 So we are now recording. It is June 24th, 2020. This is the Amherst Conservation Commission bi-weekly, basically bi-weekly meeting. So the agenda has been distributed. The first item is update from myself, which I don't have any. Next item is report from Dave and I do not see Dave. Nope. No Dave at this point. So, and just to let folks know the first two items. So the, the UMass dredging and then the Tafino NOIs are being continued. So we'll formally do that in a minute, but do you know when they're being continued to for both of those? Erin. So Tafino is requesting a continuation to the next meeting, which will be July 8th. And then UMass had requested a continuation to the first meeting in September. Sounds good. Okay. So with that Erin, the floor is yours. Okay. And everybody can just mute. There's a little bit of feedback here. Sorry, this is a little confusing because I don't know. Can you guys see the PowerPoint? Can't see the PowerPoint, but we can see your screen. Okay. Let me try this again. Next to something, something. There we go. Okay. Can you see that now? Yes. Okay. Wonderful. Okay. So. So I sent the e signatures. Authorization that was. Notarized and certified by the town clerk to the registry. And we're still waiting for that recorded document to be returned to us. So I've been in a holding pattern with some of our permits, which has actually been a good thing because it's been so busy. Over the last couple of months that I was, I was pretty behind anyways on just getting them polished up. So, but the good news is this week, I got like the five outstanding RDAs drafted and then. Xavier mommy's working and then please. And then just grab them. Sorry about that. Well, we're definitely at quorum now. Yeah. I'm so sorry. Oh my God. Are you kidding? I'm sorry. Do not apologize. I will be running across the screen at any moment. You see my dog like, come on. Yeah. So I caught up on the RDAs and then the NOIs are in process right now. But as soon as that recording comes through, I can basically issue all of them. And then send out a, an email package to the board with like a bunch of envelopes. I don't know if you guys have kind of steadily been receiving that and signing off on it and sending it to the next person. Yeah. I received that. And sent it on to Jen. I'm sitting on, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll do it. How many signatures are on that? I can't, I can't remember. Okay. I can, I'll try to go check that at some point. Okay. Yeah. I'm just curious, like if it's been to just about everybody or if it's some, I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it at all. Okay. Okay. Nor have I. Okay. I will send it to either Larry or Laura. Okay. It's, it's okay. And, and, um, I just want to say that I'm very, very excited that we joined the board. So just as an FYI. Um, but. Yes, that's wonderful. Um, I also, um, met with, um, Ever source. Xavier let go. Thank you. I also met with Ever source, um, at the POTIC conservation area, um, this past week. Um, I just wanted to, um, come up with a plan because the beavers have completely flooded out all of the trails there. And, um, Ever source is doing some work across the street at the POTIC substation. So, um, trying to, they're, they're proposing to, um, in the next short while, um, basically. Um, Put in a permanent access road. Um, um, they're also ever sources also going to be coming through the conservation commission, um, with a maintenance project that basically goes through a right of way from South Amherst to North Amherst. And so they're going to be looking for quite a bit of mitigation to do. And, um, yeah. So I'm hoping that they'll work with us on, um, taking care of some of the beaver issues, particularly because, um, that beaver issue is right. It's actually flooding their right of way. And if it breaches, it's going to be impacting their right of way. So really hoping that they'll kind of step up and, and take care of that. And then even potentially. If, if the commission was open to the idea, one of the ideas I had was allowing them to do, um, a replication at POTIC. That way they don't have to keep replicating on that small little postage stamp lot that the substation is on. Um, and that would, I thought might be an interesting project to have kind of be like a public monitoring, um, or the concom could monitor it or I could monitor it, or even, I know Scott Jackson has his class, um, come out and do, um, some wetland delineation for a course he teaches. So I don't know if he would be interested in, I don't know if he would be interested in incorporating that in some way, but those are a couple ideas that I threw out to ever source to try to, um, get them to take on that project. And Erin, with that work that they're doing, this is just maintenance along line type work. Yes. So they're doing, they're basically replacing all the structures along the line. Um, they've done, they did some, um, some of the, um, some of the, um, some of the automatic upgrades at a few locations throughout town previously, but now it's maintenance of, of basically all the polls. So all the other polls that they didn't upgrade. So that's, um, what's going to be coming through soon. And I'm actually meeting on Friday with a representative from GZA about that. Um, I'm sorry. You mean the, um, I don't know the quite the right, the term, the transmission line, the big, the transmission line. Right now they're down by a graph park and those are low lines. Those aren't the big ones. Um, so they do have an active order of conditions. Um, for some sort of systematic upgrades along the line, which include like putting in new anchors and replacing some larger polls, I believe that. So that's an order of conditions that's currently active. And they've been, um, working on that. Pretty much since I arrived, I think. Um, or at least since, since, um, late winter, they've been working on that. Um, but this is, it will be a new order of conditions for new maintenance work. So, um, I've mentioned to them also the, um, issue with beavers at the, um, Pomeroy court. Um, where that we've got that big beaver dam on conservation lands. And then I've also talked with them about Amethyst Brook. Um, when I was out there in February, there was quite a bit of damage to the bank of Amethyst Brook from people walking along the edge of the stream. And I was thinking maybe they could do some replanting to restore the bank, but since spring has sprung that, uh, in summers here now that, that bank has sort of naturally revegetated quite a bit. So I'm not sure if that's going to be appropriate or not. Um, but we're, we're in discussions and I'm going to talk with Dave later this week and, um, I'm going to touch base with them again next week to kind of see where that goes. But just so that you guys know, if they come forward with some mitigation, it's all stuff. I've been trying to tease out with them and, um, get them to, um, get on board with it. It's been a little challenging. So. I think that all sounds great. And just a heads up there and Dave is on at this point. Oh, great. Awesome. I don't know. Um, if Dave, Dave may have questions, I had tried to get Dave, um, on board with that, um, phone call, but it didn't work out because it was kind of a last minute thing that was set up. But, um, but they, it sounded quite a bit more positive. After the last meeting, uh, I don't know if it's been kind of up and down with responsiveness of, of ever source, but this time they sounded very positive about it. So. Yeah, it seems like that's been one of the things in the past with ever source as well. They could be a little tough, but then eventually they usually come through. You have to twist arms every now and then, but. Right. Right. Exactly. Oh, Aaron. Sorry. I'm a few minutes late here. Are they on board with the whole package? Um, so I, um, This time around had, um, Melissa green, who's a little bit more of a sort of, she's like a senior, um, person at BSC as a, um, as opposed to sort of the field staff and she sounded quite a bit more, um, I guess enthusiastic about it. And also it sounded like she was. Open to discussing it with the project manager at ever source. And she had some ideas for how we could potentially, um, bring it forward in such a way that ever source might be more willing to take it on. Um, one of them, one of the big concerns they had was two years of monitoring. Um, and Dave, I don't know if you caught what I had mentioned about potentially doing like a wetland replication. For the substation work on podic. And I don't know what your feelings are about that. Um, but that was one of the things we discussed. Like if they, if, if in exchange, if the, if we allowed them to fill some wetlands on the substation property to put in their access road. And in exchange for that, they. Um, And also, you know, because it's a safety issue for their line, if they remove the beavers on the podic property, um, whether the commission would consider allowing a wetland replication to be created on the podic property in an appropriate location based on, you know, soils, hydrology, and also, you know, sort of our grand plan with the, with the site, but. Um, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know if the town or the conservation commission or maybe volunteers would monitor the success of the replication area. So that was kind of the discussion that we had and what they seem to be thinking might be feasible. No, that definitely sounds interesting to me. And I hope to the commission members. Um, Yeah, we don't have to go into great deal tonight. