 Hello and welcome to the February 28, 2024 meeting of the Emmer's Conservation Commission. It is 709. We have all members present and Aaron, John, Dave, so make our staff. First up is chair report. My report is that it is February 28 and vernal pools are becoming active. So last night we had wood frogs moving and I think Hitchcock Center is looking for one of the big salamander nights. So exciting and also relevant to our, you know, wetlands interest. So, if anyone wants to get out and volunteer for road crossings and whatnot. It started. So that's it. And over to Dave. Right. Oh, thanks for that reminder, Michelle. Yeah, we, we teamed up the town has teamed up for 30 years or more with with Hitchcock and other groups. So we were coordinating with staff at Hitchcock last night and tonight to help close part of Henry street for salamander dog. Any, any amphibians that are moving. So I don't have a report from last night but there certainly was movement last night and there may be movement tonight. And then the temperature goes down and then we'll see next week looks like some rainy potential rainy days and nights over over 40 degrees so yeah, very early. It's going to be a mid to late March event. And here we are at the end of February it's not unheard of but it's, it's early so anyway, we'll hopefully get some salamanders and wood frogs and peepers across the road safely over on Henry street and obviously this happens in lots of other places in the region. And then we have some public updates for the commission. Aaron and I are gearing up for a project kickoff I think I mentioned this to you two weeks ago for a project kickoff for the trails at Hickory Ridge. We are zeroing in on our selected contractor I have not quite gotten the word on announcing that yet so maybe Aaron can send that out as soon as we get word from our procurement office that we can release that but suffice it to say that we have a contractor. We have a successful bidding process and we will be kicking off the trail project at Hickory very soon so we're getting geared up with turtle turtle training and and other requirements of the permit from the commission and natural heritage and the planning board and all other boards and committees so it's going to be an interesting time out there. Let's see. In two weeks, Aaron and I will be giving you a public presentation a PowerPoint presentation on Puffers pond. We've got been doing some kind of behind the scenes work. Just a little bit of kind of visioning work on what Puffers pond needs and what offers pond could be if we have the resources to make some improvements there. So we're excited to bring you some ideas to discuss in two weeks. This is not a this is not a one and done it's not a 30 minute discussion at your next meeting it's, it's going to be many months of discussions and potential fundraising and and guiding that process but we're excited to at least get it started. The genesis for that really is coming from the improvements that we know we need to make to the dyke and dam at Puffers pond I think I mentioned that to you before the dyke is in poor condition the dam is in fair condition, and we know the pond needs so it's a wonderful time to really look at that whole package and say, you know what do we want Puffers pond to look like in five years 10 years 20 years, because it does need some TLC. So we'll bring you the first presentation on that in two weeks, a nice PowerPoint, which is pretty much done. Hickory just circling back to that for us for a second. I will be giving a pre an overview presentation to the town council later in March I early April I don't have a date on that but I'll ask Aaron to send that to you. The town council would like kind of an update, they have not heard. You know a lot more about hickory than the town council does through through the notice of intent process with us for the trails and with your sky. So I'm giving an update to them in four to five weeks and I'll, I'll send you the date or Aaron will the date and if you want to come to that meeting via zoom, you're welcome to do that and this will be on on everything out there from from solar to trails to permitting and kind of reimagining what the frontage might be on. And then lastly, we have been conducting interviews for the commission, Michelle Aaron myself, and one other person have been conducting interviews for commission vacancies so that's going well I think by the end of the week will we have done what five of them Michelle I think. Yeah, I think that's a good one for six so seven maybe okay seven very interesting people from all, you know, different backgrounds and all of them with, you know, sharing an interest in in the trails and then the conservation areas and their love of all things for the commission so what happens is that committee then makes a recommendation to the town manager, and the town manager decides on an appointment, or more, depending on number of vacancies so that's kind of exciting to get that process going. So I'll stop there conscious of your time. And if anybody has any questions. Please feel free. Um, Jason, that's all you put your hand down so good. Okay. Minutes. Lots of them 510 614 110 124 and 214. We're looking for a motion to approve them. I move to approve the minutes for 510 23 614 23. One 1024 124 24 and to 1424. Second. Alex on a motion Andre in the second. Alex. Hi, Andre. Bruce. I see your hand. You're an eye. Okay, Laura. Hi, Jason. Hi. All right. Land management updates. Alex, do you want to take a minute to give a update on the subcommittee? Yes, sure. The subcommittee, which consists of myself. Michelle. And Bruce. With Dave and Aaron regularly participating. Has been meeting essentially every two weeks. With some interruptions. And we have been working through the policy. Subject by subject. And we find that some subjects. Are not aware of a deep dive. For example, we're working on agriculture right now. And Bruce has been doing that. We would like to bring some things to you. Fairly soon. And we'll probably do that in pieces. Rather than wait until the whole document is done. For example. Hope to bring you community gardens. And within a month, hopefully bring you agriculture. And we'll probably do that in a couple of weeks. So we're just plugging along. Going slower than anticipated, which is probably could have been anticipated. So I apologize for that. That's my report. Alex. Aaron Dave. Do we have any open space and recreation plan updates? The survey is out. And it's currently being populated by the community. So that's good news. And we've gotten some feedback on it, which has been relayed back to the planning department. So yeah, it's, it's in full, full effect. We're hoping to have a couple of community events related to it. To talk about some of the results and, you know, action goals of the, of the town staff who are working on it in the near future. And I'll keep you posted on those. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the community events are like post survey. Sort of. Yeah. I mean, initially it was going to be kind of a kickoff to the survey, but I think there's some regrouping going on and some thought that we should give the community some time to, to fill out the survey before we do that. So we have some results to share. So. I might have, I'll have more information. Yeah. Yeah. Probably at the next meeting with regard to. Path forward. Okay. If I could just add, you know, just to put a point on something here inside one is, you know, despite it being a little bit clunky, we have heard from the commission and other folks that it is a little clunky. It is a little long. We have a pretty robust response. I don't know the overall number, but people are getting through it. Um, hard copies are available as well to those folks who may not be able to or not want to do it online. Um, the engage amherst. Um, software does allow for quite a bit of, of, of analysis and summary. So we're, we're, I think we're all looking forward to that. And I can't remember Aaron gave you an up or a presentation on the, on the open space and recreation plan, I don't know, a month ago or more. Um, but, um, we've seen some of the initial data coming out. So it'll be very interesting when we have all of that to share with the commission. Um, you know, on, on responses, uh, some of the, you know, what are, what are those, those areas of concern out there on the trails or conservation areas? What are the, you know, the, the, the wants and the needs of our residents relating to, you know, whether it's trails, open space, um, et cetera. So, um, it's going to be interesting. It's, it's, um, you know, Erin and I got a sneak peek at some of the, the summary data already. And it, it's kind of interesting. There's everything from trail conditions to dog issues to what people would like to be able to do out on the conservation land. So it's going to be really cool to see it. I think. Um, yeah. So give us a couple more weeks and we should have some, some data results for you back. Thanks. All right. I think we're ready. No, oh wait, 10 minutes. Um, So that just then to backtrack the engage Amherst, the format is I think a Google form, which I've used before for surveys and it is a very tidy assimilation of responses and graphic form and otherwise. So hopefully the required 90 questions will come in handy when looking at those graphs. Um, I have, uh, had some people reach out to me about having trouble finishing it generally like of a, I don't know, certain crowd, but I don't know, hands, hands, quick hands, commissioners, how many people on this commission have taken the survey. Okay. Not everybody. I don't have people. Can you resend it Michelle, I will take it. I just probably get lost. Yeah, Aaron, do you think you could. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, spread the word. Okay. Um, do we have any other business we can do in eight minutes? Not really. And we can excuse me. And we do we have time to flip to the back and tackle one of the subjects at the end. Okay. Okay. Okay. We have a discussion on limitations ongoing continuations. Well, we have seven minutes until our neck or. I don't know about that. I think that that's kind of a 15 minute 20 minute conversation. I will let me announce for the attendees though that we have some continuances. I'm going to start with the next slide. Okay. So I'm going to start with the next slide. And then we have a discussion on environmental LLC on behalf of LF's E for next. Coles incorporated for the battery storage system. That's continued. Pure sky development incorporated on shoots. Very road is continued. And the only hearings will be have tonight is. Stonefield engineering LLC for a valley CDC. On Balane and engineers on Emerson court. So. Any attendees not here for that. I want to check into, I guess, our next meeting on March. Was it 13th? Yes. Okay. I think maybe we could just. Discuss what those two topics are perhaps on our, the other business agendas. We have discussing limitations of ongoing continuations. We touched on that last. Meeting. And then we have a second one. I see your hand up. Go ahead. Yeah. I have an update on Fort River school. That I, that might take a few minutes for us to talk about as well. So just. That might be something we could cover. All right. Can we do that in 6 minutes? Yeah. Let's do it. So the, I included in your packets of press release, which was sent to me today for the kickoff of the Fort River school project that projects. There, I was contacted today by the project engineers. And they have some initial. Traffic. Some, some site work relative to sort of repatterning, repatterning traffic on the site that has to be done first. And so they would like to get started on that. I did. Let them know, you know, it's, there's some preliminary things they have