall, we had had a drought all summer. So, you know, it's. You know, it's quite possible that there, it just looked like a low lying area when they went out to delineate. And then that wetland to the north. You know, maybe it was not detectable. I know it's located off property. So. You know, those are issues, but considering the potential that there was a violation that occurred on the property and also the fact that there was wetlands. On site that I could identify that we're not shown on the plan. So I would. Definitely recommend that the commission consider a peer review just to. Review the site. And I do recommend that we, that we. Restore the swale. And I think that with the guidance of a peer reviewer, I would recommend that the commission consider a peer review. So that we can resolve this all in one shot. Restore the swale. If you guys feel comfortable approving the tennis court, if they. I know I spoke with the applicants representative that they were thinking about putting in a little stream crossing. So that they don't damage the swale further with foot traffic. Any of the above or all of the above. So I would recommend that the commission consider a peer review. And I would recommend that the commission consider a peer review. And if we can work collaboratively to try to resolve this, I think that's always a good way to go. Okay. Thank you, Aaron. So yeah, sometimes one thing leads to another. So do the applicants have any. Reactions to what Aaron was saying there. No, I, I agree with Aaron on the. The offsite wetland we at the time we were delineating. We weren't overly looking on that side. The tennis court got shifted over to the West during the process. And that wetland was offsite. I did see it earlier. And it looked far enough away at the time that we didn't delineate it. Plus it was offsite. So we didn't delineate an offsite wetland on someone else's land. But I'm not in disagreement that. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm not in disagreement with that. I'm not in disagreement with that. That well into the North is jurisdictional or potentially jurisdictional. If you were able to overlook really investigate it. So that's the thing we can easily add to the plan with some GPS points. But yeah, as, as for the. Swale slash potential enforcement. Yeah, I don't know how you want to do that. We can either come up with a plan first and then we can peer review it and then we, like you said, we can work collaboratively with the peer reviewer. I think the applicants just probably looking for the. Fastest resolution. So whatever I think. It's the quickest to. To get to an endpoint. It's probably the most preferable. Okay. And then, so given that this is a swell, that is outside of jurisdiction. Is that correct? Aaron? I mean, because you're saying that was flowing when I was out there today, there was no water flow. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if you want to be clear on what you're suggesting the. Status of that soil would be. Yeah. So I would have classified it as an inner intermittent stream because it was flowing from one. Wetland to another. And there was a hydrologic gradient and it was definitely flow in it. So as far as the. Definition of an intermittent stream in the regs. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I agree. I didn't come up with hydrologic soil. Hydrologic soils, which makes sense because the area was disturbed and. Regrated and probably Phil brought in. So they might not be able to detect them. Same with vegetation. This whale was disturbed and relocated. And we also had a really dry summer last year. There might not be evidence of vegetation in there, but there was definitely. Indicators of hydrology that I documented when I was out there. And I really liked that. So the one that we also. Tells that story, which DEP picked up on as well. Okay. So, so Aaron, you're talking, you're saying with that swale, like one option would be to re. Repurpose that swell or make it. So where are you saying where that fence line? So I was there to this morning as well. That. Swale is operating where they crop. So it's along the black chain link fence. And that swales operate and then it actually gets flat and that looks like it was filled in. And then at the bottom of it is wet again. So it's like kind of going subsurface. Yes. So are we talking about that particular area or are you talking about on the other side of the black fence where the lawn is because they have an outflow now from the driveway that's also feeding into that area as well? So I'm just trying to make it like, so I'm just trying to think of like if there's a way to fix the swale, would we be talking about like actually re, like fix that spot to the south of the swale where you cross that goes into the Southern wetland? Is that like an option or something? I'm just trying to think of what the swale operability or functionality would look like. Yeah. I mean, from where I sit, it would basically be reestablishing the swale exactly where it was before to the best that we can do. And that might mean that that lawn area where the fence line is, because it looks like the swale previously ran almost directly down that fence line. That might mean having to take that out. What I saw when I was out there was the water flowing down and then going subsurface as you described, Fletcher. And then it comes over where it used to be and you can actually almost see it on the aerial image where it used to be. You can almost see the hydrology right now happening down here in the aerial image if you look really closely at it, but because what's happening now is that water's coming down and it's carving out that lawn anyway and coming down into the wetland. The other thing that's a little, I mean, and really it's up to the board how you want to handle this, but from what I could tell the wetland line, and this is approximate, but it goes like this and then stops. And I would be very suspicious that the wetland line continued like this and that fill was brought in and the swale was filled. Sorry, that's probably not the right location, but just to get a sense of that and the owner may not have even known what that was wetland because it looks like a field and it's got kind of wet meadow characteristics, but in fact it's classified as a wetland. So like I say, I don't know how far you want to take this, but I think at least having somebody professionally represent the commission to give it a second look and a recommendation as to how to proceed would be the way to go. Erin, it seems kind of strange to me to fill it in and then move it five feet in the other direction. Because I mean, there is a swale there, it's not connected, it needs, it should be connected. So right at where the gate is, that's where the barrier is, but it seems kind of strange that they would move it. It's definitely possible, stranger things happen. So these are the owners on right now. Are we allowed to say something and give you what we know? Please. So we only moved it because, oh, and we didn't move it, but we redirected by the along the side of the barn, the new barn, which isn't shown in the picture that you have right now, that's the older barn, because there's now a driveway in front of it and the water was just, it's like what I was told is it was runoff from the street that was coming down. And so what we tried to create was that French drain, is that what you call it with the stones? And then the, just to redirect it because it was playing along the side of the pavement. So, but we didn't bring in any fill or dig out and create a new swell. Yeah, that was exactly the way it was. And we just put the fence line down along the edge of it. Well, yeah. Are you guys talking about the out that, you guys put a pipe, there's like an outflow. Well, that's from underneath the driveway. And yeah, you saw it in the beginning. That's from underneath the driveway. It never came across what was presented. It didn't come across down to that drain. That drain was put in after the, you know, while the driveway was being built so that there was a place for all the water to go along the backside of the big old barn. What year did you purchase the property? 