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if we have a week on that, Aaron. I do know that. You know, on the, on the western portion of Zala, the land we just purchased. And so this would be west of the substation across one 16. Um, We are doing, I've been doing work there with the state for probably 25 years on Eastern spade foot toad. Um, I think that's definitely, you know, a limiting factor for the Eastern spade foot toad is, is, uh, breeding pools. So one of the first things I thought of was whatever source be interested in. You know, in building a vernal pool out on the Zala property. Um, in an appropriate location. I actually had suggested that, um, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know that. So I'm so glad that you said that. Cause that was exactly kind of the same vein of what I was thinking. Are you a mind reader or did you talk about that? I think we just got that the symbiosis going on. I don't know. But yeah, that's awesome. Okay. So there's some real potential there now. Yeah. Yeah. I think that'd be great if we could make that happen. Um, so any more discussion on that before I move on to the next item. Okay. Um, So ever source completed their, um, work at the pine grove. Um, It was an emergency certification that was issued because there was a shorting transformer and a shorting con, uh, underground conduit. And they completed the work and stabilize. So they just sent me some photos. Of the completed stabilization and the seed coming in. So just so that you guys could see that. I thought that looks good. Um, the check came in for the state, state street restoration. Um, So, um, Dave is going to be putting that into a special account that we can use, um, for, um, The restoration plantings on state street. Um, I wanted to just give a shout out to, uh, Kathy Keen, um, on the second floor because she helped me enter like 10. Outstanding applications into munis that I've not had an opportunity to enter and help me process checks and close out a batch that I'd been sitting on for quite a while. Um, so thank you so much, Kathy. And I just wanted to make sure the commission was aware that she had really, really helped me quite a bit. Um, Jason skills had reached out to me, um, to let me know that, um, At Groff Park, the contractor is demobilizing. So he said that the areas were stable and they're taking down erosion controls. I'm going to try to get out there this week and take a look at that. Um, but just so that you guys know, um, I just wanted to make sure that, um, I just wanted to make sure that that site should be kind of wrapping up. That means that the water park is done at this point. I think that that's what that means. Um, We're getting there. Um, We're going to open the, the new amenities there in phases. So the first phase will be, um, We'll be the, the playground. Um, Probably in 10, 12 days, we'll open the playground. So that means all the fencing comes down and, and then we're, we're putting the final touches on the, um, the contractors, putting the final touches on the, um, the spray park features. So. We'll, we're real close now. Um, the other item, I just wanted to put a bug in you guys ear about because it's the last time I saw it and I, I was a little confused because I was on the last week. I was a little confused. Since I've been with the town. It was for, um, Peter. Heronymus at, um, 750 West street. And it was a little bit of a, It was a little confusing because he had never recorded his original order. And so even though the extension, the previous extension had been signed. Um, We were still waiting on a book, a book and page number. And it's due to expire on July 18th. So on the upcoming meeting, we will have a, we'll have that item up for discussion, but I wasn't sure how the commission typically handles extensions. If you guys want to do a site visit. I mean, I would ordinarily recommend that, but I don't know what your typical. Sort of processes. Yeah. Yeah. My recollection, it's definitely been a little while. It's kind of on my recollections is that's a little bit on a case by case basis, Aaron. So this kind of depends on, you know, is, you know, if a site visit is warranted shirt, that makes sense. But if it's, you know, that may not be necessary. And I'm just trying to rack my head around what's where 750 West is. I mean, that's that thing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just beyond. Hotline. Going south on. On. One 16. It's on the left hand side, just beyond pot wine. Yep. And so I remember, yeah, this fairly large property. And I remember he was putting something in a while ago. So I mean, if there was activity out there, then maybe. But if nothing's happened. I'm okay. Yeah. But I, my primary concern would be the original permit was issued. Issued to the applicant on 2014. So it's been. You know, a good. Six years since the original permit was issued. So I didn't know if the commission might be concerned about wetland boundaries. And I think that there was a isolated pool being potentially filled as part of that permit. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Anyways, we, if the commission would like a site visit, I can make sure to schedule one prior to our next meeting. I would be happy to go out and take a look at it as well, just for the sake of, you know, efficiency. Take a look at it prior to the next meeting and give a recommendation if the board would prefer. Yeah. I mean, it would be nice for somebody to go out there and look at it. Again, I'd have to, I would be happy to go out there and take a look at it as well. Okay. I know, I know the house and the property. I'm just curious what the permit is for. I knew the people that have lived, I knew the original. Okay. I think it's for a single family house and driveway. If I remember correctly. Yeah, let me, let me chime in. This is for a vacant piece of property. It used to be pasture. Now it's all grown up. But it's all grown up. So it's, it's all grown up. Okay. So this is a season Amherst for a number of years as Aaron mentioned. Is it, is it, is it the north or south of the house? Is it the corner lot on pot wine. No, no, no, no, no, it's, it's South of pot wine. There's one, there's two houses and then. This would it spot. And this is a long crushed stone driveway with a for sale sign. to build a house there. He ended up not doing that. We actually looked at it for a dog park location. I thought it would be a great dog park set back on the woods there with virtually no neighbors. It's a big parcel. It's about 11 or 14 acres, but most of it is very wet. So there's room back there for one or two houses, I think, was what his delineation said. So anyway, somebody's looking at it with a little more serious eye now. Yeah, and it's right across the street from the Hampshire Farm, if that's helpful for people. So I think that's most of the stuff I had as far as my general reporting. There was no major things on the monitoring reports this week. Just some sort of minor upkeep, minor maintenance stuff, but nothing major. And yeah, just sort of the usual returning phone calls and getting out and doing site visits next week. So I would defer to Dave on his updates. Okay, just one thing real quick. We do have a couple people from the public who joined us. So if there are people from the public who joined us for our 730 or our 740 item, so that's one for University Dredging and then for Tafino and OIs. Just to let you know that both of those are going to be continued. We will talk about them very briefly, but the applicants are not likely here tonight. So Dave, floor is yours. Mike, microphone. Yeah, you need to unmute there, Dave. So it strikes me that Erin is going to cause me to up my game. She's got the power point. She's got the slides on everything and she's making me look bad. So anyway, just a couple of quick updates for everybody. There's a lot happening out there and summer is upon us and warm weather. So I'll start off with Buffers Bond. I'm not sure if any of the commission members have been up to the bond in the last week, but we're today is day seven of coverage up there and it's going, I think, extremely well. We have support from parking enforcement in the police department. We have support from LSSC staff members and then we were able to pull some people in kind of underutilized positions right now due to COVID, frankly. And I think I mentioned this at our last meeting. So we have coverage there 10am to 6pm. We're a little less right now. We have four people per day, seven days a week. So two on the roads and then two meeting and greeting. And it's been going very well. We're doing social distancing on the beach. They're coordinating with Brad and Tyler from conservation. And people seem really receptive. We've had, I've been up there every day, sometimes twice a day, and I have not heard a negative comment. It has all been positive about the presence, about the interaction. We're trying to do voluntary surveys with as many people as we can, asking them, you know, kind of how they use the bond, when they use the bond. We're also asking just for our own information, where are they from? Are they Amherst residents or not? Last Saturday, I was there early in the morning. I got there about 9.30. And the first two parties I approached, just saying hi and what we were up to. First party was from Arlington, Mass. And the second party was from Brattleboro, Vermont. So it was kind of interesting. I was like, wow, those are long distances to travel to go to a little pub or spawn, a little mill pond. But anyway, a lot of people know the area. They have friends or relatives in the area. And with everybody staying local, more local, due to COVID, I think, you know, Amherst is kind of a destination. The valley is a destination, and Puffers is free, and the reputation gets out there. So I think it's going really well. We're going to have coverage. I think we're going to try to do this as long as we can this summer. And I think we're going to learn a lot about how Puffers could be managed in a way that we avoid some of the pitfalls and some of the chaos and some of the overuse that we've seen in previous years. And again, we're not trying to close it down or shut it down or anything like that. But I think we're going to learn a lot. I said to somebody out there today when I was there about five o'clock, it feels more like a park-like environment now. Traffic has slowed down. Parking is organized. I saw people rollerblading, skateboarding on State Street. I mean, there's room to do that now. And it's not totally safe, but it feels much safer than it has in previous years. So I would not be surprised if I'm talking to you about some sort of parking pass system in the winter of 2021, because it would be great if we could generate some revenue and then have a steady income source for the pond in the future. I just have a question that's related to Puffers, but is about, not Kiwanis, Wentworth Farm. Is it possible? Yeah, off of Stanley Street. So I mean, there's a little sign about social distancing on the ball fields, but it's kind of tucked behind a boulder and you can't really see it. And so I was there the other day and there were probably 20 people in the water really, really close to each other. I'm wondering if it's possible to do more, at least more signage, just kind of that due diligence kind of deal around there. I know Brad and Tyler, I'm sure their schedules are probably packed, but if they can, if they'd be the people. And then the only other thing that's kind of smaller, because I know Kestrel has a role in that specific area as well, but the path is getting overgrown and people are kind of going off to the sides a little bit more on it. The path that going towards the field from the bridge where you can swim in the water from Stanley Street going up. Yeah. So Kestrel doesn't really, I mean, from a day to day, they don't have much of a role. Some years ago, I kind of agreed to put up their little signs because they have been so instrumental partners through the year. So their signs appear on all of our trail signs as kind of a raw, raw Kestrel. But yeah, so you're saying the trail, the trail too, is getting kind of thick there. Yeah, just the invasives are creeping in, that's all. Yeah, no, we could brush that back. Yeah, we call it jump bridge because so many young people jump off the bridge. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to call it that in public. I'm sorry. Jump bridge, I went towards Stanley Street. Sure. Yeah, that is kind of second on my list here. It's given COVID, given the heat, given where we're headed, it is really a pretty popular spot. So let me take a look at that. It's close to my home, so I'll take a look at that this weekend and we'll kind of decide what to do there. And I don't like to over sign. I think you can lose effectiveness, but I do think during this COVID summer, we need to at least put the word out there and give people an opportunity to be responsible with others. So that's a little disconcerting with like 20 people in that little area. It was mostly I'm guessing high school students, they were all, you know, who were finished. And I'm not saying that excuses it. I'm just saying, like, if, you know, I'm guessing the situation was like, schools out, they're really excited. They've been cooped up. I mean, I understand it and it's not okay. It's kind of that both ends. Yeah, at some point, honestly, we'll probably, I would back into this slowly, we'll probably need to start testing the water there as well. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, I had a similar experience that went worth. I walked down there with my son and there was dozens of people and there was also drinking and stuff going on. This was like on a weeknight around like five or six. Yeah. And I can reach out to APD and ask them to, you know, just do a quick jump out of their car and, you know, particularly alcohol, alcohol and swimming. Really, you know, I was a lifter for many years. It doesn't mix well at all. Well, and I just felt like I've got to turn around and leave. Like I didn't even feel comfortable going down there with my son. I was like, oh. And Erin, that's that same part where Anna's talking about or is that on the big pond? It's on the, it's where the bridge is. Yeah. I've had the same experience. I mean, it used to be pretty quiet, but now I want to take Sophie there. Yeah. Yeah. It's, I literally told my son, honey, we've got to turn around because I just didn't want to. Yeah. I'll take a look there for sure. Other things moving along. We are doing some early mowing. Harvey Allen has been working a little bit with Brad and Tyler identifying fields where grassland birds are not nesting. So it's so dry. And frankly, in years past, we've been so far behind on mowing and keeping some of these early successional fields open that we started a little early this year in those fields that don't contain bobbling and metal arcs. So they are mowing atkins flats right now, which we rarely get into because it is so wet down there in Lawrence swamp. So Tyler has been making great strides down there. And then we're going to slowly kind of work our way to some of the areas that we haven't gotten to in a number of years. So we'll keep going on that. We're putting in an order. We have some grant money and grant money and CPA dollars. So we're putting in some money for new kiosks. I'd really, one of my, you know, small, small dreams is to get consistent signage in kiosks and consistent trailhead kiosks in strategic places all over town. So we've got an order in which you go in tomorrow for four new kiosks. One of them will be for the Fearing Brook project, which Beth Wilson is helping me with and taking the lead on down there off of a route nine. And that seems to be moving forward quite well. We probably have a great note, Erin. Maybe one of the commission's meetings if they have a later agenda, it will be good to be able to zoom in and give us all an update on where that design is and what the construction schedule looks like, because Beth has really been taking the lead on that. But that's a really great project. And, you know, it's funny, you know, in my travels, I'm on Zoom meetings about storm water. I'm on meetings about water quality. I'm on Zoom meetings about climate change. And, you know, that project of recreating a floodplain there along the Fearing Brook, it really hits so many different notes on all of those. And it is right upstream of Jump Bridge. So improving the water quality in the Fearing Brook and creating a more sustainable floodplain there makes all this sense in the world. I will say just in the Fort River, I was fishing it, I don't know, maybe two weeks ago, and had the great experience of seeing all the lamprey reds, basically where they deposit their nests. And in this section from Groff Park up, there's a number of reds. And, you know, they're beautiful, beautiful animals. And it's fascinating to watch them competing for the different, the best places to deposit their eggs. So I know that some people find them a little disconcerting. I actually learned from a young man who had a net that you can actually eat them. And he and his friend were there to harvest a couple. And I was like, okay, that was news to me. I didn't know that anybody ate lampreys. But there you go. Related to signage, I don't know if I want to ask, but what's happening with Bluebird Meadow? Sorry, those are on order. Those signs are on order. So yeah, I occasionally get updates from Carol Gray. And, you know, we kind of said go for it. So she needs to, she wants to zero out that grant. I think we, you know, we all recognize that those, those signs are have a lot of information. And they may at some point be dated. So they will last as long as I think we all think they should last. But we'll go from there. So I expect probably in July or early August, the signs will be in and we'll figure out how to get them up and whatnot. They come, they actually come with a mounted system. So in that regard, it's good. It's not like a kiosk for everyone. So what else? Hickory Ridge Golf Course continues to move forward that acquisition. I've got some meetings later this week on it. The course is officially closed. If you've driven by, they do have a maintenance worker in there who is, who is keeping it relatively clear with some mowing. But it's kind of interesting. I want to spend a little time there this weekend. It's kind of interesting to see how nature takes over very quickly when you let those greens go and you let, let those fairways go. Boy, that plant growth is, is impressive in that flood plain. So it kind of really has that kind of wilder meadow feel right now, which is kind of interesting. I'm sure the wildlife and the birds are loving it out there and no, no more herbicide and pesticide applications. So our goal is still to close later on this summer. And then we would embark probably in the winter on some sort of master planning process with you, with other boards and committees, looking at the conservation land, the frontage that we all know could potentially be for some other use. So we're going to keep it, keep it moving forward. And the last you know, Dave, it seems like the linchpin for that one is if they get their solar credits. But as far as you know, they're in that block that they're trying to get to and everything is a go. Yeah, they are in the smart program. They got their application in early enough. I think it all comes down to dollars and cents. You know, I know Laura knows a lot more than I do about solar energy production. And but I think they're looking for any sort of adders that they can get for various aspects of their project. We're also still dealing with just kind of getting a full understanding of the 21e, any of the areas that might have had some modest spilling of gas or diesel or anything like that associated with a golf course that's been in one place for 50 years. That's pretty common. So we did some of that work and then the owners did further work on that. So it's coming along. It's been slow, but steady. What are they aiming at for putting in the panels? They would probably, we're probably talking fall of 21. Okay. Yeah. It's going to be a while on the panels. But you know, we would again, just to remind everybody, we would buy the whole thing. We would then lease back 26 acres to company X for solar and the 20 to 40 year lease. But what else? Just in a related matter, dogs often come up so on them as well. She's on the dog park task force. But that project is progressing quite well. And we are going to break ground. I hope in July, we're going to have some sort of a groundbreaking with the council and the task force. And right now the preliminary indications are that there are no grass uppers, sparrows nesting there this year. So once we confirm that, then we can start construction anytime that we're ready to go. We have DEPs okay, and we'll get natural heritage green light from them. And we have all the money in the bank. So we're ready to go. And again, that's not going to be, you know, it's not meant to, you know, change anything we're doing on the conservation trails. But I do think it'll take some pressure off our trails around town. So that'll be nice. And then as part of that project, the remainder, just a reminder, the remainder of the old landfill will get a conservation restriction. So the dog park is about an acre and a half. But the remaining, call it 52 53 acres will be permanently protected as grassland bird habitat with a conservation restriction. So it's a really neat project with a lot of different elements solar across the street at the new landfill, if you will, the Northland fill a dog park, the sledding hill, the rubber frost trail goes over it and a conservation restriction for grassland birds. So even if grasshopper sparrows never nest there again, it'll be available for meadowlarks, for bobble links, savannah sparrows, castrels, etc. So anyway, I think it's a neat project. So those are my five or six updates. Happy to take any questions if you have them. Great. Thank you, Dave. And we still have about 10 minutes until our first agenda item that's not being continued. So anything for Dave? Yeah, a lot of great stuff. I'm trying to think if there's any other filler here, any other updates? I mean, I did notice at Amethyst that people are that somebody is trying to reroute around that dangerous section along the bank. I don't know if that's working, but I did notice somebody's trying that. Yeah, I'm going to be out with Brad and Tyler tomorrow. We have some field time and we're going to visit Amethyst. One, to look at the trail slash bridge issue, but two, to look at just kind of how we're going to discontinue the central location of the gardens and kind of gussy up that area a little bit as we put those gardens to rest and just let that area revegetate in there. It's as you're mentioning with the other