to take care of. I think that's a good thing. Relative to their, their phasing, I don't really have a problem with them doing the, the work that they have to do for the. Adjustments to the driveways. First. So I just wanted to give the commission an update that you might see some action going on there, but that the overall. Installation of erosion controls for like the new school location. Etc. They're not going to. All set up around those areas until. All of the traffic related adjustments have been done first. So they have to make sure that. Traffic can get in and out of the school parking lot safely. In order to start phase one. So. You know, there'll be some BMPs installed, but we're going to be doing sort of a phased. I think that's going to be an early phase. So that's the kind of. Initiation, shall we say of the, the site work. How soon do you think that's going to be immediately? It might be before our next meeting. So I wanted to make sure that I let you folks know tonight. I did ask them to provide me with just a correspondence outlining the exact areas where work was going to be done. Make sure we have BMPs installed as necessary for the specific work that's like. We're going to be working with them to make sure that those BMPs are installed. And then once that's all set, we'll, we'll do the official sort of pre-construction meeting for phase one. Thanks. Switching gears. Since we have a couple of minutes. And speaking of Tuckerman. Is it appropriate to ask perhaps like what the status of that enforcement order is currently. Or if it would happen with that one. Tuckerman enforcement order. Yeah. Is it closed? Can you just remind me? Yeah. So they filed an RDA after the, after the enforcement to. To rectify it. The permit is still active. The determination or the, the determination of applicability. And so they did install silt fence, which I went out and inspected probably. Two years ago. And they did the site preparation, which was tree removal and grubbing of the site. They put a stockpile on the site. And I was watching it closely at one point. Getting really concerned about compliance. This was. Prior to Jen's departure, it was a really wet summer. And just that site. Kind of got really bushy with vegetation. And so it stabilized itself pretty quickly. So I backed off of. Approaching them about it. Their silt fence though is in really bad shape. So. Before any site work happens there, they need to basically refresh all of their BMPs. And ultimately there was a restoration. Of the site. And then there was the. Enforcement and the home construction that were required. So those are outstanding. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Alex. Going back to the school. I understand that the RFPs went out. Not too long ago. And. And they're. They're still working on that project. And then the project was actually going to start. So I think that's a good point. I mean, I think we've got a lot of traffic now. I didn't think that project was actually going to start construction. Until the summer. Yeah. I mean, I think there's some preliminary work. They have to do to set up sort of the. The. First phase, which includes. The existing access road and the parking lot, which is used for parent pickup and drop off. And also an alternative system for the buses. So right now the buses come in and pull in front of the school. From the main entrance. And what's going to happen is that all three entrances are going to be where the current exit is now. There'll be one. New entry way through there. And so buses are actually going to be driving around the school. Yeah. That was going to be during the school year. I thought the construction was going to start. After the school year, but. I don't need to straight it out now. Yeah, real quickly. So, so some of the stripping of the top soil is going to be happening sooner than later. So that's. That's coming fairly quickly. So that, that'll be kind of in addition to these access ways. Removing the top soil from. The playing fields and the subsoil. Where the school will go. Is going to happen in March and April. So that's why the first step. Is dealing with the access ways. Got it. Okay. We're good. Then. Let's move on to our seven 30. Procedures. Do you want to bring folks in Aaron and I'll read. Okay. So. All right. So each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda. Five minutes of comments from staff. Five minutes from applicants. Five minutes for public comment or two minutes per person. Five minutes for conservation commissioners. Conservation commission is requiring all submitted revised material to be submitted by Wednesday. The week prior to the meeting at the close of business. For all presenters, please clearly state your name, your address, and who you're representing as well as preferred pronoun, but for members of the public, please clearly state your name address. And know if you have preferred pronouns. Okay. I think we're good on this. So this is notice of intent for the Zen engineer on behalf of Emerson court condominium association for the replacement of existing dry ways and a drainage improvements within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands on Emerson court map eight B 18 B lot 621. So you'll have to open this one, Michelle. This isn't open. Okay. This public hearing is now called to order. The hearing is being called as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general law of the common wealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands is most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general. Bylaws. Okay. I think we have. Oh, hi, Bucky. Welcome. Hello. Good evening. It's nice to be back. I'll just move forward. My name is Bucky sparkle pronouns. He him. And I'm here to talk about. What I hope is a relatively rudimentary process of repaving existing driveway. And a couple of other minor drainage improvements over Emerson court. I've submitted the plans and the application. We did the site walk. Earlier. Yesterday, yesterday, not today. And what I'm going to do is just bring up the, the plans and kind of walk everyone through it. And happy to answer questions at any point. Just to locate the site. This is route nine. Belcher town. And at the corner of stony hill and gate house is where Emerson court resides. Looking at an aerial view. And to give people sort of a real world sense of what's going on. Emerson court is composed of three buildings and three driveways. This is a slightly older photo from 2014. The upper driveway was refurbished. Emerson court is composed of three buildings and three driveways. This is a slightly older photo from 2014. The upper driveway was repaved some years ago, but after 2014, I wasn't involved with that. So I, I'm not sure when it happened. I was all outside of the buffer zone anyway. However, the middle drive going down the hill and at the lowest and the bottom drive. These were built in the late seventies, if I recall, or around 1980. And they're, they're shot. There are drainage problems. There are some flooding problems. And it's time to replace them. You will see this sort of greenish areas. My sort of ham-handed approximation of the wetland that is survey located, but this is not the survey. So there's a detention basin down here and running through the woods is sort of a gully. It is not an intermittent stream. It's just sort of a low point. And it has definitely is a BVW. So we're looking at the survey of the same area. See the three buildings and the two hatched areas of pavement. I'm also indicating some of the infrastructure. But first is, this is the wetland line that word Smith flagged. It was survey located. We have the 25 and 50 and 100 foot buffers affiliated with that. And then we have the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. Virtually all of the work is outside of the 50 foot buffer. With very minor exception, which I'll get to on the next page. And what I show. Here's the red lines are erosion controls that are going to be strategically located based upon topography and possibility of any damage. And there are also several catch basin inlets in the vicinity, all of which will have catch basin inlet filters. Like the real ones, not just sheets of geotextile. I've also highlighted a couple of dashed orange lines, which I don't need to zoom in on. I think, whoops, that's a whole building. But the dashed lines are existing drainage ways drainage pipes for the roof drainage that have failed. They're not functioning. We have done a TV of them, inspected them. We've tried to hydro jet them totally defunct. And the old orange berg pipe material is just falling apart. So we're going to be replacing a few of those. The solid orange lines are the existing, I'm going to call primary drainage that bring water from both the development and the municipal that stony hill road drains into this patch basin. And this one that all come through the development and come down to the detention basin here. I'm going to move on to the proposed work. And I might zoom in a little bit here just because we're seeing more than, you know, where the action is really happening. So let me try to snug in a little bit here. And again, so that we're going to start with the noting that the new pavement is actually going to be a little less square footage. We're reducing the impervious area. Not significantly, but we are reducing it. We are adding a couple of additional inlets where there is currently some flooding and standing water on the property. And we're reconnecting those new inlets to the existing storm water system in general. The things that generally, you know, catch the attention of the commission and fall under the purview of the wetlands protection act and bylaws is we're going to talk about work that's within the 50 foot buffer, which is that line here and right up to it. So let me start at the uphill end. We're adding a new catch basin here connecting existing drains to it. Those drains currently come down to this pipe, this line, and just shoot straight into the detention basin. Well, my intention is both to build less pipe and to disconnect the roof water and a lot of this pavement water from going directly to the detention area in the wetland is to discharge it to the surface over here where it's going to then move into this gully. And so have a couple hundred feet of contact with the earth, slow down, you know, soak in a bit and also slow down the peak discharge rates from the site. In doing that, I'm going to be adding about 55 feet of pipe to go from a new catch basin in toward the woods. When I was out there with Aaron and Jason and as my plan now indicates, if you bother to read the small print, it says this pipe can go kind of anywhere. So let's not kill any trees that they need to show me exactly where it's going. And I want to make sure that we're not damaging any of the trees in that area. There's no need for that. We have lots of options. And it's going to be sort of a combination of, you know, really the path of least resistance and maintaining the vegetation there. The other pipe that is going beyond the existing footprint of pavement is this pipe here. And that is because we're adding a catch basin at this location draining this area and reconnecting roof drains that have failed. There's an existing drain manhole right here. So this is a very easy way and direct way to connect that water to the existing drain system. And it goes right where it was going into the detention basin. That pipe is between the 25 and the 50 foot buffer. So it's 21 feet long. So we've got some amount of disturbance within that buffer zone. And both for this pipe and this pipe uphill, these two new ones into, you know, what's yard right now. We will be restoring those areas immediately and employing, in addition to grass seed, a biodegradable