2017. Okay, so all of this could have very well happened. Yeah, before you. Yeah, that's possible, I suppose. I, it was pretty overgrown and. There were chickens and goats. Chickens and goats out there. That were just roaming. And that area that you said was disturbed right, right by the barn. That was, that was basically where the, the chickens and the goats were hanging out. I mean that whole area was just kind of overgrown and we just cut it down. And that was it. And then planted grass. Well, the previous owner used to cut it down too. Yeah. I mean, that's what we know. So. Yeah, but we didn't, we, the only part was up at the North side by the actual new car garage where the pavement was put. And that was the only spot that they, that they may have touched the swell to, to move it over. I don't think it was a swell or whatever that. Yeah, the runoff. We have a picture of the aerial with the current wetland delineation. That shows a 30, 50 and 100. Do you want to have the applicant put it back up or do you want me to grab it? Oh, I'm just asking. Or is there, I think that would be a little bit. So we have it for the wetlands that are currently delineated. But my question, maybe this is where you're going to Fletcher's, what happens when these new ones get added? I'm sorry. What happens when new what get added? Once the, the swell is added to the map cause that's not on the map now that wetland to the North that gets added. Then I don't know what the buffer zones are going to look like at that point. I can speak to that. We did sketch in the swell and the wetland to the North. Oh, good. And the tennis court is and the associated grading is over 60 feet away from the sketched in wetland to the North. We didn't GPS it. So it's not definite, but it's definitely it will be outside of the 50 foot. And then we also put in the swell and the tennis court is located about 48 feet from the swell. So it may shift East a couple of feet but it will be able to be 50 feet from all three resource areas without significant revision. You need a crossing to get over the swell. And then a crossing. Yes, instead of a span so that we're not in the swell. And what is being proposed for the, I guess I'll just call it pathway to go from the driveway to the tennis court. Is that a gravel pathway? Is that just mode? It would be a gravel or a stone dust pathway, I believe. They may need to build a tennis court you need some heavier equipment to put down the base material. So they may need to do more of a temporary construction crossing for which would be, if we call it bank, it would be temporary bank impact. But in the end, they could do restoration and just have a span that went over the swell for the permanent crossing. So there wouldn't be like a pedestrians. A span are you talking like for a vehicle span? Like for a lawn mower and pedestrians. So wide enough. Yeah, you get like a riding mower kind of across it. Yeah. And so it probably just do like timber matting or something? Yeah, something like a couple of little stone abutments, not even abutments, like big pieces of stone on either side, outside the bank and span it with timbers. You could just do a timber mat. It'd be probably timber mats. He'd probably pretty, he's bringing in a big boy dump truck in there to get those. You can need a tri-axle dump truck to get in there to get that fill in. You could need some big toys in there. So, well, maybe I'll shut up and let other people talk. So something I'm thinking or what I'm seeing here. So I'm trying to figure out if we don't have to go the enforcement route, like, okay. So we're talking about adding the wetland to the north. We're talking about adding the swell in. We're talking about spanning the swell in some pedestrian way after construction. We still have to deal with the fence. The black chain-link fence is on the swell, which is then, is that in a buffer then? So, you know, I don't know. I'm thinking like repurpose that swell somehow and do some great plantings along that swell. And we have a... And I'm speaking for the applicant without talking to them fully, but my initial thought on it is the swell now goes down and it stops and then it goes. It's not in a defined channel. It kind of hops overland and tries to get back to probably where it originally went before any disturbance on the other. That kind of goes through the fence to the other side, goes through the lawn. I don't know if Adrian, if you can point, or I don't know if actually who has control, but, yeah, you see how there's that dark green kind of finger coming up on the bottom there next to where they'll kind of flow? Or on that one, it's the whitish kind of vegetation change at the very kind of the bottom end of the map where they go over to the right a little bit, right up there, right in there. Like that seems like a natural point to connect the swell to. The swell doesn't connect to there right now. It kind of stops maybe a 50 feet short of that. My thought is to connect the swell to that and make this nice wetland area down there. So the water will now connect back down to the wetland in a defined channel, and you can kind of feather it out so the water will feed in a lower lying area down there and you can plant it with wetland species. And it'll have the hydrology so it'll be feeding from the upper wetland. That's my initial take at it. And there's also a general comment. I can't remember if this was from Stinson or from Aaron about the vegetation management within the BVW. And so there really shouldn't be any management. There shouldn't be any mowing or that sort. So that'd be something else to add to either your proposal or we can do that as a condition. You're talking about the 30 foot Stinson. That was in the DEB, no. Yeah, because I think, yeah. I mean, it's definitely being mowed closer to that. I mean, it was being mowed, yeah. The resource area itself is being mowed right now. Not just the buffer zone, but the wetland itself is being mowed. I mean, my comment, my comments on this are if an applicant came before the board to move an intermittent stream, I want to regrade and relocate an intermittent stream to a new location, is that permittable? No. No, so I don't see how we could say, oh, you've without filing a permit, gone in, regraded an intermittent stream and essentially relocated it and then say, oh, but we'll let you recreate this new channel and replant it and call it good. Like, I don't see that that's legal in any way from a wetland protection act standpoint. From where? Issue, Erin, about what's gonna do more damage. I mean, so can this function like the other one did? And if no, then I agree with you. But, you know, would we do more damage by taking out what's there and then trying to redo something that was there that I'm not sure if we can recreate or not? Yeah, I mean, streams flow where they wanna flow and typically go follow groundwater and it's where the groundwater interacts with the surface. So what I observed on the site is that even though there was an attempt to relocate the swale and perhaps have it come out to like a level spreader situation, it just pops right back up where it was and it's still flowing right in the middle of that nice green grass lawn, right where it used to be and that's where it's gonna continue to be and it's gonna continue to just carve that right out. So, I mean, yes. But I mean, Erin, would you be able to identify on the ground where it was before? I mean, I'm looking, I'm seeing something different on the aerial photos than you are. Would I be able to go on the ground and identify exactly where it was? Or maybe not you, but somebody. Because, yeah, again, I can't see why the hell somebody who would rip that up and then move it five feet. And maybe they did, again, I have no idea. Yeah, I mean, what I can see is from what Steve was talking about and I'll just, like what he was just saying was, hold on one second, let me go back. What Steve was saying is take the existing swale and just continue it down along the fence line and you can see this feature right here, this little nub that sticks up, okay. Now, if I go to the, back to the last image, where that is, this is exactly where it is. And you can see that, you can see that on this little, on this aerial image here. So I think measurements could be taken to approximate its previous location. I just, I have a really hard time with, because I deal with enforcement every day. And like literally I've been dealing with so much enforcement from single family home people to, I mean, we've had so many cases and enforcement is a situation where people go out and they do the work and then we have to go back and make them restore it. And usually what we make them do is like, either put it back the way it was before or if it's something that could have been permitted, make them go through the permitting process and then, you know, get some compensation for it. In this case, it's a situation where this never would have been permitted. We, there is no, nothing in the regulations that would allow relocating an intermittent stream. So from a staff standpoint, I could never stand behind that. I mean, the commission can do what it chooses to do, but I just. Yeah, no, it was just more that whole location issue, Erin. So you covered that very well. So I appreciate that. So, yeah. Yeah, I mean, so I think we can kind of proceed a couple of ways. One is, I think that the applicant can, we can do a continuation, applicant can come back with a proposal of what they wanna do. Most likely that will probably, you know, third party review. We can go ahead and bring in a third party reviewer at this point, but I'm not quite sure what they would be reacting to. The more that we can give the third party reviewer, the more helpful and the quicker this will all go. Otherwise there would definitely be some sort of back and forth. I mean, cause we brought in somebody now they can confirm or not confirm what Erin is seeing. So, you know, that would have some utility. So how about other comments from either applicant or town staff or commissioners? I'm not in opposition to anything Erin's saying. I mean, the aerial photos clear what was there in the past and where the water went. I guess the thing is, and I'm fine with the, we can take another look at it and represent something to you. I guess we would just want some direction as to what you would wanna see. The stream back to its original location or something functionally equivalent on this side of the fence, you know, and that discussion. But we don't wanna just come in from the dark and just