place, Dave, it's revegetating pretty strong. Yeah, I just don't know if I haven't been in there a while. Do we need to take out fence posts and get wire? Wire is the key thing. Whenever they're mowing, they worry about metal. And so we want to get any stakes, any chicken wire, anything like that, because that can really injure operators or the public or dogs, frankly. Yep, there's definitely some stuff that needs to be taken out. Dave, I don't know if you got the email I forwarded from Larry about Zoom transcribing. I don't know if any other boards or committees have used that to transcribe minutes from Zoom meetings. I did get the email. I honestly don't know. You might speak with Angela up in the town manager's office. I don't know. Okay. I just thought that would save us a ton of time if we could do that. That'd be awesome. I mean, I could give you guys kind of a quick update on what's coming through at the next meeting. If that's helpful as far as hearings. Sure. And then we need a few minutes just to do our continuations as well. Yep. Yep. If you want to take a few minutes, that'd be great. Okay. So I don't know if you guys recall. There was a... I believe it was an RDA for East Levitt Road. And Brett, you were out on site with me. I'm trying to remember if there was any other commissioners out. I know you and I were there. It was right where the really steep section of Cushman Brook was on the other side of the road. And we couldn't go down there because there was snow on the ground. It wasn't really safe. But there is a proposal coming before the board for a single family house. And I brought... I sent an email to Dave and to Brett with a bunch of questions about the application because there's definitely some issues with the application. And I'll give you more detail on that at the next meeting. But I have a meeting to talk with Peter LaBarba, the consultant for that project Friday or early next week, to hash some of the issues out. Basically, they're proposing to alter like 76% of the riverfront area on the lot, which you're only supposed to alter like 10% or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater. And their alternatives analysis was sort of in a narrative form as opposed to plan form exploring options for reducing driveway or reducing house footprint or setting the house outside of floodplains. So there's some issues that I need to work out with the consultant prior to the meeting, but just so you guys know, that'll be on the agenda. And then the other one is 227 Pomeroy Lane, a proposal to remove a tree and some saplings and then do some wildlife enhancement in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. And I think it's related to sort of losing a view of the Holyoke range over the years. And so wanting to sort of reestablish that and in exchange for that doing some probably some pollinator habitat creation in the field. So those two items will be on the agenda as well as anything that's continued tonight. Thank you, Aaron. Okay, so why don't we go ahead and start with the continuations. So the first two agenda items will be continued, but we need to formally go through there and see if there's any comments or anything we want to discuss about it. So the first one is our 730 item, which is for the dredging of campus pond at UMass. And we got a request from I believe it was from Mickey asking for continuation. I don't think it's said exactly why though, Aaron, if I remember. Yeah, so they are putting together some designs to basically comply with historic preservation group that raised some concerns. So they're putting together some permits for like the Mass Historical Commission and then NEPA as well. But they're still outstanding on some of the permits that they need to get from Boston basically. And so that's why they requested a continuance to September to get those permits in hand. Okay, so that sounds fine on my part. Is there anybody here from the public who wanted to speak on this? I assume not. Do commissioners have any questions on this one? Is there anybody from the public who has any questions on this one? If you do, just raise your hand and we'll switch your permission so you can speak. Okay, so Aaron, do we have a date and a time that would be moved to? Yes, yep. It would be September 9th at 7.30pm. Okay, so looking for a motion, a motion for continuation for this. I move to continue this to September 9th at 7, oh no wait, what did you say? I'm sorry. Did you say a 10? September 9th at 7.30pm. At 7.30pm. So move to continue to September 9th at 7.30pm. I second. Okay, so I need a roll call vote. So Laura? I. Anna. I. Larry. I. Jen. I. LaRoy. Houston. So, okay, and Brett, I. So continue until September 9th. Thank you. Okay, and so the next one are for the notice of intense for lots one, two, five, six, seven and eight on Concord Way. And again, this was a request by the applicant for a postponement. And so I think they just need some more time to get stuff together. Is that right, Erin? Yes, they're saying that transferring the vernal pool delineation to the original plan is taking longer than expected. There was also some other information that was requested from them as well. So I just I figured they just need some additional time, administrative time to pull that stuff together. Okay, so any questions from the commission? Any questions or comments from the general public? So and again, when these get continued, sometimes they get continued multiple times, please get in touch with Erin and she can, you know, update you day of. Okay, so not hearing or seeing anything, looking for a motion and I apologize, Erin, if you said the time and day for that one, it would be July 8th at 7.50 p.m. I move we continue the NOI hearings for Tofini Associates, Inc. at Concord Way, lots one, two, five, six, seven and eight to the meeting on July 8th at 7.50 p.m. Second. Okay, Laura, how say ye? Abstain. Larry? Yes. Jen? Aye. Anna? Aye. LaRoy? Abstain. So Brett, aye. So we had two abstains there, but so we had one, two, three people, three people voted yes. Oh wait, no, do we have four vote? Yes. Okay, yeah, we have four voting yes, so we're good. Okay, I can count. Okay, we are good. Okay, and just by magic, it is 7.50 by my clock. Okay, so this is a continuation of the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for the shootsberry road property. And so for those people who are here as part of the application, if you could just raise your hand virtually, and then I will make you, or Erin will make you a panelist. I got one person. So Maria and Renee, I think we are good. Okay, so if you wouldn't mind introducing yourselves, giving us a brief update on what has happened since the last time we spoke, that'd be great. And just as a reminder to the public who's here for this, we'll go through the commission, and then after that we'll ask for general comments as well. So I'm Maria, I'm with TRC, we're representing the applicant in this case. So I think the last time we talked with you, the commission was on May 13th. And since then, a bunch of things happened. We got an additional, we got an exchange order, I guess is what I'm looking for, on the peer review that Emily from Stockman Associates was doing. So that included an additional site visit and kind of a final review document. So we completed that additional site visit, and we updated the plans based on that. And on Monday of this week, Emily sent her comments. And we made a couple of additional edits to the legend and notes, not the wetlands, just the legend and notes, and added the stamp to the plans and sent those late yesterday. So I believe we're ready to close. I hope, I hope there aren't any more questions on Emily's comments did not have any additional wetland edit suggestions. And the other kind of major edit besides the wetlands is that at the last meeting we discussed how to deal with the riverfront area because the river's completely offsite. So we did what we discussed at the meeting, which was to measure those points that we had GPS for the mean annual high water line at the south end. And we used that with all the way up the river and estimated the riverfront area based on that. So it's it's about as accurate as we can make it with the information and property access available to us. Thank you, Maria. So yeah, Aaron, do you have comments and would you mind giving sort of a brief summary of Emily's comments as well? I mean, she submitted a lot of them. And you know, my big question, I guess, to you and Maria, I've looked at them but, you know, have all of them been addressed as the big question. Can I jump in really quickly? Sure. The vast majority of the comments are that frankly, none of us are happy with the numbering system. And that is a product of that so many of the wetlands got combined. So it's usually you end up with some oddness when you have some edits, but there were so many edits at this site that that happened. The actual flag numbers match what's in the field. Emily's comment is a little unclear about this, but where she says that things don't match, what she's talking about is the wetland designation. So something that used to be wetland five might say W5-22 on it. The flag number is 22. But that wetland has since been combined because of the edits into wetland three. So the flag numbers match the wetland designations that are in the field are old. In my conversations with Emily, because of the timeline that these things take, if anything even can come of this site in the future, they're going to have to refresh the flagging here. And when they refresh it, the wetland designations will be correct. But it's such a big site that it's not something that we would typically do at this point in the process. It's something that you would typically require be done before construction can start. And we're not anywhere near construction on this, because we're just talking about an ANRAD right now. Okay. Thank you, Maria. So Erin. Yeah. So Emily's comments came in at 5 p.m. on Monday. And TRC's email responses and plan revisions came in electronically on Tuesday. And then the hard copies were delivered this afternoon, afternoon. So I've had a chance to read through Emily's comments. I have not had a chance to review Emily's comments in conjunction with the information that was submitted by TRC. I just simply didn't have enough time. I don't work on Tuesdays, unfortunately. So I wasn't able to jump in and do that review prior to the meeting tonight, because I was doing other meeting preparations. What I will say is I've worked on a lot of ANRADs, permitted a lot of ANRADs, and where sense can be made of the flagging on the plans. And there can be some logical connection made to what's shown on the plans, to what's in the field. Then I think, you know, I've always made a pretty reasonable recommendation to move forward as, because understandably