Matt blanket to help stabilize that as soon as possible. Of course there are also silt fence or these are sediment logs up here because it's going to be low volume. Now, when we did walk the site this yesterday, Aaron had the great idea to go down and look at these outlets in more detail, which a couple of years ago, I remember looking at this one, but we looked at the others. This, that all of them have some amount of sediment that can literally be scooped out with a shovel, hand tools, no machinery whatsoever, no disturbance to the BVW. This one right here, the head wall, it was a masonry head wall that's a combination of granite blocks and mortar. It sits on a concrete pad. So there's a splash pad for the outlet. A large, what I'm going to call a four bowl tree, a four trunk tree has grown up right at the back side of that head wall has broken it has knocked it down. And it's just sitting there in the wetland. So we're going to get a silt fence down here. We're going to pick up that debris. We will need to remove that tree because it is grown into the head wall location and the end of the pipe. And we need to rebuild the head wall impossible with the tree there. So we'll be pulling that out right at the embankment and it will cause a very small amount of temporary disturbance. And it's hard to say if it's even in the BVW because we're going to do most of that work is really a concrete splash pad. That tree does need to come out. The root system does need to come out. But whatever disturbance ends up being necessary to replace that pipe end is going to be immediately stabilized, seated and have a blanket put back on it. Other than that, the work is under existing pavement. We're reducing the pavement area. Obviously there's a little more going on here than I'm talking about, but that's because it's outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. But it is all simply, you know, repairing or replacing existing infrastructure. And I do have, you know, a few details, et cetera, that we can talk about. I think we can maybe public comment. If you have a comment, please raise your hand. If you have a question, please raise your hand. Thanks, Bucky. Commissioners, it sounds like Jason was out there. I don't know if anyone else. Yeah. Thanks for doing the visit, Jason. Do we have any commissioner questions or comments on this? None. Okay. So that for. Trunk tree that's in the buffer. Bucky, that's. It is, it wasn't survey located. I will, I will fully admit, I think yesterday that this sort of became a. A consideration to zoom into that location. We do have the surveyor, you know, they've, they've identified the outfall and the elevation. So we know that the end of the pipe is exactly here, which puts the boy, I don't know if I can sketch this and easy enough. But there's a head wall roughly. There. And the tree. Let's see if I can get my magic crayon to do something again is, is right here. I mean, as well, it's. I'm going to move it. It's like. Here, which is why it has broken the, the head wall. So based upon, you know, my, my guesstimate that you just watched me make. I don't, I don't, I expect that we are, yeah, we're going to be right, right into that, that magic line, the green line is the green line. Okay. Is it a pine tree? No, it's not. I'm not sure what kind of tree it is. Deciduous. Anyone. This is the, a photo of it. If this helps. I can stop the share. Yeah. I'm not, I'm not sure what kind of tree it was. A maple maybe. I'm not, I'm not certain. You can see the rubble. That's laying on the concrete splash pad. Um, if my looking at this, my instinct was that the root ball would need to come out to rebuild it. Maybe we can leave the root ball in place, which would be preferred. Cause you know, we have a lot, we have no soil disturbance in that case, except for, you know, where the head wall used to be. So maybe we can work that out and leave the root ball in place. We can take that as a preferred path. It certainly be faster and cheaper. So that would be great. But it may not be physically possible. I have a question. Sorry. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah. How do you plan to take that out? Um, I mean, that's the, you know, how you, how you access it and how are you going to pull that root ball out if you have the need to, and it, and it looks to me like it's a red maple. Okay. Okay. My anticipation is that a tracked vehicle and excavator would likely come down through the buffer zone to the edge of the BBW would assist with somebody with a chainsaw and get those trees to come down and fall in a controlled direction. Excavators are really helpful in getting trees to follow where you want them to. Then once you have the stump, you know, if, if you were able to leave the stump, great. If not, then the excavator itself would, would just pluck that right out and it would be disposed of offsite. One thing I will say relative to the trees, there is pretty decent tree cover here. So the removal of that tree isn't going to impact the, the basal area of that well and dramatically at all. It's surrounded by trees on either side. Okay. So a little quick follow up. You said that you would be bringing a tracked, tracked working vehicle down there. That is that through the BBW? No, no, it would be from the pavement through the buffer and it would operate outside of the buffer zone. The only thing that would end up in the BBW is people standing there to make the, to make the work happen. So there's no machinery in the wetland. All right, thank you. Go ahead, Alex. A couple of comments. I presume the tree was of that multi stemmed tree that was in the left-hand side of the photo. Yes. And it may have been a stump sprout, but if you cut the tree and don't kill it. With herbicides then it's going to resprout. It's already got an established root system, plenty of water and you're, you're really not going to get rid of your problem. So if you're going to just cut it, I don't think that's solving a problem. And if you're going to remove it, it'll, that root systems fall over the place, sucking up that water. Is it possible to move the end of the pipe, out of the 50 foot and, and reestablish the, the outlet outside of the wetland boundary? Let me look at the plan and see how likely that is. I'm looking at the elevation as 179.3. It's a pretty steep slope coming down in there. So the, to move it, we'd have to install a new manhole, redirect the pipe, trench through the buffer and back, you know, up to the edge of the BVW. There are other trees through there. So, you know, we would likely be able to pick a location where there wasn't an existing tree right now. So I didn't have a clear view. I'm sorry. I didn't see other trees and what not. So I'll just take your word for it. But if it, if, if you could just simply pull back and sever the pipe four or five feet back and put in a new drainage way, you could leave the tree where it is. And, but I don't know whether that's more work, less work. That's messy. So I'll just leave it at that. More or less work. It's not a significant amount of work. Like I think we're starting, you know, we're potentially splitting hairs in terms of effort. Like I want to do the right thing down here because all the options are relatively simple. So, you know, I want to make sure that the commission is happy. Pulling it back. You would have to remove, you still have to create a channel. So wherever the pipe was and wherever those tree roots are, you're still going to have to cut all of that out. Earth and then you've created some embankments and you're also going to be disturbing some amount of BVW. Again, a handful, just a few square feet in surveys. So accurate to say that it's three square feet or anything like that, but we're talking just a handful of square feet of disturbance. But no matter what you do, I cannot see a way of not taking out that bank to some degree. I'll just leave it alone and go with whatever the least impact is. And it's not a big deal to me. Okay. Thanks, Alex. Go ahead, Erin. So I just wanted to point something out, which I think is a really important historical context about this sort of so-called BVW that these pipes flow into. It is a BVW because there has been drainage directed toward it since probably the 70s when this development was constructed. But it was actually that BVW, which is where those pipes are discharging, was constructed as a detention basin. And if you, I can shoot back to the photos so you can take a quick look, but sort of contextually, this was a pre-Wetland Protection Act designed stormwater system with a detention basin where all of the drainage from the site discharged and just over the years because of the, you know, all of the water inputs, it's basically turned into a BVW. So we had some discussions in the field about this because, you know, digging it out, there are some regulatory implications of that at this point. And they're not really interested in dredging out the old detention basin, which is reverted to Wetland. But I am a little concerned that pulling out, like for me reviewing this project, it's a relatively minor project, relatively low impact, replacing some infrastructure to improve drainage and improve water quality. And if we start wholesale pulling out like pipe systems and drainage systems to relocate them, I think we're going to be creating significantly more impact in doing so. And also we're not going to be directing it into this area that was designed to be a detention basin. It's going to be directed elsewhere, which could cause scour and other issues. Thanks, Erin. Jason, go ahead. Yeah, my comment was essentially what Erin was saying that it seemed at the site that removing the tree was going to be the least amount of disturbance that the, you know, as I understand it, but you break the splash pad, the concrete splash pad for erosion control and energy dissipation is going to remain in place. It's just the head wall and potentially, you know, three to four feet of pipe behind it that are going to need to be replaced. So, you know, a good portion of that infrastructure is going to remain in place. So, you know, and there's a lot of trees around that area. You know, I would say if the concern is with the tree potentially propose the planting of one or two red maples in that area. As you know, compensatory mitigation, if you will, or just recognizing that that tree needs to come out. There's a lot of drainage that goes down that pipe off of Stony Hill and everything. It is a good opportunity to fix a piece of infrastructure with little disturbance. Thanks, Jason. I was going to ask if planting something somewhere. I mean, I, Erin, segue to the pictures and there are a lot of trees. I don't know how many of them are native. I don't know what the composition is there, but maybe just, you know, tree for a tree. I would suggest an oak tree. I would, I think that, you know, some kind of oak native oak is probably the biggest bang for the buck ecologically. I'd like to, I mean, I agree with Erin and Jason. This seems like an improvement on drainage and least impact. So I'd like to keep moving this on. I see Bruce has his hand up. You're muted Bruce. Alex is first. Go ahead, Alex. Just for the record, I wasn't trying to save the tree. And all my comment was, if you don't kill it, it's just going to come back and remain a problem with your new wall. Yeah, I agree that might be a problem. It looks pretty suckered. Yeah, that was my major point. All right, Bruce, go ahead. I see a more people coming in as visitors. So are there any for this one? You mean public comment? Yes. I will re-announce. If you have public comment for this particular hearing, please raise your hand. Otherwise, I think, okay, so I think two of us have mentioned potential tree planting. It looks like there's enough yard there that could do with some shading. Anyway, is that possible? What could you do think? There's plenty of room for trees down there. No problem. Yeah, I don't, I mean, I, I hear it Alex is saying, I think there might be problems with that in the future with the tree, just re-sprouting. So I assume that you'll be paying attention to that. So we don't have to see this in another 15 years. I'll leave that to you. Okay. Aaron, do you think we can add that to the order of conditions just to anything of one tree? Yeah. Let's make it an oak tree. Okay. Yep. All right, then I'll, I'll move to close the public hearing for Emerson court and issue orders of conditions. Okay. All right. That's the IP number 089-0732 under the state wetlands protection act and under wetlands protection to town of Amherst general bylaws. Particle 3.31 and regulations with the. Draft the boiler plate and special conditions along with the addition of the planting of one native oak tree. Second. Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Hi. I'm an eye. All right. So moved. Thank you, Bucky. Thank you very much. We'll see you in another time. Okay. Great. So our seven 40, if anybody is here for the pure sky development incorporated on behalf of WD Coles at shoot spray road, that meeting has been continued. And we are looking for a motion unless Erin, you have an update that you'd like to give us first. Um, yeah. So I just, I jumped ahead on the slide by accident, Michelle, and we have the Karen environmental consulting first. Um, no, that's okay. That was my fault. Um. So, yeah, I'll just give a really quick update on this. Um, the applicant did request a continuance at my urging. And the reason for that was because, um, I recommended that the applicant have a, um, a meeting with, uh, various town departments to get some sort of additional inter departmental comment on the, on the, um, proposed design before we come back to the conservation commission and also to give them some time to incorporate those potential, um, comments. Uh, it, the applicant, um, I think needs a little more input from other departments before the commission can really, um, reconsider, uh, their proposal. So they're, they're willing to do that. And we're going to be scheduling a meeting to do that. So that's why there's a need for a continuation. Was that my recommendation? Okay. And, um, I think several members were out on the site visit. I was out of town and I would like to make that site visit. I don't know if that's going to be sort of contingent upon their meetings with other town, um, departments, but, uh, if anyone didn't make it and is interested in visiting, maybe we could coordinate on that. Yeah, I'd be happy to, um, organize another site visit for the folks who missed it. Thanks. Okay. Um, I think we're looking for a motion to continue this one. I will move to continue the public hearing for the Montague road batteries storage and a lie to seven 45 on three 1324. Second. Jason on the motion Bruce on the second Jason. Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Hi. Hi. Alright, I'm an eye. Okay. Um, pure sky development appropriate. On behalf of the beauty coals, um, I'd shoot spray road. So this one is also being continued and do you have any updates on this one before we make a motion? Yes. So just to give everybody a quick update, um, our peer reviewer, as you all know, walked the site with the applicants representative and gate had some, um, revisions for the delineation. Um, we got a plan which was reviewed and commented on by our peer reviewer, um, and, uh, a second revision came out and the second revision was reviewed and commented on by our peer reviewer. Um, we've had. Um, we're going on sort of round three at this point and all of the revisions have not yet been incorporated. So what I am doing is I'm taking Emily's written commentary, which is in a narrative format and I'm actually marking up the plan and sending it back to pure sky with the expected revisions, um, that need to come back to us because I just want to make it clear that the recommendations of the peer reviewer need to be incorporated onto the plan. Um, unless there's some specific area that they're disputing, um, they should be incorporating the edits per peer reviewer. So, um, I'm in the process of, of putting that communication together and sending it to the applicant, um, probably before the end of the week. And, um, while we, while they continue to address the peer reviewer's comments, I think we're going to move on to the next slide. I think we've already requested a continuation to the meeting on March 13th. Thanks, Aaron. All right. Unless there's any commissioner questions or anything, I think we're looking to just continue this fun. They moved to continue the public hearing for shoots, we rode. A N R. AD to seven 50 PM. On three 13 24. Alex on the motion Bruce on the second Jason. All right. Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Alex. Hi. Laura. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay. And Michelle, do we take public comments for these where we're just pushing the hearing back? Well, we can. So if there are public comments on this, um, you know, it's sort of up to my discretion, I guess, and I'm willing to hear it. For any public in attendance, if you have any. Public comment, please just raise your hand. It's kind of easier for me to keep an eye in the room. Before the hearing. So I don't see any. So we're just going to move on. And then I will take some at the very end. Okay. Next up is our NOI for Wendell wetland services. On behalf of Kevin and Mary O'Brien for the construction of a new 1200 square feet single family home and associated site work within Riverfront area of Eastern brook at 261. Road map three lot 15. The project is proposed as a riverfront redevelopment project replacing an existing garage and chicken coop structure. Um, again, continued. Any questions on this one or updates from Erin. I can give a quick update. Um, I did receive a survey design plan. Um, I'm just an initial sort of preliminary to review. And there was a couple edits that needed to be made. To it before it comes to the conservation commission as well. There's some edits being made to the septic design, but the, the applicant is making headway. Um, so I expect that probably by the 13th, we're going to have a plan. At least that's my hope. Okay. All right. Move to continue the public hearing for. I have a question. Yep. Go ahead, Alex. Uh, were you going to have a site visit Aaron before our next meeting? Once we get a plan, I'll schedule a safe visit. Once we get a plan that's, that's. The answer is yes. Yes. Thank you. Andre. I move to continue the public hearing for 2, 60 Leverent road to 755 PM on 3, 13, 24. I can. Andre on the motion. Jason on the second Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. Laura. We'll move to Alex. Alex. Hi. Laura. All right. We don't have Laura on this one. Can we just, that's fine. All right. I'll note it. All right. Okay. Moving on to notice of intent for stone field engineering design. LLC on behalf of valley CDC for the construction of a 15 residential duplex structure and associated site work, including parking utilities, stormwater management and landscaping within the buffer zone at 20 to 40 ball lane map five, a lot of 56. I'm just going to pull in the folks. So. The applicant did provide a plan update to me. By the deadline this past Wednesday. And after it was received. I did meet with the applicant. I'm just going to pull in the folks. I'm just going to pull in the folks. I did meet with the applicant to review the plan. And based on the plan changes, I came up with some recommendations for the proposed mitigation plan, which was received today based on my comments. I have drafted the order of conditions to incorporate the. The mitigation plan that was submitted as part of the application. And I think that they have proposed a pretty robust mitigation plan to compensate for impacts. So I just wanted to make sure I just lead with that. Thanks, Aaron. Okay. If there's any public comment on this, please start raising your hands now. I don't see any raised. So we're going to turn it over to the public. I'm going to turn it over to Josh or Jessica. Do you want to. Give us an. Update presentation. Sure. I'm going to turn it over to Josh and let him take the majority of it. But I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. You guys can hear me all right, right? Yep. Perfect. I was just coming from a WebEx. I wanted to make sure zoom was working. So thank you again for having us again. Stonefield engineering. Josh Klein and professional engineer. We're here for valley community development. So I think Aaron kind of. Let on with, with where we've been, there's, there's been a lot of coordination and collaboration, you know, both in our internal team. With some of our consultants, including a soil investigation group. As well as kind of the landscape team architecture team. And then ultimately kind of working with Aaron in the town. Hopefully, you know, get to a point here where everyone can, can be happy to move the project forward. I'm just going to open up the latest set of plans. And then I want to share a mitigation exhibit that we, we kind of put together. So it's probably easiest to initially kind of talk through with the grading plan. So one of the, the biggest things from last meeting to this meeting, and really the reason we, we decided to continue a meeting in between is we went out and did a series of extensive soil testing previously. And we, you know, we did it. There was initial soil testing done. And then we did additional soil testing. And a lot of times we would rely on that initial soil test. But in this case, because of the low groundwater and groundwater fluctuations we found, we went out and did that additional testing. Now, when we did that testing, what we found was that the groundwater actually kind of moves up the hill. So it mounds its way up the hill, which is really, you know, when we look at these projects from a storm perspective is not as common of what you see. And it probably relates to the hydrology and the type of soils in the area. You know, a lot of times what you can expect, especially when you're around wetlands is you can kind of approximate the wetland elevation, you know, kind of where that, that wet baseline is. And usually that elevation holds somewhat steady. Now it may gradually kind of increase in areas. But what we found on the site is really as we work our way up the hill, groundwater is kind of maintaining about that 24 inch kind of depth throughout. And where that becomes important is it makes it very, very challenging to move the stormwater system away from the lowest part of the site. So kind of the biggest change that kind of from the last meeting to this meeting was the redesign of the stormwater. Buildings are in the same place. Parking is in the same place. We're preserving the kind of the mature vegetation, kind of a long Montague road. But what we've done is we've, we've had to move the stormwater system kind of towards the intersection of DOT roadway in order to maintain that proper separation. And you can really kind of see that with this new edge of the basin how it actually follows the contour line. And that really is strategic because we have to maintain that groundwater separation. One of the other big differences is the basin got about half the size. We actually were able to shrink the size of the main infiltration system by about half. And the reason we were able to do that is that we kind of incorporated a series of small-scale infiltration and bioretention practices throughout the site. So you'll actually see, you know, one of those bioretention systems along the Montague road driveway, you'll see these kind of small-scale