come in with the plan and they go, no, no, that's not what we were looking for. So, you know, I guess to have some parameters leaving the meeting. So we know kind of where we're going next. So I'll let other commissioners chime in too, but I think that it needs to be restored to original conditions. So does anybody feel otherwise or agree with that or? No, I agree with that. That seems, that makes sense to me. I mean, are there any other, I mean, so obviously we wanna, you know, do this as expeditious as possible. Are there any other major issues that we're seeing? Is there anything that we're missing, Erin? I mean, obviously that's a huge one. Yeah, I mean, if I could just make a recommendation, it would be have GZA remap and come up with what they would suggest. We would have a peer reviewer. In this case, I asked Art Allen for a quote. He gave us a quote, which I think is very reasonable to review it and give recommendations. Having somebody like that, like a professional wetland scientist to give us guidance as to how to bring this back into compliance and how to, you know, work with the applicant to essentially restore this in such a way that makes sense from a regulatory standpoint and an ecological standpoint would be my recommendation. And if the board votes to do a peer review, then we can move a lot quicker with the applicant to negotiate and come up with a plan that's agreeable to all parties and then hopefully, you know, the stream is restored, they get their tennis court and at the end of the day, everybody's happy and everything's functioning. Okay, that makes sense. Any reactions to what Erin was saying? I agree. So, okay. Yeah, so we need a vote, Erin, to authorize third-party review. I would recommend, yes, a vote to authorize third-party review to work with the applicant to revise the plan and resolve this. Okay, and so, yeah, just one more call. See if anybody has any comments or questions before I ask for a motion. Yeah, I don't know if there's any public. I did get a few calls on this from neighbors. So, yeah, if you are here from the public, so thank you, Erin. You can use a little raise hand icon if you'd like to speak. Okay, so looking for a motion then for third-party review to work with GZA on a revised plan for re-establishment. I move we recommend third-party review for 20, ooh, ooh, ooh, files. Thank you, 29, Mill Lane and Brett said a lot of other things that I probably forgot because I forgot the address. Sorry. Third-party review at 29, Mill Lane. What am I missing? We'll work with GZA on the revised plan. Oh, right, yeah, to work with GZA, yeah. Okay, looking for a second. Second. Okay, any further comments? Okay, voice vote, Larry. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Letcher. Aye. Donna. Aye. And I as well. And so with that, we are also looking for a continuation and I mean, I don't know how quickly you guys move or how quickly a third-party reviewer can happen. Two weeks seems pretty tight to me, but if that's what you guys are shooting for. I mean, my recommendation would be, and obviously the applicant can jump in here, but I would recommend that we continue to June 9th and then between now and then staff and the peer reviewer could kind of communicate and try to come up with a recommendation for the board. Is that okay with the applicant? Yes, we'll ask for continuation to June 9th. And what time do we have on that date, Erin? We will say 735. Okay, looking for continuation June 9th, 735. I got it. If we continue this hearing to June 9th at 735. Second. Any further comments? Okay, voice vote, Larry. Aye. Roy. Aye. Letcher. Aye. Donna. Aye. And I for me as well. And so we will see all of you on the ninth and obviously Erin will be in touch with regards to setting up the third-party. Any other questions before? You guys leave? No. No, I don't believe so. Okay, thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay. So we are going to move on. Thank you for whoever reset that. Okay, so we are moving on to our 745, which is a notice of intent for foot bridges on TOA. So is this one being continued as well, Erin? Yes, it is. Okay. And so this is not opened. So do we even need to continue it? Well, what I would ask is that you open it and then continue it pending additional information to be provided. Okay. This hearing is being held as required about the provisions chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and Act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31, wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. This is a notice of intent from the town of Amherst proposal for several new foot bridges, bog bridges replacement foot bridges and replacement bog bridges as well as associated trail improvements in various locations all along the Robert Frost trail, Robert Frost trail right of way. Any discussion that you want to have before we continue this from either Erin or Dave? Okay, so we'll get a formal hearing and we'll open it up and it'll be better if we get all of the information next time that way for folks who are not here and they can hear the full hearing. So without looking for a motion for continuation. I move we continue the public hearing for Robert Frost trail NOI to 6920 21 at 730 p.m. Second. Any further questions or comments? Okay, hearing none, Larry. Aye. Roy. Aye. Anna. Aye. Archer. Aye. And I for me as well. So we will do this again on the ninth. So those are the hearings, but I think that is just the beginning at this point. Erin, which direction will you take us? So I just like to jump into enforcement. We got a couple of enforcement cases like to just give you a quick update on and then the first one really is can't math. I think that we have the owner and owner's representatives here to do some follow up from the site visit and talk about next steps. So if you were here for this, if you want to do, thank you, Tom. And if there's anybody else, I assume Pete. Yeah, he might not be able to raise his hand because he might have called in. So yeah, if it's Pete Wilson, that's the owner. And Bob Stover, is he associated with this one? Yes, he is, yep. Okay, so I'm not quite sure from the applicant side, but does somebody from the applicant side want to give us a update on where things are at? Sure. So for the record, good evening, Tom Rede and Turni with Bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of Wilson Properties, the owner of the Canton F property that's under the enforcement order. Pete Wilson with me, Bob Stover with me this evening. And so, we had the site visit last Friday and my involvement is new really in this. Erin was kind enough to send over some photographs from 2017, 2019, and then obviously the site visit in 2020 and obviously the site visit. Now, so I took a look at those. It would seem that at the least, Wilson Properties in violation of the order of conditions relative to pre-construction meeting, erosion and sediment control, having them installed, et cetera. So, I don't know what's the commission's pleasure here. Maybe it's us taking a stab at looking to potentially revegetate some of the wetlands. I looked at the photos, some of them are tough to scale, to really understand where work was done, if that front-end loader was in the wetlands, it might have been, part of me just says, with all due respect, water into the bridge, how do we bring it into compliance? So, that's the first piece. And then Erin and I at the site visit had a conversation relative to the ongoing efficacy of the order of conditions. And so, Erin and I haven't sent this to you yet because I had just looked it up, but it's chapter 53 of the Acts of 2020. So, what Governor Baker and then the legislature did was effectively told any permit that was, or approval that was in existence when the pandemic hit. And what you do is it's told until the end of the state of emergency, which to my understanding is still going on. And so there is currently an order of conditions for the property. Obviously, we've gotta think about understanding that it's gonna expire at some point when the state of emergency ends and we have to do the math to figure out how long after it's going to expire. So, that's on front of my mind that I'm gonna talk to Pete about, but just for the commission's knowledge, there is an effective order of conditions on the property. I would suggest let us take this back and maybe Erin, you and I can talk offline and whether it's Bob Stover or I get Mickey Marcus or Andy Bone or somebody like that to take a look to see what it is that we could do on the site satisfactory to the commission. I mean, I think that's what I would suggest that we do. So, I don't know what your sense is here. Okay, thank you, Tom. Anything else from the applicant's side before I turn it over to Erin? Okay, Erin. Can you hear me? Oops, yes. Okay, I can't see on my screen exactly how I could get my camera, get on your video. We can hear you. Okay, good. So, yeah, I agree with what's been said. And I think that the work that has been done by the Wilson's previously was, should not be thought of as construction work, but rather as a brush clearing and some tree clearing of trees that they considered to be dangerous. Not that they should have done that without the permission of the Conservation Commission, but it wasn't really the commencement of a construction project. Certainly looked like they were clearing the lot to do something. It