things change when you're going out and you're modifying things when you find additional wetlands and things. Based on my, and again, I want to look at the plans, because I haven't had a chance to do that yet, but just based on Emily's comments, the flagging issues are significant. The flagging issues of what's shown on the plans versus what's in the field. There's a lot of confusion between the two. Emily goes through this in some detail here. Certain wetlands have multiple repeated flag numbers. As Maria noted, some flags are marked with the wrong wetland number. So I don't feel prepared as staff to make any kind of recommendation until I can really sift through Emily's comments and look at the plans and understand in a little more detail how the plans in the site differ. If it's confusing out in the field, I would be very concerned. Whatever's shown on the plans should be what's in the field in my personal opinion. If a flag number is shown on the plan, it should be representative of what's been flagged in the field. So Emily and I walked all of these flags and the connections that are shown on the plan are exactly what is in the field in terms of flag numbers. Those are the numbers that you're going to find there and the flags are close enough that you can, in just about every single case, see the next flag from where you're standing. It is not confusing to find where things are. And what's shown on the plans is exactly what's represented in the field as far as the flag numbers. Yes. The flag numbers in the field match what's shown on the plans. Yes. So the flags in the field, they have a number system on them and part of the number system is the like wetland designation. So it might say W4 or W10. And that's the piece of the flag that may not match what's on here because those designations changed over time. The last number on the flag is the flag number. And that is what is shown on these plans. And that's what matches in the field. Yes. I could see that creating some confusion down the road doing site visits and things. My point is that these flags, because of the amount of time that's going to lapse between now and when you would need to do any kind of site visit, flag refreshment will need to happen. And at that time, we are more than happy to fix everything. But there is and all the field time involved in essentially reflagging the vast majority of the site that's okay. And all the flag locations are surveyed so that somebody could go out and find that surveyed point of where the flag was supposed to be on the plan versus I mean, if you're saying three years down the road, somebody comes forward and the flags in the field have expired and needs to be reflagged. Those points have been surveyed in the field, so they could be reestablished easily and accurately. Yes. Okay. So that's great. And that actually that settles a lot of confusion for me. I would still like to be able to look at the plans and like with Emily's document because I haven't had a chance to look at it. It's just it was submitted at the very last minute, so it's very difficult to go through and I don't want to rush this through, but it's completely up to the board with your comfort level on this. The other thing I would recommend is a document that responds to Emily's comments point by point as to how they were addressed and where they were addressed on the revised plans. That way the commission can kind of get a sense of, oh, this item was, you know, reconciled on the plans and taken care of or this item's still outstanding or this information was submitted as requested kind of so that we could just kind of hatch them off as we go down the line on Emily's comment. We are happy to go through that list of comments now. Yeah. So Erin, yeah, so give us just a sec, Maria. So Erin, do you have any more sort of comments or any sort of feedback? So I hear what you're saying and yeah, I have, I had a chance to go through these, the materials from Emily, but that's as far as I got as well. Yeah, I don't, I don't have any more comments. Just that staff, I would need more time to give a recommendation on it. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yeah, so commissioners, I mean, so do you have comments or questions? I think our response and writing to Emily's comments is appropriate, in this case, for documentation of the process, especially since it's been a pretty complex process. Yeah, I agree with that. I was thinking the same thing to Jen. I agree. And I just want to echo, I was also not able to get through all of the materials and time for the meeting. So I'm not as comfortable progressing without, also without the responses to comments. You know, for me, and also just to piggyback on that, yeah, without Erin having time to kind of go through that, you know, that just gives me an extra level of comfort. And so yeah, and Maria, I hear what you're saying. I appreciate that. I'm sorry for interrupting. I appreciate all of that, which is why I've offered to go through each comment with everyone so that everyone is comfortable. But if everyone needed more time, that really should have been communicated to us before tonight's meeting so that we could have just requested to continue. Well, we didn't know. I mean, we need more time to discuss this because we're not allowed to discuss this Maria outside of these meetings. So I'm not quite sure how that would have happened. I know many commissioners that give their agents a heads up, hey, I haven't quite gotten through all of this. You know, it's just a general, this is where I'm at. It's not a discussion of the material. It's just I haven't been able to get through it. And even coming from Erin, Erin could have sent me a message today saying that she needed more time before she'd be able to make a recommendation to her commission. And that did not happen. Okay, I hear you. So it still doesn't really change where we are. So we will try to communicate better. I'm still not sure if there was much for us to do different this time. Well, I'd like the opportunity to go through the comments with you and just show you what's been done. So, okay. Since we're all here. So okay, yep, that is fine Maria. So I mean, we're still going to need them in writing. So that's going to be easier to respond to you. But if you'd like to go through one by one, that's your prerogative. We were not told at any other meetings that you needed this in writing, we were only constantly told that you needed a plan. We made it clear tonight, Maria. And again, we didn't get these materials in time. So we would not have had time to review everything. The plan set, as far as the wetland flags are concerned, was provided last week. Emily's comments came in this week, but the only edits to the plan set that had been made since last week are literally to one page of the legend. And some notes based on Emily's comments. Everything else has not changed. So just with all due respect, I mean, we're waiting for our peer reviewer to take that plan and go in the field and confirm things. So it would have not really made sense for us to review that without having our peer reviewers comments at the same time to do a side by side comparison of the comments against the plan revision. He's been in the field. And her comments aside from discussing confusion over flag numbers because of how things ended up being combined, there is nowhere in this set of comments where she says that anything is represented incorrectly. Whereas previous comments had pointed out that there were particular areas that she wanted us to revision. Yeah, and Rhea, I don't think that anybody is necessarily poking big holes in what's here right now. We're just asking for some additional time and some additional documentation is all. Feel a bit like we're being dragged around here. Sorry that you feel that way, but that is not our intent. So I mean, we're trying to be thorough and that's it. I appreciate that. Your peer reviewer has been very thorough and we have done the things that she asked us to do. And we just need more time to digest and go through everything. So and I hear you that you are tired of this process and that you would like us to close sooner rather than later. And I think you're hearing from us that we are not at that stage yet. I'm concerned that you're asking for time is going to turn into that at the next meeting all of a sudden there is yet another thing that you want. So I mean, it's and that's that that concern is not that there can't possibly be something. I totally respect that people notice things. I'm bringing that up because of the issues that I've discussed with respect to communication. I feel like if the recommendation was that you were ultimately going to want a written response to the final comments that that's something that could have been communicated quite some time ago, particularly at the last meeting that we were at where you said you were going to want final comments from the peer reviewer. We should have been told that you were going to also want a response from us in kind like that. That's just setting clear expectations. That's something that we get very standard. I'm not quite sure. Yeah, that's a very standard to have written response to a peer reviewer. Also, we're all volunteer members of the wetland commission with full time jobs. We don't, you know, if a plan set comes in on a Monday or Tuesday meeting on Wednesday night expectation of a detailed review is a lot, you know. So we do our best to communicate with Erin, but we are doing our due diligence to do our jobs as the wetland commission. So you need to respect that we're doing the best we can here. I do respect that you're doing the best you can and that there's a lot going on right now in the things are even more complicated than they typically are for all of us. I have to say that it took way more coordination than I ever expected to get these things stamped because nobody is in the office these days or even in the same location. So I do appreciate that it's taking more time to do a lot of things. My point is that we appreciate your patience and look forward to seeing your responses to the peer review and look forward to picking this back up. My comment is that, am I active speaking? Yes. Okay, my comment is that you gave us or that she gave us this letter indicating the things and then you met with her and went through them and you seem to have an agreement with the two of you. We don't know that. You know, you say you can respond to it, but I think it's appropriate for you to respond to that thing in writing in terms of what the agreements that you think are actually there. So it's helpful feedback for us to hear that it was not clearly communicated that we might want a response in writing and so we can now take that into consideration moving forward to make sure that we are expressly clear that that is