infiltration depressions kind of throughout the site. And what's really nice about these is they provide kind of that low-impact development design where you're incorporating your stormwater right into your kind of development. And it kind of breaks the mold a little bit from how a lot of times engineers traditionally look at sites whereas you pick up all the water and conveyance and you move it to a single infiltration system. In this case, we've created these little pockets throughout the site that create usable areas for residents but also have a dual purpose provide stormwater management. So that is really kind of the reason for the shift kind of to this upper corner. And just to kind of, you know, for the commission understand some things that we looked at and thought about is, you know, we looked at, you know, this idea of moving the basin kind of to the south a little bit. And what we really found is we would compromise this mature vegetation and we'd have to come in here and kind of clear-cut, you know, this mature vegetation to move the basin over here. And you really wouldn't see much of a benefit, you know, kind of to this buffer area, which I'll kind of show on the mitigation summary that you're kind of seeing now. We also looked at, you know, I think one of the questions that comes up right when you look at the plan is, you know, why not just move the basin here? And the reason really is, is this area climbs about 10 feet. And there's no way to put a basin here without having to fill the entire site, you know, three, four, five, six, seven plus feet. So it would, you know, A would be impractical, B the impact of bringing in that much fill, you know, would have kind of a negative impact to these surrounding wetlands as well. I mean, you'd be having to truck in, you know, an unimaginable amount of dirt. And it really, it ultimately would take kind of this nice existing open meadow and create this large structural infiltration system. So what we did, I think, to kind of make it a little bit easier tonight to talk about, and what I think is really nice is this plan can kind of be wrapped right into the order of conditions to really highlight exactly, you know, what are the mitigation efforts that the teams kind of come up with. So, you know, we've had a few strategies kind of coming into it, you know, is finding area that we can preserve, you know, incorporating, you know, native wildflower mixes, incorporating native soil mixes, creating a schedule to kind of protect these preserved areas, you know, thinking about kind of creating wildlife value, you know, today you have these areas which are really, you know, there's someone that comes and mows them, you know, on, mows them multiple times a year, haze the field, the wetland kind of ditch along Polpahill Road is clear cut on a regular basis. So a lot of these, you know, buffer areas, you know, have not been kind of allowed to, you know, kind of be preserved in some type of way. So what we've done is kind of in the northern area, so this is wetland area A and B. This is the majority of this area is an existing meadow. So you can kind of see the area to the right is going to be that kind of new area of preservation. So that entire 100 foot buffer will be protected. We're proposing signs along the edge of it, kind of calling that area out to be protected. We're proposing bird boxes in that area as well. And then any areas that are disturbed as part of the construction, there is a stormwater pipe that has to run through it, would be replanted with a, with a native wildflower mix. So it gives an opportunity for this area to be protected in longevity, you know, the, you know, any future kind of development or improvements, community areas, gardens, you know, things of that nature would all be outside of the buffer based on the order of conditions being drafted. Now we did want to kind of talk a little bit about the stormwater area, just so I think we understand, you know, what's happening. So again, today it is a meadow. Any areas that are disturbed outside of kind of the required river stone areas will be replanted with a native wildflower mix. So again, it will allow this area to kind of flourish into the future as well. And then the basin itself, it's not going to be a gravel basin. It's not going to be covered in sand. It's going to be planted with a native, a wet tolerable mix. So to, you know, it probably ultimately will start to almost play well into what the existing meadow is, and you'll probably see some different types of species kind of growing it. Now, the other thing to note is this is not a high value resource wetland along Culver Hill Road. It is a drainage ditch that likely over time is overgrown and taken on properties of wetland feature. There's a, you know, for example, there's an existing pipe that runs through it. So, you know, we, there is, you know, kind of being proposed the ability to maintain that, which is, you know, we've kind of basically noted that these areas cannot be mowed more than two times a year. So they could, you know, decide that they don't need to mow the ditch for two or three years, or they could decide that, you know, they have to mow it those one or two years to kind of help properly maintain it. And the other big thing is we are restricting when these areas can be mowed. Right now, someone can kind of, you know, without any restrictions that exist today, they kind of come in and mow it, you know, when they please. So now it won't be able to be mowed kind of during that nesting season. So from April 15th to September 15th, these areas will be protected, which I think is a nice way to maintain the area to a degree, but also allow it to have that wildlife value. As we work our way to the south of the site, this was the area. I think last time we were here, we spoke about the invasive management plan. So that invasive management plan will still be in effect. We've kind of highlighted the approximate area in orange where that exists. And we are going to kind of do some additional protection back here. So we're proposing four signs at the limit, basically of calling these like the limited use areas or really the yards or the backyards for the, for the home. So there'll be signs placed there so that residents cannot go beyond that. There's no clearing permitted. There's no disturbance in the area. We're also going to put on the signs that there's no dumping. I think, you know, that's obviously, you know, something we don't want people doing, you know, residents or non-residents. So those signs will also include notes to be no dumping. What we've kind of highlighted in the darker green, that's that existing natural vegetation that's going to remain as part of the project, the kind of shade, lighter green that I'm kind of highlighting here. That's existing meadow that, you know, any of those areas disturbed, that area is going to be replaced with that, with that native wildflower mix. So to really let that, that meadow continue to thrive. And then the latest shade of green, which I'm kind of highlighting here, it was touched on last time. Those are going to be the areas that consist of that native, no mow type grass. So those areas, you know, could be mowed as often or as not as kind of the, the individual homeowners seem fit. So kind of allow some kind of protection back here as well. So this, this plan and again, it kind of clues the, the notes discussed. These are also were kind of added as order of conditions in terms of the, the mowing and the maintenance. This really highlights. Josh, do you think you could sort of wrap this up in like a minute or something? So I just want to give time to commissioners. Okay, great. So just to clarify the plan is what we're looking at right now. There's no narrative other than this map. And then the very small print and the call out boxes. Is this the entire mitigation plan? Well, it is a full size 24 by 30 says mitigation summary. So yes, this is the plan. I guess the question, and we don't have to answer this right now is like, who's going to be in charge of enforcing it and monitoring it. And like, I can't imagine that a homeowner will be handed this plan. Or the OMP crew is going to be handed this plan. I mean, I guess I'm just wondering like who's going to be knowing about that. No mo from April to September. And who's going to maintain the signs and how are the homeowner is going to know why and where they can't be sort of infringing upon that. I can answer that. So we do have draft condo documents that have already been drafted part of the ZBA process. So we have a, a master document and, um, and homeowner bylaws. And as part of the requirement for this project and the funding requirement, we are required to hire a property management company to provide property management services for the homeowner association. So this is a condo association, homeowner association that will be property management company. Um, there will be these, will be tied into the rules and regs and the master deed and the master deed will reference both the order of conditions and the ZBA, um, conditions of the permit. So it'll be well documented. Um, the maintenance of this. Okay. Great. And, and sort of a narrative like form that's easy to read and. Follow. Okay. Yeah, we'll have lots of different things that need to be maintained over the course. The storm water system itself will have an operation and maintenance plan. So there will be lots of documents that will be provided to property management. Okay. Great. And then my other question is what is the proposed. Like signage, um, spacing and how many signs along the buffers of the mitigation area. Is it going to be like one or two or. Like, you know, spaced 30 feet across the border of it just so that for residents, it would be very clear like where the line is. So in the, I'll just pull the exhibit back up. I think you had four signs on the back, right? Correct. So there's. Dots. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Great. They're about 80. I would say about 80 feet and three signs on the front, maybe about a hundred feet. I think the goal was, you know, not to over sign the natural areas, but obviously more than more than one or two signs. Great. Um, and then last question for me is the bird nesting box. What, what's your intent? What species like bluebirds is there actual like bluebird habitat there? Is it. What's the, um, because they, they do have to be designed and specified so that they're not just sort of predated. By, you know, pests, but, um, we'll take whatever recommendations from the conservation commission or from Erin, if she wants to provide feedback on the type of bird boxes. I love bluebirds, but I know, and we have a bluebird box here at our house, but I know that it does get taken over by, by others, not necessarily bluebirds. So, um, we're open to any recommendations that the commission might have on that. Okay. Um, Maybe Erin can chime in. I haven't been here, but maybe I'll do a drive by. All right. Thanks guys. Alex question. Yes. Make sure I'm on mute. Okay. Um, I like the idea of signs, but I'm thinking back. Thinking ahead 15, 20 years. Signs can disappear. They can get pulled out of the ground. Rocks don't tend to move. Uh, Um, could it would be possible to, and we've used rocks and other places to mark boundaries. Uh, would it be possible to put large rocks along the line? Uh, to help identify. Um, a boundary. In addition to signs. I think the, our preference would be to keep the area kind of natural and how it exists today. Kind of this open meadow without kind of structured features, but I think it's, it's, it's, it's a really good idea to keep it open and, you know, keep it open. Um, you know, we don't know what exists today. Kind of this open meadow without kind of structured features, whether they