might give that appearance, I suppose, but their position is that they were simply clearing brush and trees that represented the danger. Okay. Erin, and so, if I could, Mr. Chair. So, Erin, I'm looking at the draft motion and I don't see any issue with it. I guess my question would be, and this is probably my naivete, does the approved plans allow any disturbance of the 30 foot for any driveway? So, the question really is, are we gonna be restoring something only to disturb it again in the future when it's time to put a driveway in? That would be my only concern. And it's just me not knowing the plans well enough, frankly. Yeah. So, is it okay for me to, I don't wanna interrupt the applicant. But has everybody kind of said their piece at this point? Okay. So, just to kind of respond to the comments that have been made so far. So, the first thing I wanna talk about is the automatic sort of extension is what I'll call it through the state of emergency. So, I understand that. And that is what the law states. And we were, thank you for making me aware of that, Tom. And I did speak to DEP and that's their understanding as well. We haven't gotten a read from town council about it yet, but that's my understanding. So, understanding that, I also asked DEP about whether we could revoke the order of conditions considering the violation. And that is an option as well in the general conditions of the order that we could revoke it. So, I'm just putting that on the table because there was a long period of time where there was no response, no action taken and we were requesting action taken on enforcement or were basically ignored. So, I don't wanna suggest that we do that. I'm just saying that's an option. The restoration of the wetland, the wetland was not proposed to be destroyed as part of the subdivision. There was a proposal to put a driveway going around. And again, it would have been to Tom's point, it would have been partially located within the buffer zone to the wetland. And I agree. If the commission is comfortable with this subdivision moving forward under the law as it's currently active, then they wouldn't want to require the applicant to restore the driveway access because that would be a complete waste of time and money. So, it really kind of speaks to what the commission's feeling is on how to deal with the situation. I am very apprehensive about this and I'll just give you some reasons why I'm apprehensive about this permit. The owner who purchased this property with the intent to develop it told me they had never even seen the plan when they sent the folks, the tree clearing folks and the earth removal or earth moving folks in to Paul Stump's. They had never even looked at the permit when they sent people in there. So, that's number one. They never contacted the town to notify us work was started starting. They never posted a DEP file number. There was no erosion controls installed. They basically completely ignored the order of conditions and just went in and started clearing. And then the order of conditions, I believe was issued in November and here we are, it is May 12th and we just got the wetland reflagged to take action. So, I don't buy, I'm just gonna be totally honest. I don't buy that these were hazard trees. I think that they did not follow the order of conditions and now we have to restore this wetland and move forward accordingly. So, that's kind of my feeling on it but I agree with Tom that if the commission is comfortable keeping the order of conditions as it stands that we should not have them restore the driveway area but if the commission is comfortable keeping the order of conditions I think that the area that was made to be beyond the limit of work should be restored as well as the wetland. Thank you, Erin. Okay, commissioners, thoughts, questions. I agree with Erin. We get a full restoration plan what we were talking about but the part about the driveway makes sense. But we need to be able to follow the plans that we agreed upon that we went over a year almost a year with dealing with these plans to get where they are now before they were sold and moved over to a new ownership. So, I agree with Erin about the driveway issue. So, but we need to stick with what we, we hashed this out a long time ago and I think we gotta stick with it. So, basically if I can paraphrase you Fletcher to restore the pieces that should not have been disturbed and then in general allow work to go forth that's in compliance with the original plan. Yeah. Okay, how about other commissioners? I'm just rereading the draft motion. I agree with Erin and Fletcher as well. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense to me about the driveway. I'm not quite sure that Erin and Fletcher are saying the same thing. Oh, sorry. So, I could be wrong. I don't want to put any words into your mouth, Erin. Yeah, I'm not suggesting that the commission revoke the permit. I'm just saying on the table when the commission allowed this permit to expire. Right. Knowing that no one was responding to the enforcement order thinking, okay, if no one's responding to this enforcement order we're going to allow this permit to expire and take no action. That's very different than revoking in order of conditions. I'm just stating those are the commission's options. Restore it and restore it taking into account the driveway location or revoke the permit and restore it. I thought the first thing was what they were both saying. Sorry. Restore it and take the driveway into account. Was my thought. Okay. Fletcher, you looked like poised to say something and I cut it, sorry. All right. Yeah, I mean, I'm also in agreement that this project has not gone well and I'm also worried that this was the easier of the two parcels as well by far. And truthfully, once all of this happened on this one I couldn't even remember this parcel because we spent so much time on the other one. So that definitely causes some pause on my side. Yeah, I mean, what we're looking to do is get them in compliance with what it was originally. But yeah, it's been like, it's been a long road. Larry or LaRoy? I'm still confused on which one might be better, which way to go. I'm leaning a little towards revoking but I was not on the commission for the original amount of work. It does sound like you guys spent a lot of time. I could go either way. Yeah, I wouldn't let that sort of weigh in on us. I mean, it's also, we definitely had a lot of discussion. Again, it was more on the other one. I don't know if Fletcher feels more ownership than I do. But. Right, I can drag my memory again. We've let this expire. That's what we did. Yeah, and there were communications too, yeah, about this or they knew about it and yeah. We never got anything back. No, I remember that part. I forgot about the exploration. Right, that's one of the things that bothered me is the unresponsiveness in this process. Well, it was obvious that, yeah, it was, right. Yeah, and I mean, depending on how we move forward, I'm also, I guess it depends on which path we move forward. But making sure that the original conditions get restored and yeah, seeing who's involved in all of that process as well. And so, I mean, so it was fairly clear. I don't know. So I think Tom was saying, he's not quite sure if that piece of equipment was in the wetland. There definitely are tracks of some machine that looks very similar to that machine in the wetland. So if it wasn't that one, there was another one back there. Yeah, and I think what I'm trying to say is horses out of the barn, so to speak. Not that it makes it right, but we are where we are, restoration is on the table. As is those other, what I would consider violations just not having to pre-construct. I mean, you know, I've done this plenty of times with plenty of developers and there was a sequence and frankly, Pete and I hadn't had any conversations prior to any of this happening. And I don't wanna say I will be there step by step because I don't know that I can make that representation, but maybe understanding that, yes, the commission had done a significant amount of work on this. Yes, there was a violation. The order is, thanks to this, and I'll call it a permit extension act even though that's not the technical name of it, the order is still in effect. Understanding that lack of responsiveness, regardless is never a good way to do business. But maybe giving the applicant another opportunity with tighter deadlines and maybe more check-ins and I don't wanna make more work for Erin and I know how much she has already, but just trying to think about, is there another way to do it, to restore it, to allow the disturbance, like so not to restore what was going to be disturbed and then just to put those finite deadlines on it like that, the restoration plan August 1st and maybe another check-in in June or July, something like that just to make sure that if so far it has been a breach of trust amongst other things, but the breach of trust, is there a way, and again, not to overburden the system, but is there a way to try to keep them honest, so to speak? That would be one of the suggestions instead of just revoking the permit and then I mean, you know what that's gonna entail then and then it's reflagging the wetlands, it's going through this all over again with another engineer, with a peer reviewer, with the neighbors being notified and you're in it and they're