something we will probably want in the future. So thank you for that feedback and apologies that it was not expressly stated earlier and it's still something that we are going to need. Is there anything else that you feel you might need? I mean, obviously, Maria, as we go through here, I mean, if we see things we're obviously going to raise those issues, but without going through them, we're not going to know that. Yes, we, but that's just standard. I appreciate that. My question is you have made a comment that you've been through a lot of Anrads. I have to just not not with you specifically and every town I've dealt with has dealt with them a little differently. So I am asking in your process what other things do you want typically? I mean, typically with a plan revision, an applicant would respond to the reviewers comments and say on point number one, the issue with the post-processed submeter accuracy, our points have been field surveyed and we have accurate points determined for each flag so that future reflagging can be done accurately according to the plans. And then item number two, the final revision date for the citation on the ORED has been revised kind of point by point going through each of the reviewers comment and saying this has been addressed, this has been addressed, this has been addressed so that when we go through, we have a place to see, okay, this has been taken care of. That's what I would ordinarily receive from the applicant based on a peer reviewers comments. Well, I did that in an abbreviated form in the email that I sent you, but I appreciate that it's easier when it's matched up to the specific comment. There are a lot of comments in here that are extremely similar. So it's going to be a lot of repetition. And that's fine. I mean, we have copy and paste, so that's a quick and easy thing to do. Yeah, the reviews were very, very detailed. That is correct. Yeah, it doesn't, we're not asking for a paragraph explanation on each of the comments more just this was addressed and can be found in the notes of the revised plan or we have this information, you know, via survey or, you know, just an explanation of each so that we can be comfortable that each of the items has been taken care of. And if it's somebody besides your group, Maria, that comes here afterwards, they have something that they can follow as well. But does that give you enough direction, Maria? Are you looking for something else? As long as that's the only other thing that you typically require, I just want to make sure I have a full list of what I should be getting together. I'd also like to know how much lead time you expect to need to review this. Yeah, I mean, I can't speak for Erin. I mean, for me, a week minimum would be reasonable. I mean, I tend to do all my reviews on the weekend before. That's totally understandable and fair. I just want to make sure because I, you know, with respect to picking a continuing state, I want to make sure we pick something appropriate given the time that you need and the time that we need to put together what you're asking for. But the bigger issue is very often on Erin's side, just because she is a part-time employee with the town and her hours can be, you know, they're not consistent. It's not, you know, so many hours every day. And obviously there's plenty of other stuff that Erin needs to be working on as well. So from your perspective, Erin, is there sort of a ballpark? So like if the meeting's on a Wednesday, having it by Friday afternoon or Monday morning would be useful. So I have, because usually Wednesdays are my meeting prep day, so I might be out doing site visits or preparing materials for the meeting, you know, getting packets prepared for board members and things. So having like a day in advance of the meeting, a workday in advance of the meeting would be because I'm only here Monday, Wednesday, Friday. As long as I have that one extra lead day, I should be fine for me. I would just say, you know, typically, and there are always exceptions to the rule, Erin gathers everything she has at the end of the week preceding the meeting and sends us a giant email with a share, access to a SharePoint site so we can download all the documents. I try to carve out time on the weekend to do that. So if Erin isn't getting it to Monday and then getting it to us Monday night or Tuesday, it's hard for commissioners to have time to give it a detailed read. So would it be fair to say a week before that way Erin can get it into the folder and to us by Friday? It sounds like that's what the longest needed lead time is. Yeah. And I mean, if we get it later, we'll do our best to try and do what we can, but yeah, it's just uncertain. Oh, I thank you for taking the time to discuss all of this. I just, I really, I think we would all like this to kind of be done sooner rather than later. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about it too. So I just want to try to get you everything that you could need so that we don't hopefully end up in this situation again. Okay, thank you. So are there, do you just want to provide stuff in writing, Maria, or did you want to talk through specific pieces at this point? So there are several comments. A vast majority of the comments in here are about weird flagging. So I'm not going to talk about those anymore. There was several comments about the legend. And I don't know exactly what happened, but for some reason on the first page of the plan set the last one or two words of everything on the legend went missing. I don't know why that happened. It's been fixed. It was correct on the other sheets. So I do apologize about that. Emily commented and we understand that we between being on site with Emily, what she saw and what we saw and all the various site visits, the vernal pools are functional vernal pools. So we've removed the word potential from the legend with respect to the vernal pools. She has a comment that the riverfront area still says estimated it. It is always going to say estimated because of what we've discussed with respect to that we couldn't physically do it in the field because it's off property. We did update one of the notes to reflect what we had discussed at the May 13th meeting about how to show the riverfront area and how it is being shown now. With respect to the vernal pools, we did provide Erin all of the photographs with all the information that you need to certify them should you wish to. But it's not required under the Wetlands Protection Act or your local ordinance for us to go through that process. But we feel that we've provided everything to make it possible if that's something that you want. Ria, did that include the vernal pool field observation forms? That is not a requirement and it's not something that we typically provide. We have between all of these materials, you have the dates that people looked and you have all the necessary photos and you have all the coordinates. So that's something the board should be aware of. It was a recommendation that we request that and the photos were provided. But again, if Emily, if Maria is asking us to tell her everything we would like for the next meeting, if that's something you guys feel strongly that you'd like to have for the vernal pools, then that's something to consider. And again, it's tough to know if there's anything else like that in these comments that Emily recommends that wasn't specifically completed. But that's one that jumped out at me. Our response to that is that it is not required that we fill those out under the WPA or your bylaw and therefore they should not be required of us. It's not something that should be on our clients bill to have to do. I mean, my I guess response to that would be, you know, we're confirming the resource area boundaries and as part of that stating whether it's a vernal pool or not and observations were made in the field by staff that determined that the pools were certifiable. So it might not be noted in the wetland protection wetlands Protection Act, but something to consider the for the board to consider that whether that would be a vital piece of information to have in order to approve the resource area boundaries. We did say in writing to Erin that we are happy to accept the condition that the vernal pools be treated as though they are certified. We just don't feel that we should have to put more materials together that are technically not required. And we have gone above and beyond to provide information that would make it possible for the commission if you so choose to certify them yourselves. Any commissioners have thoughts or feelings on that? I mean, it sounds like they're going to be treated as vernal pools. Has the term potential been removed from the plans? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm just I'm very good with the fact that they want to treat them as vernal pools. As long as we can hold to them, I'm good with it. Is there something that we're missing, Erin, that getting them as certified versus listed on the map as vernal? Is there some difference there? So the difference is that and this is my understanding of the process is that vernal pools could only be certified by the landowner that or somebody who has permission of the landowner. And so we might have documentation in the form of photographs, but those vernal pool field observation forms, you know, that's not something that like the commission could go out and fill out in order to certify the pools or that like an outside party like a neighbor could go fill out to my knowledge and file with natural heritage. In order for a vernal pool to be certified, it has to have the permission of the owner to do that. And that rule may have changed that that is based on what I my previous knowledge of certification was and the process of certification requiring the photos and the observation forms. But again, Erin, what would be the difference between it just being listed as a vernal pool versus being certified as a vernal? Because certified vernal pools have special protection for natural heritage. If somebody was to come forward with a proposal to do work, there are specific requirements for review by natural heritage endangered species program to require specific time of year restrictions and potential buffer zones around the vernal pools and things like that. And so while it may be treated as a vernal pool under our bylaw, having a 100 foot no touch, it's not necessarily going to be treated the same way as a certified vernal pool would be treated by the natural heritage endangered species program if work was proposed on the site. To clarify that a bit more, this is not really about time of year restrictions and stuff. That's all something that you as commissioners have the ability to put as conditions, whether natural heritage specifically recommends them as part of the process or not. The