be rocks or fences or things like that. Now, again, if the commission felt very strongly, and I think it's a balance we could look into again, we don't want to create this kind of rock wall here. Um, you know, budget is, we're very budget sensitive to this project. This is obviously a, um, An affordable housing development. So I think that's the, the balance we're trying to find. Um, Um, I think we're trying to find the right balance to each other. They don't even have to be very close to each other. But Aaron has used them in other places. Um, To define boundaries. And. Uh, I think perhaps they in 20 years from now. Um, I don't have great confidence that there'll be signs. But there will be rocks. I was just going to add, these are, you know, this is a home ownership community. So I know, you know, You know, a lot of times maybe it makes sense when you have a single family home or development that, you know, will not be maintained. But I mean, there's going to be 30 families that are going to be living here and, you know, they're, they're going to have a lot of pride in the houses that they've paid for. You know, they're going to be putting a lot of money into the homeowners association kind of paying on a yearly basis. So, I mean, maintenance of these areas, you know, will remain. Whether it's year 510 or 20, you know, on this site, it's definitely not a set it and forget it type of development. I hear the nice words. I'll just reiterate that rocks down a road. Maybe there could be some kind of replacement criteria in the HOA agreement or something that's it probably be like every 20 years or something but I do like science because they tell people why the boundary is there and I think that's good. I do hear what you're saying Alex about replacement. Go ahead, Erin. Yeah, so historically the commission has used a series of different structures to define the mitigation areas. Stone boundaries, split rail fencing, signage, or rebar markers as well. So, usually if they have one type of marker they, you know, they would just use one type of marker. One example is Canton, Canton Ave where we recently permitted a single family house. We allowed them to install the signage because putting in rocks around the wetland boundary would have been a little sort of visually and also to the wetland not not really great placement. So just to throw that out there that like it's kind of like they we have done one or the other in the past in those mitigation areas. So go ahead, Andre. I had an idea along the lines of what you, what Michelle had that you could just put something into the into the contract for the management agency to ensure that the signs are replaced every X amount of years or that the signs are there and visible. And I have no problem with signage or, or rocks, whatever management would choose. So Andre Jason. Yeah, sorry, this is not about the rocks. But this may be something of a dumb question. So please forgive me, but most of the time I've been looking at this I've been looking at the 50 and the 100 foot buffer but is there not a 200 foot riverfront buffer doesn't mill river run through the southeast and portion of this project. No, it's not it's not a it's a intermittent stream. So it's not jurisdictional to riverfront. I don't know if it's jurisdiction if it's intermittent. Erin, go ahead. So there, there is a perennial stream which runs on the, the northeast side of this property, which I believe is Eastman Brook. And that does have a 200 foot riverfront area, but the 200 foot riverfront area only casts from the river to root 63 so it doesn't go beyond the properties on the east side of root 63. The stream that's in the rear of the property is an intermittent stream, the stream that has the 100 foot buffer, which is on the south side of the property, which is mill river and it's intermittent there. No, it's a, it's a intermittent tributary that flows into the mill river the mill river does not flow along the back of this property. This, this property, it flows the intermittent stream flows behind this property then it flows under summer street. And then it comes out on the other side of summer street and flows into the mill river which is on the south side of summer street. So it's not, it's not anywhere close to the site. I mean, it's relatively close, but it's not like a budding the site or on the site, the mill river. Thanks. It's not Cushman Brook either. I'm just looking at, I'm looking at a Google map here and it says that it's mill river. And then under summer street it looks like it potentially turns into Cushman Brook. So that is just why it came up now. I was like, what, this doesn't look like a mill river but I can pull up a map to clarify this if that would be helpful. Just take me a second to get there. Yeah, I just want to make sure because in looking at that then there is an awful lot of work. If that were, if there were a 200 foot buffer, there seems to be an awful lot of work in that 200 foot. Yeah, it's not, it's not the Cushman Brook. I can assure you. I was going to say I can pull up if you want massive, I mean, you can see, I mean, Google maps is great in a lot of ways, but I mean maps mapper is a better resource for kind of the different types of streams in the area, but correct. Yeah, both, both are well beyond that 200 foot distance. If you look at stream stats, I think it will show you that it's not a riverfront area. Yeah, it's not, it's not on the USGS most current USGS topo as intermittent. So I'm just pulling up, I'll pull this up so that you, you guys are doing that. Is there, you know, you just mentioned stream stats, mass, something or other USGS. Is there one specific GIS layer or mapping tool that applicants are required to use to determine whether a stream is intermittent riverfront or, you know. Yeah, the most current USGS topographic map is what's referenced in the regulations. So this is Eastman Brook. This is the one that I referenced that is across the street. So this one runs this way. This is the site right here. This intermittent stream lows about like this and then comes down here crosses under Summer Street and down and then this is Cushman Brook Mill River down here. So it's, you know, the site is is here. This is an intermittent stream. It's not even shown on the town layer. So just want to, there is no way that this is the Cushman Brook or Mill River. It's, I mean, you can see that this is Puffers pond right here. This is this Cushman, the Cushman Brook flows into the Puffers pond and then it comes out the Mill River and the Mill River flows down here. So it's, it's a significant distance away. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to. To clarify, thank you, Jason. Okay. All right, so we've had some comments, Alex. I don't, I don't know where you're at on the signs. I like the idea of the homeowners being educated on what the purpose is of the mitigation and sort of the ecology of it. So I'm in favor of that with as we discussed some kind of, you know, requirement of stipulation on replacement by the HOA and maybe in consideration of what types of sign we could make it so that it's not like an onerous thing to replace them all in the future. Okay. Bruce, go ahead. You're on me. I'm just going to say that Katie Oya from Stonefield is still as an attendee rather than the end of the meeting. I tried to add her in as a panelist, but she declined to join as a panelist. Alex. Yeah, just going back to rocks. I'd be happy with something like a spray rail fence. Kids might get hurt on rocks, but they, the spill rail fence would speak well along with signs. And, and I'm thinking primarily on the south side. Not so much, not so much on the north side. Josh, Jessica, do you have any comments on split rail fence? So I think one of the, so the homeowners and they, they haven't decided yet what they're going to do with the limited use areas, whether they're going to pin the corners, whether. You know, they are going to put in certain areas, some type of fencing. And I would say we would, you know, we would want to kind of encourage the commission to move away from physical barriers like fencing. Or rocks and things like that. And, you know, maybe it's a decision, you know, that the homeowners make, you know, through the process that, you know, they would like to see, you know, fencing along, you know, the outer perimeter of the site. And we think the fences is a, is a great place to start. I mean, sorry, the signs is a great place to start. There's going to be a professional property management company maintaining these areas. So, you know, we're comfortable, you know, with that feature, you know, again, given kind of that dense vegetation that's back there as well, you know, again, I think it'll create a nice line between kind of what is the, you know, the residence area as well as, you know, what is, you know, part of this preserved area. Thanks. Sorry, I don't know who is first with Andre. Yeah. Forgive me if I missed it, but did we give the public a chance to comment at all? I have asked the public to raise hands if they were interested. Thank you. Do you have something? Okay. I guess one thing, have we talked about what your process is for removing the knot weed? So we did at the last meeting, we did file a management plan. Okay. Sorry, I did not have a chance. There was a submitted invasive species management plan. All right. Okay. Are there any other questions from commissioners on this one? No. Okay. Well, there's a few odds and ends that maybe we can continue conversing about, like, the word boxes. I mean, it's a great idea. I don't know if it's appropriate or not there. So maybe I'll do a drive by and just weigh in on it. Otherwise, I think we're ready to move on with this one. So, Aaron, do you think you can pull up the slide? Commissioners looking for a motion. All right. I'll move to close the public hearing for 20 dash 40 ball lane and orders of condition. And the 089 0724. Under the State Whitman's Protection Act and under what then protection town of Amherst general bylaws article 3.31 and regulations with the drafted boilerplate and special conditions. Second. Andre and the motion Bruce on the second, Jason. Andre. Hi. Bruce. Hi, Alex. Okay. And I don't see Laura anymore. All right. I'm an eye. Okay. Motion passes. All right. Jessica. Josh, thank you for your time. Thank you. Good luck out there. Thank you. Appreciate all the help. Okay. That was it for our hearings. Again, public, if you have any questions, please just raise your hand and I'm going to take public comment at the end. Otherwise we have two agenda items. One was to discuss limitations on ongoing continuances and review denial policies. So at our last meeting, there are several really great comments about this. So I'm hoping everybody can harken back to that. Remember what you said. Erin's also checked in with a town attorney and has gotten some good guidance on. You know, with the confines is about what we can decide here. So maybe Erin, you can just give us an update on that. Yes. Yes. So I'm just going to say some general comments and it'll kind of lead me into where the town attorney went. So on a regular basis, we're going to be getting applications that we can't approve the first day Emerson court being a good example, like open and close on the same, on the same date. There are frequently situations where an applicant files and we have, you know, a series of back and forth revisions or edits. And in certain situations where we have a peer reviewer, for example, or where DEP issues a file number and we have to open the public hearing and work with the applicant on necessary revisions to their plan. We're going to have situations where some hearings are continued for a period of time. That being said, I did speak with the town attorney about, you know, some of the more