in it for a pick a number of months, if not longer. So that would be my suggestion, but obviously what the commission decides we'll have to go with. Is it okay if I jump into Tom's comment because I agree with almost all of what Tom just said and I noticed that Pete said his hand up for a while. So Erin why don't you go and then Pete can go. Okay. I agree with almost all of what Tom just said. I have a couple things. I mean, the first is that if the commission was to, you know, proceed with this subdivision and that we put some tighter controls on it of some sort like a third party monitor or something to get out there and monitor the site regularly while construction's going on, something like that, which is something that I have done before and I'm definitely in favor of. For example, holding either holding an escrow and having the town have a third party get out there to do it or require the applicant to do that. So that's one thing and I'm not opposed to that. That's been a good solution in the past. The other thing I observed out there that I think the commission should be aware of and I don't know if other commissioners noticed this on the site as it was. The tree clearing that took place really had the effect of a backfiring because the site is now quite a bit wetter and the wetland has expanded. If you, on the site, what I observed was that the wetland is moving in this direction and the wetland is moving in this direction. I don't know if anybody else noticed that. But the wetland is already expanding and I think that the, you know, that's what wetlands do. Wetlands expand and also the result of tree clearing, people often think removing trees is going to dry it out because it's going to get more sunlight, but there's less vegetation to draw up the water and so the site becomes more wet. And how do we account for that? Because the site is definitely more wet and you can see it from their skunk cabbage going beyond the flagging on both of those areas that I noted. So that's a big concern of mine. Okay, so Pete, you've been very patient. So thank you, Pete, please. Pete, you're on mute. So there should be a unmute button somewhere. I don't know if I can, yeah, I can mute people, but I can't unmute. Okay, there you go, Pete. You should be able to speak now. You're there, Pete. Yeah, it says that you're unmuted. So you should be good there. Okay. Yeah, so Pete, if you can get the audio or something working, let us know. Okay, so yeah, I did notice that too, Erin, when we're out there. It's nature, it's in flux, but I'm not quite sure what we wanna do about that. Erin, can you give me a quick rundown on what the pros and cons of revoking would be? The cons would be that they could come right back with this plan and start back from square one and obviously a great deal of work went into this. Hello, Pete. We have a very, I mean, the guy who designed this, Bucky Sparkle, he's excellent engineer. So I'm sure that it was designed well. And so are we duplicating work basically that has already been done, I think is the big question. I, it's very difficult for me to backtrack as a staff person and say, you know, this would have been permitted this way with my review because I'm a different person and I might find differences in the application or require revisions that weren't made before. So that's one thing. And also if wetlands have expanded or wetlands have changed, it gives us an opportunity to revisit that. That's what I was wondering, was it changed? Yeah, I'm kind of curious to get Tom's take on the wetland expanding and how we would deal with that if considering what's happened and how you would recommend that we take that into consideration if we kept the existing subdivision. Yeah, and I think, I mean, to me, quite candidly, that's probably the pro of revoking is that you might get another bite at the apple to re-delineate what that wetland is. And so as you were talking, I was thinking, what's the, what could we do? And so maybe what we do is go out and see how it has expanded and frankly what that does because it's a driveway as I understand it, that's going to go along where that wetlands have expanded. And again, not knowing all of the details of the plan, of the grading of that driveway, of the shoulders of the driveway, of the turning radio, like, you know how complicated these things can get. If we can include those as wetlands with, and maybe have to shift it over a little bit without detrimentally impact, like finding that balance, I guess I'll say as simply as I can, spending Pete's money simply enough, I don't see an issue with that. I think that might be a way to at least acknowledge the wetlands expanse while not stopping the project. And so hopefully that's a way to balance it. And I would suggest that that's probably a fine way to do it. So would you see that as an amendment to the order? Yeah, I think we could do that. I think we could come in, or whether it's under, Mickey Marcus always says enforcement orders are one of the best things out there because you can do a lot under them. And so whether under the, we just do that under the enforcement order. Maybe that's one of the solutions is that we go out, look to not only have those, so the flags have been hung, we go out and say, okay, where I'll have the wetlands expanded to, let's pick those up on the either GPS or survey, probably survey, figure out how that impacts things. And then as part of this enforcement order, see if anything, any of the engineering needs to shift as a result of that. And so I think under the enforcement order instead of an amendment might be fine to do. Yeah, I mean, so looking at what's happening out there, just being in the field, it doesn't really seem like the driveway is gonna be too impacted. I'm not sure, I don't know why, just through luck, but it doesn't seem to be expanding that direction, at least what I was seeing, but particularly sort of on the top side of this, I don't know what that does to the building areas that are being proposed. We have a stormwater as well. I think that's an important consideration because there's some type of stormwater structure there, detention basin or something, and groundwater can definitely impact detention basins. I mean, so let me just stop what I'm doing here and take a look. I mean, I think what's difficult is we don't have the owner on the line. We can't really get a confirmation from the owner as far as, you know, they're buy-in to exactly what we've been discussing here. We can try again. So technically we do have them on. So Pete, would you be able to try again? So he muted himself or somebody muted him. Pete has called me. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. And the first thing he wanted me to say is that during the intervening months after the November meeting, and actions were being taken to try to get someone out there to meet the requirements of the enforcement order. To my knowledge, we didn't do a great job of communicating that to you. And so I regret that. He believes that he did communicate to Aaron that he was attempting to get this Bob Lomate to put this into his schedule that didn't go too well. And it was a relief to learn that another company had gone out and reestablished the flags that we saw at our meeting. It seems to me that we need to present some kind of analysis as to what the damage to the wetland consisted of. And proposals to restore the damage that was done. It certainly seems to me that any enlargement of the wetland area ought to be delineated and submitted to you for your approval and consideration. But I think it's a good question as to whether we have buy-in from the applicant. And I certainly hope so. Okay. Yeah, so I definitely agree with the idea. I mean, I definitely really liked the idea of basically it being reflagged or the expansion being added to it. I think that's great. So if we have a mechanism in doing that, maybe that under the enforcement order or something else, that's great. And also don't forget the first enforcement that we have is just for the reestablishment of initially just the current or the previous flagging. Exactly. So that is something that we need to, state that we're okay with or not okay with. Once we can get through that, then there's issues about restoration. Then there's issues about how we continue with the project. So it is a multi-stage thing. So Dave? Yeah, thanks, Brett. I just wanted to get a few things out there. And some of this might be, I should have added a few moments ago. And I support the commission moving towards some resolution. I strongly support the commission moving towards some resolution. I'm not advocating to revoke anything at this time. But number one, I want to just, I want to support Erin's assessment of this situation and her timeline 100%. Some of the things that were said earlier in this meeting about what went on out in the field, I'm troubled by. In my time with the commission and I've been with the town over 15 years, this is one of the more egregious situations that I've ever kind of been a part of and something we don't see a lot in Amherst. So I think we want to move toward resolution, but I really want to emphasize the seriousness of what's gone down out in the field. From a staff standpoint, and I supervise Erin and many other people on the town side. And I want Bob and other people the applicant in particular to know that this is