difference here is that if you put a condition on the ORAD saying that they be treated as certified vernal pools, you can word the condition such that it has to be per your bylaw or and natural heritage, you can word it however you want to give them the maximum protection that you want them to have. The difference is that certification is a permanent change to the property whereas an ORAD when it gets issued is a temporary agreement about where resources are. It only lasts for three years. Yeah, exactly. So if things change. So if that lapsed, then that would mean if five years from now somebody came forward with a proposal on this ORAD lapsed that those potential vernal pools would have zero protection as vernal pools. If someone came forward you would still have this as you know we believe there was stuff here and during the peer review you would find if they were still viable or not. Right, but if we don't see it as an issue but the difference is whether you are putting a restriction into perpetuity onto the property rather than just for three years for the duration of the ORAD and we feel that the duration of the ORAD is appropriate in this case. We don't feel that it's fair to impose a permanent restriction on the property owner when they're willing to treat the vernal pools with the full protection status that they would have if they were officially certified. Only on a temporary basis. Exactly. But if you had someone come through that wanted to do any work on this property after this lapsed you would find the vernal pools again if they're actually depending on the time of year. But you can require that the peer review be done during that time of year. There are a lot of ways for you to ensure that they're being protected. Yeah we have another permanent change to the property. We had another project similar to this where it was like a wintertime permit and then vernal pools were discovered later and it's really come back to bite the commission in terms of like having to work out issues with the landowners and the neighbors. I mean I would urge the commission in the case of the vernal pools to exercise jurisdiction over those vernal pools to the maximum extent in terms of getting permission from the landowner to get them certified because as Maria said if the commission approves and they say oh we'll treat them as certified or we'll treat them as vernal pools and then four years from now when this anorad expires they come back we might be doing this review during a drought year when those vernal pools are dry. And so Erin what would be the process for certification? Well I think we would need something in writing from the landowner giving granting the conservation commission permission to certify them. We might have the documents but if we don't have the landowners permission then I don't believe we have a leg to stand on in terms of getting them certified. Also the vernal pool observation forms are necessary and if we had the landowners permission you know we would need those probably filled out by a competent source in order to submit them with the photographs. Emily was present when all the photographs were taken so you certainly have someone available that you like to work with for that. Right so that's kind of that's exactly what I was thinking was if we had the landowners permission to certify them and then if Emily was willing to fill out the vernal pool observation forms then that might be a way that the commission could work with this landowner to satisfy everyone. The landowner wouldn't have to pay for it but we could still get the protection for those pools on a you know permanent in a permanent manner. Because the point that you were bringing up Maria was more of a paperwork issue rather than a objections to the certification. That's correct we we feel that you know this is a very complicated site and it has taken a lot of effort and budget on everyone's part to verify where everything is and what everything is and we are at the point where we can't really continue to increase that budget for this aspect of the project but we are more than happy to protect these pools for future work etc and we've provided what what you would need for documentation in order to be able to put it together. And so you'd also be able to get that letter that we would need from the applicant? I do not know if we can get that specifically that's something that I have to ask about they they had another meeting to attend tonight so they couldn't come to this with me. Sure understood. I can't speak on that and I it's been a while since I did any formal certification so like Erin I'm not 100% sure if that's still a requirement but it it may be something that you need. Okay so can we put that on your to-do list that you'll ask the applicant if they're willing and if they are to facilitate that letter? I can certainly ask them I'm not going to facilitate the letter because that takes a bunch of time that we don't have available to us we're already ending up with more than we thought was was going on here. It's a big complex process yep project yeah okay but if you can at least get that and then I guess it'll be Erin you would be able to request that letter or facilitate getting that letter how would that work? So Maria's I just I just want to understand a little bit better so Maria are you suggesting that I reach out to the landowner to let them know that the commission is requesting permission to certify and I mean is that something you would prefer that I do directly? I can give them a heads up that you'd like to be able to do that but with respect to formally getting permission I think that the that it might make more sense for you to do that because I don't know if you have a particular form or like what what kind of thing you consider sufficient for documentation purposes for that. Okay well what I'll do is I'll reach out to natural heritage and find out if the landowner's permission is still required I believe it is usually just like anything like a landowner's signature is required to move forward with it on their land but I'll just confirm that. It makes sense I'm not saying that it won't be necessary it makes a lot of sense specifically because it's a permanent change to their property but I just it's it's been a while so I don't know the specific requirement for it right now. And if there's a specific person I should speak to or email I mean I'd be happy to do that I'm just not sure who that would be maybe. I can work on on who to contact specifically for the applicant if you will do the coordination with natural heritage. Okay. It might be that they need to sign off on the forms themselves I'm not sure but I'll look into it. Yeah and before we go too much further I mean I have my opinions but I just wanted to see other commissioners how you're feeling on certification versus just on just being listed on the plan. I feel much more comfortable with certification. I think there's no doubt the certifications are better. I agree. Okay thank you it just hard to be a zoom trying to figure out how people are feeling on some of this stuff I apologize for being a little too formal. Oh no don't be it's the zoom meetings are very interesting. I think that we have exhausted the vernal poll discussion. There are a couple of other items that Emily had asked about that were not related to the flagging. One was a reminder to essentially check the isolated wetlands for the potential of qualifying as isolated land subject to flooding. I did provide that to Erin. The same time as the vernal pool photos it I provided calculation showing that none of the areas qualify. One area the one of the vernal pools had a depth of maximum depth of 16 inches 15 or 16 I don't have it in front of me but it's a it's a very small pool so it was well under the quarter acre foot that's required for volume. The larger pools had a maximum observed depth of only six inches which is just technically the average depth needs to be at least six inches but we calculated it anyway on the assumption that the whole thing was six inches deep just to be conservative and they were all shy of that area the largest one was 0.18 acre feet and it needs to be 0.25 so they're they just are protected under your bylaw but they're they don't also qualify as isolated land subject to flooding so we did address that and the last item is that I believe when Matt did some of his wetland adjustments that he took some additional data plots we have not officially provided those in my conversations with Emily and frankly my feeling I don't typically take new data plots once a peer reviewer is involved unless it's an area that we're not in agreement on so that there's a documentation of why we're not in agreement in this case Emily and I are in agreement about where the edges of the resources are so it's not something that either of us is contesting um could I ask a question sure um on the BLSF you had mentioned that you had estimated the depth of the pool or pools um so were those um BLSF calculations based on actual measurements of depth that were taken in the field not estimated they they were measured in the field and we used the deepest observed depth for the calculation to be conservative okay and on average when you were measuring the depth of the vernal pools like how many places would you check the depth I mean like would you kind of take measurements at various places to determine the deepest point or would you just kind of visually say hey this looks like the deepest point and take a measurement there are we typically just look for the deepest point that we can find um there's there's not a set way of doing this the the one that had some actual depth to it is a very small pool so it was very easy to find the other ones um just are not very deep Matt and Emily walked through them they're they're not when when you survey a vernal pool you need to actually walk into the pool in order to reach the things that you need to reach and and survey properly so you get a feel for where the maximum depth is while you're doing that right I was just because you had made a comment that you had estimated that it was like a six inch depth uh no we assumed that the maximum observed depth was we used the maximum depth instead of the average depth for the calculation to be conservative oh I see what you're saying okay so like okay your average depth might have been four and a half inches but we went with six inches because we observed a six inch spot to be conservative okay all right that that's that's good that's a good thing thank you so we I was trying really hard to make these pools qualify and they just didn't that that clarifies my that answers my question thank you sorry about the confusion on that no worries so Maria are there other points that you want to hear um then once you're done with this I'll open up the commission then