atypical examples of continuations that we've dealt with, like, you know, the UMass permit being one great example where we've had like 13 continuations and no update other than one written, written partial written response. And he did agree that those types of open-ended ongoing continuations were not a good thing to have happen. His recommendation for that type of scenario would be that for future continuances that the board state that the continuance is contingent or subject to the applicant providing additional information. So, for example, I think we should keep in mind what the commission's expectation is for that particular hearing and state, you know, either the applicant has to respond to the staff comments within either a 30-day window or a 60-day window and then continue for that period of time to allow them adequate time to respond or to state that they have to provide some sort of an update to the commission to substantiate the rationale for why the continuances are being requested. In other words, not just we'd like a continuance, but we'd like a continuance for the following reasons because we're in the process of performing the following due diligence, which is taking time. The town attorney did indicate that some commissions build into our bylaw regulations a limitation to the number of continuances. So, like in our bylaw regulations in the future, we could incorporate something to the effect of three continuances in a row without a valid basis, could be grounds for denial. Whereas if they're, you know, requesting multiple continuations with no update to the board on what's going on or no communication with staff on what's going on, that that would be a grounds for denial. But he didn't recommend using that type of, like leaning on that type of denial purpose without it being written into our regs. So really we should be pushing on the Wetlands Protection Act in this case since we don't have anything in our bylaw that's specific to it. And the Wetland Protection Act does have some strong language with regard to denials for lack of information. We would just have to state what information is missing and why it's necessary for the board to make a decision and give them an adequate amount of time that's reasonable to respond to that request. I think that sums up his comments with regard to continuations, but happy to hear more. Go ahead, Bruce. Is there anything that precludes us from saying that we're going to continue a hearing or a meeting two months from now? Without it being a negotiation with the applicant, it's just, you know, you've had three opportunities to come every two weeks. You haven't done anything. And so we're going to set it way out there in the future and let you get your act together. Yeah. So one thing he did say was that we should have permission from the applicant for a continuation. Even a two week one. Right. Just that we should have, you know, some consensus from the applicant or their representative that, um, that they're okay with the, with the continuation because so, you know, a good example of this is like, um, the commission, like let's say the applicant is asking the commission to render a decision and the commission's like, ah, now we don't want to issue a decision. We just want to keep kicking the can down the road. It could be used both ways. And so it's, it's kind of a legal security for the applicant that if they're ready for the commission to make a decision one way or another, that, um, Yeah, I think, yeah, I think that the, um, the open meeting law or there's, or maybe the wetlands protection act actually, uh, Has it to where there's a, uh, 21 days, um, to make a decision. And I think if we were to start to try to kick it down the road, uh, ourselves, um, we'd end up with, uh, with problems. And I think Aaron just, just nail, Aaron, you just nailed it there. Uh, where it has to be, uh, With the, uh, agreement, uh, of the applicants. And if we're going to keep moving it down. That 21 days. Is that with the DEP filing? Or is that, right? So within 21 days of the DEP issuing a file number, um, we have to open a public hearing within that period of time. Cause that basically, that's the DEP saying that under the wetland protection act, the application is complete. Now we have a bylaw so we can open the hearing and say, we're going to, we're accepting this. We understand under state law that, that the state accepted the application as complete. Um, but the other 21 day that kicks in is that once we close the public hearing, we have 21 days to issue an order of conditions. That's on a notice of intent application. Now with a request for determination. When, when, uh, Uh, Uh, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, um, Um, When, let me get this, let me get this right within 21 days of us opening the hearing on an RDA. We have to issue a determination of applicability, unless we have permission of the applicant to continue, uh, RDAs are a little bit different. So because it's a, a more sort of baseline permit. Um, they get a permit within 21 days? Okay, I have a question. So it was recommended that we deny continuation or allow our continuation based on the provision of good rationale from the applicant. I mean, given our current situations for big continuance this year has, they always give a rationale. There's always a reason. Like, are we changing anything in the way we do it? If we instituted that, because everybody has a reason why they need to continue it. Like, are we buying ourselves any, I don't know. Well, I think there's nothing wrong with saying, we're gonna give you some time to do your due diligence. But if it reaches a point where we're not getting communicated with, the commission can say we want this information to us within 30 days, 60 days. And if we don't, then we're gonna deny for lack of information. And that is a legal grounds for denial if they don't respond with the request. So the benefit would be like we could request specific information. Cause we generally are communicated with and they generally have an excuse for why they need to continue it. But so it would allow us, is that true? I mean, it seems to be true. Well, yeah, there's always a reason, right? And in the same way that the applicant has the discretion to allow the commission a continuance, the commission also has the discretion to issue a continuance, okay? But you don't want to deny a continuance unless you have given the applicant notice in writing. This is information that the conservation commission needs bulleted outline of what is missing, what information is necessary in order for the commission to continue their review and make their decision and state very clearly this information is necessary for the commission to act. And if it's not provided by said date and give them adequate time, then at that point, the commission could say, it's been 60 days, we've requested this information, you haven't provided it to us, we're not issuing you a continuation, we're closing the hearing and we're denying the project. I've seen it done and it's completely legal to do that. But that's the only rationale that I would recommend that the commission not grant a continuance. All right, Grace. Alex was first. No, I think I'm supposed to go ahead. Just go ahead, Grace. Well, we've already had a precedent of trying the middle ground, which was to have Aaron discuss it, even though they give a reason every two weeks, ever have a serious heart to heart discussion with the applicant about how much more time is it gonna take? And then setting a hearing date a month or six weeks further out, which she's already done at least once because we suggested it. Alex. Yeah, I just wanted to make clear that we're not really talking about the casual continuance. We're talking about those that go on for months without explanation. And we have a couple of those. I'm not gonna mention who, but there's one that's been going on. I can't remember how long, maybe three months. And so I think we're trying to come up with a clear way forward to avoid continually putting something on the agenda for continuance, if for no other reason to save us time. Continuance is still take time on our agenda. And if we can minimize those that just keep going without any stopping point, I'd like to see us focus on the exception rather than the rule. And the rule. Okay, sorry. So, we continued a bunch tonight with good reason. I don't think we're really too concerned about them or I'm this came up because of Olympia Drive that just goes on forever without explanation. And so to make clear, well, how do we communicate enough is enough and be on the right side of doing that? Bison? Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate what Alex said, but also state, it's not fair for anybody who potentially wants to make public comment on any of these projects if they're just continuously continued and continued. So with the one that the project that Alex mentioned, I know that we haven't really, Aaron, correct me if I'm wrong, we haven't really reached out to ask for any additional information from them. We've just kind of let it go as well. Isn't that correct? But we haven't really pushed, I believe you said at one meeting you really haven't pushed them because they have a lot of other projects and we had a lot of projects. And so we were not in any hurry to get them to come back just to do a continuance. Yeah, there was a flurry of time there where we had like nine hearings on the agenda and I wasn't knocking down their door trying to get them to come back. But yeah, now that it's slowed down to some degree, not substantially, because we're still having six hearings per agenda and we just closed two tonight but we have two more popping up on the next one. So there has been a, it's not a trickle, it's been a steady flow of permits that we've been seeing. And so the other piece of this that I think is really important is just because an applicant requests a continuation doesn't mean the commission can't discuss it if they so choose. If at the next meeting, which is on March 13th for that particular hearing the commission says, hold on, I don't want to issue a continuance right now. I want to discuss this, we can. The applicant was given a pretty exhaustive list of issues that we asked them to respond to. They partially responded, but there are still a series of outstanding issues that we haven't gotten responses to, so. But Dave. Yeah, I just want to say, I mean, I've heard a lot of really, this is a good conversation. I've heard a lot of good takeaways. You know, I think Alex is right. We're mainly talking about the exception, not the rule here. We've had a couple of these that have gone on. I agree with Jason. This is also about the commission's time, staff time. It's also about a better times and interested parties. How do they follow these things from months on end? And we need to respect that. But I think it's generally the exception. What I heard from Erin and I thank her for, she and I talked about her discussion with our attorney. I think that's a pretty good plan to move forward. I think this is about clear written communication with deadlines and clarifying the commission's expectations as to what you must see. Not the half list, not three out of five. We want these five things by this date. And if you don't have them, then we are left with other alternatives. And we've never really, in my memory, pushed that to that edge of what is allowed. And I think we heard Crystal Clear from our town attorney that you can do that. So I think it's about clear, consistent communication and give them 60 days, give them 45 days, whatever it is. And you need these three things, these five things. If you don't have them, then you are not inclined to give another three months or two months or two weeks. You're