consuming a tremendous amount of staff time. And I think we need to move this toward resolution as soon as we can. I think from the commission standpoint and the town standpoint, we also have to think about the trust that the community, the neighbors, the abutters put in the commission and the staff to move this toward resolution. And I'm not going to go into specifics about what has been said about the timeline, but I want to stand firmly behind what Erin believes and said about the timeline that she outlined earlier in this call. I also want to say that I think I'm troubled by, and I hope we're not getting into a situation where things are done out in the field. And then after the fact, where applicants are kind of asking for forgiveness, I think we need to not go in that direction. So I'm looking to those folks representing the owner that we moved toward resolution on this. And I think I'll stop there, but this is consuming a tremendous amount of the commission's time and staff time. And I think we need to move this along as quickly as possible toward a resolution that makes sense for protecting the wetlands and also moving along to other things. So thanks. Yeah, and to emphasize one thing that you were saying there about this being unprecedented, at least in my time on the commission, I can't recall us ever issuing fines before. And so this was one of the first times that we've done that in a very long time, maybe if ever I've heard, I'm not sure. So, okay. So something about moving forward with Aaron, you want to bring up this number seven here that you just, this is something that we can add into it. Is this a consideration we can do? Yeah, I'm suggesting this. And again, I'm not saying that that's the end of the discussion once we get the delineation back. I'm saying that's sort of the beginning of the discussion in terms of how can we flex this subdivision plan to include either a redesign if needed, like if now wetlands have meandered, migrated, such that there are engineering considerations that need to be reevaluated. Once we see those changes to the wetland, that determination would need to be made. And or we would need to reevaluate if then we have an outside monitor who's monitoring this site as work is going on. But I think we need to see where those changes are. So for example, if the wetland has minor changes to it just in that one specific area and no engineering changes are necessary, then maybe the engineered plans don't change. However, we may still want to have a monitor out there monitoring, doing weekly monitoring reports during construction, something to that effect while construction's going on. But I do think that we need to make a motion. We need to revise the enforcement orders under both the Wetlands Protection Act and the general bylaws for the town. We need to make clear that we need to have a restoration plan prepared and we need to have a date certain of when that's going to be brought before the board for review and approval. We need to have a date certain for when plantings are gonna be installed to restore that wetland and kind of have benchmarks that need to be met. And if those benchmarks aren't met, then at that point you guys could kind of reevaluate how you want to move forward. Yeah, so there's nothing in what you said, Erin, that I disagree with. It's just more of an issue of sort of timing. And I don't know, again, I guess I'm in favor right now of staging this. So with the first piece being the demarcation of the expansion and a revised map so that we can look at things. And then based on that information, then I think we can move forward with other pieces of the restoration plan and eventually if it goes that direction with the construction plan. You couldn't do that all in one. Like, you know what I mean, Brett, like have somebody that does review this wetland, but then that's like a peer review. They have to review the construction plan and they can give, yeah. I don't know. Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, can we just knock all that out with one because if we're gonna ask for a certify another wetland scientist to go out there or review the current expansion of those wetlands so if that is the case, which I think everybody's agreeing on, then that same person then has to make the recommendations. It's to reflect if those expanded wetlands are gonna change anything in the current expired plan we have. I'm just trying to, I hear you about timing. I'm wondering if we can get that out of the way with one request. In Fletcher, I don't know that, I mean, so the wetland scientist is going to determine whether or not the wetlands have expanded, but I don't know that they're gonna determine what the potential engineering implications of those changes would be. So when I think wetland scientists, it's probably go out, figure out where the flags are, how they've expanded, and then there's still the restoration subject to maybe that wherever that driveway was going to be maybe not being, because I think we have to present the plan by August 1st for the restoration as well. And so to me, it's the wetland scientist maybe doing both of those things, going out, reflagging, getting that updated plan, and then also presenting a restoration plan. And so we've gotta have both of those things to you. It looks like by August 1st, 2021, and then you look at it and say, okay, you know, and we're gonna see it. And we're gonna say, and I'm gonna say to Pete, shoot, like that now you're outside of this buffer zone or you're inside this buffer zone and it's gonna change these things. So you gotta get an engineer. And so practically speaking, to keep moving along, especially understanding, we've gotta get the plantings in by October 10th, you know, we may go out and do that work to get the engineer to look at it ourselves. But I just think just to separate kind of like the roles and responsibilities. Yeah, I was thinking out loud, yeah. I think you're spot on though. Yeah, I think that's kind of a good compromise where, yeah, so the initial piece would be related to delineation and restoration plan. And then leaving the construction engineering plan to a later piece once we can see what the implications are or are not. We don't know what they're. So I tried to kind of wordsmith this a little bit just to take into account the discussion that was going on. So I'm leaving out the restoration at this point and the plantings. But if you guys wanna add that back in, we can. But this is just to say that revise the existing enforcement order to require the owner to have a certified wetland scientist evaluate the existing wetland flagging and where the wetland has expanded and have the plan evaluated for engineering to determine whether a revised plan is needed to account for changes to the wetland boundary both shall be presented to the Conservation Commission by August 1st. Once the new boundary is determined, the commission shall determine the appropriate path forward for the, maybe for the enforcement order and the subdivision. The only piece I'd like to see added in there, Erin, is back August 1 to have a restoration plan submitted as well. Okay. So we can then keep the restoration plan. So what you're saying is you want it to be basically three-fold. They evaluate the wetlands, see where they've expanded. They check it for engineering to see if there's any changes needed to the subdivision to account for the wetland boundaries changing. And then the third would be that a restoration plan is also prepared and submitted to the commission on that same date. Yeah, and it's really one in three that personally I'm most interested in first. The engineering piece that they're gonna have to deal with, they want that done back. I don't care when that's done by. That's up to the applicant to decide. I mean, we will need that before we move forward, but I am most interested in just getting that restoration piece. And for what it's worth, I'd say keep it in there. Keep that engineering piece in there because I think it's gonna help everybody. I'm fine with it either way. So it doesn't hurt me any. I agree. Keep it in there. Okay. Yeah, and with the restoration piece, Erin, if we could just make that just a general statement about a restoration plan, because it might need to be more restored than just the flags A1 to A7. So to restore any altered wetlands, if you can knock out the square footage too, because I'm not sure if we know what that's for. So we have to include that for the enforcement order, but if more is discovered, we can revise the enforcement order again, but we have to estimate the resource area that was lost for the enforcement order. Okay. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. I do. Okay. And then that means that four on down will save those for another time. Or is that, some of that looks, wait, I'm a little. I mean, why not just keep it all? I mean. I guess the only thing would be four, we're gonna, once we do one through three, then we'll know whether we'll, that will give us the action items, right? So first we're getting the plans to you, we'll be back to you by August 1st. And then even if you just say, you know how Erin says, shall determine the appropriate path forward for the enforcement order, maybe that's where you include generally the number four, five is a duplicative so you don't need that. Six can be in there, but obviously you can obviously address that August 1st. You know, five can stay in and seven can stay in. Keep it. I think you just said that, didn't you? Yeah, keep the whole thing. So, and just to point out that if at any point, you know, like say August 1st, we come back and we need to revise this plan, the commission feels comfortable revising these dates. We can do that at that time or revise the plan at that time. This is just to kind of lay out the groundwork for how to move forward, I think. Okay. Yeah, I am comfortable with this. So, how do other commissioners feel? So anybody from the applicant side? I'm gonna open up to the public in a sec. When you know where I sit on this, so I appreciate you working with us on this one, hearing everything that's been said. Thank you. And if there's anybody from the public, you can use your raise hand. I'm not sure, Erin, how people who call in, if you call in, you can't. I think there's a, like you can push a button on the phone to raise your hand maybe. I haven't called in, so I'm not sure. I haven't either. So we can allow them to talk. Is somebody raising their hand? I can't see. Nope, nobody is. So we'll have to test that someday. Okay. Oh, now somebody is raising their hand. Oh, this is it. Yeah, it's in a butter, I think. So, yep. So, Alex, you should be able to speak at this point. Hi, my name is Alex Har, I live in Amherst. When I visited the site, I talked with neighbors and I'm going to speak for them. If they are on, they can verify, but there's a lot of water running off the site onto the road into people's front yards. It's causing problems. Is there some way that that can be mitigated while all this is going on so that that inconvenience to the neighbors stops? And I don't live there. But when I did go look, I happened to talk to folks who live on the downhill side of where this clearing took place. It was the first thing they talked to me about. And I don't know if that falls in your bailiwick or not, but that's my question is whether or not something can be done to alter the water flow off the site. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Alex. No, not necessarily that, but I mean, one thing we might consider is putting up a silt fence or something along those lines to help mitigate. And so do you know, Alex, if that is flowing towards Canton Avenue or a different direction? No, it flows right down off the site where the equipment was going up to clear trees. It comes right down there. There's nothing to hold it back and it comes right onto the road. Okay. It crosses the road and enters people's front yards. Okay, so that'd be on the Canton Avenue side. Okay. Yeah. Okay, excellent. Thank you. So Erin, does adding in the order to install some sort of silt fence or something along those lines make sense? Would that be useful or permissible? Yeah, I would suggest installing a sock probably. I mean, a sock isn't going to hold back water though. Oh, you have to like put a sock with like straw bales or something, like something like back it up. My recommendation would be either staked straw bales end to end or staked hay bales end to end with a trenched in filter fabric silt fence. I think that combination is going to act as sort of a dam when the water gets moving. For how long? It sounds like that's something that's going to occur forever. Yeah, I mean, and unfortunately that's what happens when wetlands get cleared and also lots get cleared is that you're displacing water that was getting previously absorbed, but at least for the time being as a temporary solution until we can do something more. I think installing erosion and sediment control barrier consisting of staked straw bales. Sorry, this is a lot of pressure. I know everybody's watching. So Tom, is this something that you guys could probably do? Is this something that you guys could do like ASAP? Yeah, I mean, I'll talk to Pete, but I would expect that he can get those straw bales or hay bales in the filter fabric and then put them in there. I mean, in my mind's eye, I can see where it could, you know, it's just along that entrance like we walked in on the site visit. That's where I would see it along Canton Ave or maybe like up above Canton Ave. And I, again, haven't studied the plans enough to know like in the post development condition or the construction condition what sort of like sediment forebays they have or the tension basins that they have kind of answer Larry's question. Yeah, I think right there. Okay. So Southeast and North sides along Canton Avenue, I think without disrupting the wetland, it's kind of the only option really just kind of exactly as I've annotated there is the only thing that we can really do right now. Yeah, one, okay. So Alex, you should be able to unmute again. Yeah, Aaron and the commission, thank you very much for that. It would be, I would like to suggest that you put in there that they are to stop the runoff rather than telling them how to, you can tell them how to do it. But the danger is that they come back and say, well, we put in the straw bills, I can't help it if the water continues where it has been. Yeah, the problem is that we, so right now there's the cease and desist on the property. We can't just give them an open ended and make the runoff stop because then they could go in there and dig a huge detention basin and say, well, I'm making the runoff stop. Sorry, I asked. I'm putting my hand down. I'm just saying we have to be very specific about what we're asking them to do. Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions on this one? So, okay, anybody have a, anybody wanna go for it? Anybody wanna talk for a little while? All right. Everybody ready? Oh, should I wait till she's done typing? I'm done. All right. I moved to revise the existing enforcement orders under both the Wetlands Protection Act under the town of Amherst General Bylaws, Article 3.31 and the Wetlands Protection Act for the Canton Avenue subdivision to require one, owner shall have certified wetland scientists evaluate the existing wetlands flagging and where it has expanded to have the plan evaluated for engineering to determine whether a revised plan is needed to account for changes to the wetland boundary. Both shall be presented to the commission by August 1st, 2021. Once the new boundaries determined, the commission shall determine the appropriate path forward for the enforcement order and the subdivision. Three, a restoration plan be prepared by certified wetland scientists to restore 1,125 square feet of altered bordering vegetated wetland. Four, restoration of the 30 foot no disturb buffer surrounding BVW shall be presented to the Conservation Commission for approval no later than August 1st, 2021. Five, plantings must be completed by October 10th, 2021. Six, a report shall be submitted upon completion of the plantings. Seven, there shall be two years of monitoring to ensure the success of the plantings to the commission satisfaction. And eight, installing an erosion and sediment control barrier consisting of stake straw bales and filter fabric silt fence along the north, south, north and east side of the property along Canton Ave. Okay, so looking for a second. This is the end. Thank you. Okay, so any comments or questions before we call this to a vote? And Pete, I do notice your hand is up, but I'm not sure, I don't think, I think that's new. Again, I don't think you're able to speak though. So sorry about that. Okay, so not hearing anything. I'm going for a voice vote. Larry, Larry? Aye. Kletcher? Aye. Anna? Aye. LaRoy? Aye. And Aye as well. So it looks like we have a path forward. So I assume that the applicant or applicants reps will be in touch with Aaron. And yeah, be good to see some closure or at least, yeah, progress on this one. Yeah. So thanks everyone. Aaron, if you could just send that language to me as soon as copy, paste it, send it, and I can talk to Pete tomorrow. I'll revise the enforcement order to include this and get it over to you guys. Sounds excellent. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, have a good night. Okay, so we have a couple of other enforcement orders in front of us tonight, Aaron. So I think we should hit next. So I'm just gonna, if it's okay, I'm just gonna give verbal updates. And if anybody wants to see pictures, let me know because I can do that. I just don't want to hold us up longer than I need to for this. 692 South Pleasant Street. This is a site right before I left for leave. There was some tree clearing in the back and they were supposed to be doing some planting and I followed up with them and I went to their property, had a really nice conversation with them. They've planted in the wetland, I believe five trees since the initial site visit. And I believe they took down between four and five. So they've planted five trees in the wetland itself. They've also put a variety of pollinator, the pollinators in the buffer zone. So there's like all different kinds of fruit trees that they've planted lilacs and so forth. And there's wood chips around as well. So I feel like they've done a pretty good job responding to us and I've let them know that if they have any other issues or have any other work that they want to do to reach out to me. So I just kind of wanted to close the loop on that one. Well, one thing that you just mentioned there though, Erin, you said lilacs, I don't think, I assume lilacs are not native. So in general, if they could be planting natives, that would be preferred unless somebody can correct me that lilacs are native. Yeah. They smell so good. Thank you. They're one of my favorites as well, Fletcher. So... That's interesting. And my mom's and my grandma's too. I have a Japanese lilac tree out front that smells great too. I didn't realize lilacs were not native. That's interesting. Well, I don't know. I don't know either. It was kind of an open-ended question. So yeah, just in general. Yeah. We'll find out about lilac. I don't know where. There was only one lilac planted, but that's a very interesting point. I'm gonna look into that. So anyways, I just wanted to let you guys know I did take pictures of the site. If you wanna see them, I could pull them up or we can keep rolling. It's totally up to you. I'm good. I looked at the pictures that were on OneDrive. Oh yeah, I did upload them for you. Okay, good. 214 Pomeran Lane, they have done the planting in the riverfront area and sent me pictures. They're still to do the plantings in the... BVW. But yeah, the riverfront area has been planted and the photos were sent to me of that. So that's good. I just wanted to give you a progress report on that. New enforcement. I mean, I feel like there is just, I'm getting bombarded daily with calls on stuff, but these were a couple that I followed up on. And basically these were ones where letters were sent to the landowners. Landowners certified. One of them, somebody mowed, the 286 West Pomeran, somebody mowed with like a lawnmower through a sort of cat tail marsh slash. It's on the edge of an intermittent stream. They mowed very visible on West Pomeran Lane. Just asked them to speak to me and we need to have a conversation about maintenance of their property. 25 Lantern Lane. I don't know if there was a tree removed or what, but there was some excavation out there. It was reported to me that it was tree removal, but then there was also excavation out there. So also they got a certified letter. And I didn't respond to these with direct enforcement because they were, to be honest, relatively minor landowner things. And I like to resolve those if I can amicably and just speaking to people and kind of getting them to resolve it without going that route. 121 Pondview, I did not visually verify, but I got a complaint of cutting there. And so I did send them a letter saying that I wanted to come out and do a site visit with their permission. I find it interesting that those last three, each of them is a quarter of, less than a quarter of a mile from me. Each of those last three, I can see almost all three of them from here. Are you the one reporting that, Larry? Not completely, I did one. Yeah, the only thing that crosses my mind, I mean, so one, I appreciate you just doing it sort of one-on-one. I think that's definitely the right way to do it, Erin. I don't know if there's an opportunity to get them to put in some sort of permanent monumentation or something, particularly like the mowing people. It seems like that's just gonna be a persistent issue. Well, we will have that opportunity. And I think that's a good solution to ask them to do that as opposed to enforcement. Because I mean, with mowing it's like, I know that it's gonna come up again next year and it's gonna restore itself. And it's not like cutting down a tree where it needs to be replanted. But at the same time, you know, how do we keep them from doing it again and again? And I think that's a good solution putting in permanent markers of some sort. And not just them, it's the next owners and the ones after that as well. Yep. There's a lot of activity that's been going on a 286-plus pomerite. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't know beyond what I saw was, it looked like it had been mowed, but there may be more going on behind or along that you can't see from the road. But I've asked the landowners to reach out to me and they were sent certified letters. So I will. 286-plus pomerite? Will you say, didn't I see some pictures of yours here or what that property was, which is actually a wetlands? It's a vernal pool? It is a potential vernal pool and it's an intermittent stream which flows through it. And I will, since we're asking and talking about it, I will pull that up. So these are the letters that were sent, letting them know that complaint was received, that it was documented, that it's a violation and that they have to get in touch with me as soon as possible. Or that they could be subject to an enforcement order. And then I sent them maps showing, so this is 286 here. I think they own the property next to it as well. Yeah, it's kind of a double. This is just another map of it here. Sorry, this is moving very slowly. And this is- Did they have a beaver pond in their yard? No. So this is kind of a panorama side by side. This is what I would think is mowing. Like they went out there with a lawn mower and- You know, they keep it really neat. They trim up. In fact, if you look a little bit to the right, you see all the wood cutting they've done and so forth. They do make it really look nice, but they do go in there and work on it. So it seems like an opportunity for education. So yeah. Actually, bring this one up with respect to Dave as well. Dave says there's a history on this. Yeah, yep. I mean, I definitely spoke to Dave about this one and where this is one of the ones where, you know, I think Brett's idea about putting in monumentation would be a really good solution to keep them out of the wetland. It really looks nice. There's no doubt about that, but- It depends on what your aesthetics are, Larry. Yeah. I mean, there may be issues going on out there that we're not aware of. Like there may be invasives growing and they're trying to keep them back or something, but at least we'll start a dialogue with the landowner and try to, you know, work with them to protect this wetland. I generally know the history of it all, so I live close enough to with it. I can almost see my property from these pictures. So that's how I left it, but, you know, if people are not responsive, if people, you know, aren't cooperative about, you know, resolving this, then I certainly am not shy to respond with enforcement. And I'll inform you at the next meeting, or you'll see an enforcement order issued at the next meeting. Unless anybody has anything else they wanna talk about, I'll just keep moving. Please. Okay. So we get a request for a minor administrative change to the order of conditions on the Hickory Ridge Solar Array. Look like an improvement overall. Yeah, it is an improvement. Rather than having 12 inches of growth, they're gonna have three feet of growth and they're wanting to do native pollinator species for vegetative screening and red maple substituted for the red maple cultivar and eastern red cedar. Will be substituted for the white spruce. So I mean, these all seem like just totally appropriate minor administrative changes. I would just recommend a motion to accept the minor administrative change proposed by Tom Reedy in the May 10th, 2021 correspondence. Okay, any questions or motion? I move we approve the Thomas Reedy email recommendation from Monday, May 10th, 2021 relative to the Hickory Ridge Solar Array. Seconded. Okay, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Anna. Aye. Leroy. Aye. And aye for me as well. Last two items. You mass pond just gave me a notification that they're gonna be doing their treatment for the eutrophication treatment for algae growth in the pond. And also DPW had a sanitary sewer overflow near Snell Street. I put the correspondence in your folder, but just wanted to let you know, highlight those for you. And that is all I have this evening. Good job as always, Erin. So particularly, yeah, Kent Avenue is definitely a little bit challenging side. Well done. Okay, anything else anybody wants to talk about before we close your, okay. Oh wait, sorry, just, I'm so sorry. Erin, the Friday morning time was pretty good for some site visits. I don't know if you are trying to ever switch up, but the Wednesdays are tough, the Wednesdays at nine are tough for me. Earlier is better. Yeah, I'll definitely keep that in mind and I'll try to work with that. And you, we had three commissioners this morning. Oh great, then keep your time, forget me. Yeah, well either or, I mean, because sometimes applicants aren't available certain days in time, so try to shoot for both. Is it just for Anna, is it that it's Wednesday or was it just so? No, it's just the, I start work at eight or eight 30 and so it's such a, I have to like leave and then come back and so it's kind of tough. That's all, yeah. Yeah, it's tough to find. But I will, I'll figure it, I know it's totally tough for everybody. I, for some reason had thought like fewer people were coming on Wednesdays, so nevermind. I think that was true when it was later in the morning. So I think the only reason this worked is because it was early, I'm kind of tired right now. Yeah, today was a different case for me, but yeah, thank you. Okay, anything else? Okay, if not looking for a motion to adjourn. Well, I moved to adjourn today's meeting. Second. Okay, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. Aye for me as well. We are officially adjourned. Thank you. Enjoy. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Thank you, Erin. Appreciate it. My pleasure.