we'll go to the public uh no I I believe that those were the main points outside of the the flags we fixed the legend and notes and we provided the documentation for the vernal pools and the isolated land subject to flooding calculations so I believe that we addressed the outstanding things great thank you thank you okay so commissioners do you have any comments at this point okay so uh we do have a few people from the general public who are joining us so if you have a comment or question you'd like to make um just raise your hand and then Tim okay Tim you should be able to speak at this point okay can you hear me yes we can okay I'm Tim Lang and I'm a resident of Shootsbury Road 257 Shootsbury Road and I'd just like to say that as a butter to the project I know I speak for myself I hope I speak for others on the street we're very concerned that the wetlands assessment when it is done is that it's done thoroughly it's done according to the highest standard and that there are no ambiguities whatsoever and it would bother me if I thought that points on the map didn't match flags in the woods didn't match comments in the in the report and so I'm applauding the commission and sort of holding the line and making sure that things have been done absolutely according to the letter so thank you Tim and yeah there's no discrepancies that we're observing between what's on the map and what's in the comments again we need some more time to go through that right and also this is one of the reasons that we do often rely on third party and so yeah we I think we had a very thorough third party review and I think it did provide some very useful information so thank you Tim okay thank you is there anybody else from the general public who would like to make a comment okay so not hearing anything so I think what we're talking about at this point given the direction that we gave to Maria again sorry if that was not clear ahead of time we will be asking for seeking continuation until so January I'm sorry not January July I'm so the J July 8th at what time Erin um 7 55 p.m and so Maria how does that sit with you um I'm just looking at the calendar really quickly which day is the July 4th holiday which day is the July 4th holiday uh for for me it's the third I think for my dad it's the sixth so I don't know what day you you all have as it well my concern is what Erin's is um Friday is the holiday so that federal one she has to get you things that's why I was that question yeah that's a good point Larry thank you um so yeah I would definitely um I mean if you if you could get it to us by you know early next week that would um I could distribute it to the board and have a chance to review it um but yeah that's a good point there's only there's only two days next next week right great good point so Maria does that still work for you I am going to do my utmost I cannot guarantee that I will have an answer back from the applicant about willingness to certify rental pools um I will definitely reach out to them but I can't guarantee their timeline I should be able to get you the written responses um though in that time frame that sounds good thank you Maria okay so with that uh I think we are looking for a motion for continuation July 8th at 755 I think can you guys hear me yes um so I move that we continue that and rad hearing or um shoot spray road to the meeting on July 8th at 755 p.m second okay so vote so Anna second oh hi sorry sorry hi Larry hi Jen hi Laura hi the Roy hi Brett hi so okay so we will virtually see you again on the 8th Maria so thank you thank you very much for discussing all those things with me tonight and I'm also really sorry if my air conditioning system has been making a lot of noise I have not heard it so well it's it's been an issue on some other calls so um thanks again and uh everyone have a very happy fourth since I won't see you again until after thank you you too all right good night good night okay so I'm just freshening up our list here okay um so that is the last scheduled agenda item that we have for tonight um is there any miscellaneous business at this point Erin that we should go through or Dave anything else that we need to talk about um the only item that was on my list was the was the extension for Peter Heronimus for the next meeting and then those two items will need a site visit those two new items that are coming before the board on July 8th will need a site visit but I will schedule those with you guys um probably that the Wednesday morning of that meeting okay sounds good right Dave two quick things one um while that was going on I did look up on a couple of state websites and Erin you know please reach out to natural heritage but I don't think I don't think you need landowner permission to certify a rental pool I think it can be done without it um so we'll see but I found that on a couple of websites that they they suggest you have permission before you trespass obviously but um I don't think it's required on the room to certify I believe that's true Dave I looked that up at one point as well I think yeah okay isn't typical for a consultant to not automatically hand over the rental pool observation forms if if I if I was going to guess I'd guess she's running out of time oh I got that but if they're served I mean if she has to complete the forms anyway well it you know from from projects I've worked on in the past it's not something that folks always want to do um okay because it's usually get them if they're trying to develop a property then it doesn't always work to their benefit to do so yeah well yeah I don't I don't know how much detail we want to go into this outside of that hearing but you know when you think about it this is I don't know if Coles is going to sell the property or lease the property so you know many landowners think very long term so if you're thinking long term why would you want a permanent restriction that's right well if you're just going to lease for the next 20 to 30 years that's going to run with the deed and restrict your property and perpetuity so anyway yeah I'd be I'd be surprised if they'd let us do it I mean if they would do it voluntarily I'd be surprised um the other thing I was going to mention and not that you all need one more thing to do or think about but pre COVID you know we did talk about um getting out more with with me and with Brad and Tyler so if if you all you know we have those conversations where I think I met with everybody I think I finally did Anna do we finally meet or no we didn't oh my goodness COVID hit we were supposed to meet on like the day everything shut down it's I don't know it's just it's never gonna happen Dave a lot of exciting things going on out there in terms of land management and I you know it might be a good summer if you or you know if you have children and want to bring it along it's just informal and walking and talking and seeing what's going on and getting your feedback so you know if people are looking for opportunities to get out there and and um you know both learn a little bit more about the conservation areas we have but also talk about future land management ideas I do know once we get a little further along in the summer we are going to turn our attention back to those land management plans which really call for the commission to weigh in on you know everything from trails additional trails maintaining trails um uh you know uh carbon sequestration on some of our forested properties um early successional management how do we balance some of the the user conflicts we have with dog walking and beach going etc etc so I guess what I'm offering is you know this summer if we wanted to do some informal walk and talk you know it could be fun to get out there and show you some of these properties and particularly some of the ones we've just acquired like you know the last couple of years like um Zala like Epstein's pond etc etc so I'm just offering that so Dave I gotta say that sounds great my only issue would be sort of timing wise and so for me on a weekend I can't speak for anybody else a weekend would be much more would be I'd be much more inclined for a weekend weekdays I still work sort of normal hours which is weird but I know and I would you know I'm open to doing it you know on a saturday morning or something you know depending on weather and heat and doing an hour and a half you know um good it'd be a good exercise for all of us and also get out and see some areas and yeah so yes that sounds great to me maybe I'll put out some dates later in the summer and if people are around you can you know weigh in thank you Dave yeah always looking for new conservation areas I try to hit them all but not with your wisdom so it'll be fun anything else Dave let me ask a procedural question and and this is partly because of the fact that sometimes we don't have a quorum kind of issue today when we put when we postpone the uh the tofino one two people abstained it's a procedural issue I don't think Leroy has to abstain on that one because we weren't ruling anything we were ruling on the of unpassing now I can see why Laura might be that you know it's abstaining but I didn't see that this is I'm just thinking forward in terms of issues in the future about things I mean if you can't vote on the whole thing Larry I'm not sure how you can even vote on sorry that continuation piece so I understand what you're saying because there's no content that we're voting on right exactly yeah so I that was just I wanted to raise that issue in terms of something you know because we do have problems at times yeah and and my understanding of that is like let's say for example we didn't have a quorum tonight and the meeting was canceled I would be sitting here on zoom announcing continuations to the next meeting um and that that would be perfectly legal because you just have to announce a time and date certain and I think we're just using an overabundance of caution to have a motion to continue um for hearings just in case there's ever an appeal or something but that's my understanding because then there's also the piece that the continuation it has to also be in not that it's the applicant's prerogative but it's supposed to be with their consultation as well but again if we don't have quorum we don't have quorum there's nothing you can do okay so anything else let's turn it out to be a little bit longer one so thank you Erin you did very well so thank you guys it's gonna be a shorter meeting is what made it happen who said that who said that in her email she was like it's a lie agenda and I was like oh it's gonna be there till 11 sorry about that on that note I am looking for a motion for closure though uh I motion to adjourn this meeting I second that motion so Anna hi Larry hi Jen hi Laura hi Leroy hi Brett hi we are now officially adjourned so thanks everyone bye everyone keep safe