done. And we'll let the chips fall where they may. Okay, so just to clarify that would be, we hear, we have the hearing and at the continuation, we then give them 60 days to provide set requirements. And so we continue it until 60 days from then, would that be what you're talking about? So then we can push it back for more than two weeks. I wasn't saying there was a magic to 60 days. Well, yeah, just some number, but more than two weeks. So back to what you were talking about, like push it out a couple of months to just not be continuing it every two weeks. Okay, Jason? Yeah, so I would like to seek further clarification on that too, Michelle. Once we get to that, just I'm sure we'll just say 60 day timeframe and we don't, if they don't give us what we're looking for and Davey said, all right, we're done, does that mean, what does that mean then? We are rejecting their NOI and then they have to start the whole process over again once they have essentially a plan, whatever plan set and they need to file a new NOI, new butters notices and all of everything gets started over. We are rejecting the project and they need to start over. Or we could give them the opportunity to withdraw, say either provide this information to us within 30 days or withdraw the application. And in either case, they'd have to re-notify a butters or repost the legal ad. But we've had folks withdraw as well in those scenarios where they know they're like, we're at an impasse, we don't have the money to keep going with due diligence or site design. We're just gonna go do something else. And I think as long as we have a clear paper trail, they've been communicated with, with the wishes of the commission via staff. And if they don't perform by that date with the information you want, then at that meeting you can decide, you can ask them to withdraw or you can deny the permit and it starts over. I think that's a very strong message to send. And again, going back to what Alex said, this is the exception not the rule. I for one, I really respect that this commission, since I've been working with it for many years, has always worked collaboratively with most applicants and projects get done in a good way that protects resource areas. And we make progress and homeowners get to do this and developers do that and roads are built and infrastructure to maintain and all of that. But I think it's the exception to the rule, but it's costly in time, energy and resources. So I think as long as you're clear in your communication town, attorney will support you. Okay, so I'm seeing some clarity of process coming together here. So then the two sort of subjective things will be when do we decide to give them a deadline and create the criteria and then how long do we make the extension or deadline for? So those are still gonna be kind of difficult and project dependent. So have we talked about at this point like how often we continue or is it just gonna sort of be like a feeling that we haven't been communicated with enough and we're all sort of in consensus that we need to give some deadline to the applicant. Anyway, that's just some thought. Go ahead, Alex. We have a notice on the website that folks have to get their material in by Friday or whatever it is the week before our meeting and that's up in front of everybody. I wonder short of changing our regs which I think we'll probably put this on the list when we do change our regs. But in the meantime, can we simply add a notice right underneath the business about when everything needs to be filed in order to be included in the following meeting and we put a policy statement for everybody to see or do we have to go through some formal process? If it can be simple and just add something to where we already post the notice then I would suggest that maybe Erin drafts something for our consideration unless she's already got something and that it be put right there underneath the notice on when things have to be filed on what happens with extended continuances. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, I think we can put note and kind of trying to answer Alex's question here, Alex. I think that we can put notices as long as they're backed up by law, policies as long as they're legally drawn up, if you would. So if we're gonna put a notice that kind of reiterates something in our bylaws or reiterates something in the wetlands protection that I think we can do that, but otherwise I think what we've been told is that we would need to update the law and then we could put a notice referring us to what the law is saying. Do we know law or do we need our local regulations? Well, our local regulations are a law. So yeah, I thought it's gonna try to differentiate between state law and our rules. Good enough. I think it would have, whatever it is that we are posting would have to be in accordance with either or or both. So either the Wetlands Protection Act or the bylaws or both. That would be something like we have the ability to not continue. I mean, we can't, there's no deadline law, right? So anyway, maybe we can think about that. So yeah, I mean, I think that we can deny for a lack of providing, I think Aaron made the words for lack of responding to information requests. Denial for lack of information. For lack of information. So I think that is something that we could put on the website that if applicants have not responded to requests for information and if there is a lack of information for an extended for X amount of time, then the commission may close the hearings and deny applications. I think that, Alex, I think that would work because it's in the law. You're fine with that, Bruce? Thank you. You're muted. Given the discussion, I'd like Dave and Aaron to come up with a draft, check with the attorney and show it to us and then you can finalize it. Aaron and Dave, sound good to you guys? Yes, and we do have some language about denials in our bylaw. So I'll take a look at that and try to wordsmith something that seems to hold muster with state and local law. And then we can take a look at it maybe at the next meeting. Okay, Bruce, again, something else? Nope, Dave, go ahead. Yeah, no, we wanna talk about one other topic. I'm fine with that. I think we would wanna just talk that through with the town attorney too, as well as Aaron can put something together. Michelle, you said something a few minutes ago, which is struck me as, again, this is the exception to the rule. Most applicants move at a reasonable pace or have circumstances, some of which are beyond their control and they move through the process. So I just wanna keep that in mind that this is not a common occurrence, but it's every situation is gonna be unique. So I don't know if we can create a structure that deals with every one of these. I think it's gonna be on a case-by-case basis. And I think I would recommend you all, Aaron is going to be the best read of whether, because she's in constant contact with every applicant, she's gonna be the best read to say, you know what, commission, I'm just not hearing. I haven't heard from these folks in three weeks or three months, and I've asked them repeatedly. I have the email chain to prove that. So I just wanna say, I think every situation is gonna be unique. We haven't had many of these, but yeah, we've had one or two in the last year that are causing us to have this conversation. So I just wanna make sure we're not too prescriptive here for something that doesn't happen all that much. So anyway, just wanted to put that out there. Yeah, I agree. So I guess we're understanding what our reach is here as a commission and just that we'd have to discuss on a case-by-case basis and discuss it, Aaron, if we're being provided communications and information in a timely manner and if things are moving forward. So yes, we have one more thing on the agenda. If there's no more questions, I think we can move on to that. And this is, is this relative to what Alex had brought up about your departmental? Okay, I don't know what it's about. So take it away, Aaron. It's other policy issues, questions and concerns is the agenda item. Yes, so Alex had sent an email to me and Michelle about a couple sort of policy related items. And so I just wanted to circle back cause I did talk to the town attorney on both of those items, the first being the batteries and our ability to either not accept an application without for, this is specifically for a battery storage project, our ability to not accept an application if there's not a fire department sign off and or to deny a project if there's not a battery or not a fire department sign off. So Alex's comments relative to this was he thinks withholding an order of conditions based on not having fire department sign off would be problematic. He said that. Easy attorney. Yes, yep. That fire code is beyond the commission's purview and he thinks that it's a very hypothetical condition for the commission to predict I guess that there might be a fire on a given site. And he recommended that number one, we either have some serious documentation that there is some sort of scientific evidence that there would be contamination to groundwater or surface water as a result of the issue or he recommended that we had a condition that the applicant should obtain all necessary permits in, including the fire department from the fire department before the project moved forward. So that was the guidance from him relative to that. Do you wanna talk about that first or you want me to go on to the other one? Alex has his hand up, Alex. Do you wanna wait or do you wanna respond? I wanna respond. Well, I appreciate the town attorney's point of view. I don't think he was well-briefed. Not that Aaron didn't do a good job briefing him but I don't think he understands the issue. And Aaron and Dave and I talked for an hour about this and I thought Dave well understood and Aaron understood the difficulty of having the commission go through a project like a battery storage project. And the one on Montague Road is the perfect example where they go to the trouble of laying out a project and we spend time looking at it and then the fire department comes after us and because of its conditions, the whole project gets turned around. So we've already spent time on it. Now they're coming in with a big revised plan because the fire trucks need access. The existing access doesn't work. They need a turnaround. They don't like three point turns and all of a sudden the applicants having to redesign the whole project. So there's an argument to be made that the fire department come first. And I don't think the town attorney understood that that we have a problem in the process by which a project goes through the town review and where the fire department should fit in that. And it would save all of us a lot of time if the fire department let the applicant know what their requirements are before we spend time on it. Because as I said, the fire department can turn it upside down or even come in with requirements that kills the project. And I don't think the town attorney given what Aaron just reported to us, I don't think he understood that. And Bruce was there, Jason was there on the battery storage project on Montague Road and they both heard from Chris Baskin and the applicant said, oh, wow, this is news to us. We're gonna go back to the drawing board. So there's a perfect example of why the fire department should come first in our process. So there's a couple, I guess, things. So the first is that I am, we generally have a pre-permitting review process which most, I would say, permits go through. Which is particularly complex projects where staff would meet either virtually or around a table either with the applicant or internally to review things and review compliance of given elements of a plan to provide guidance back to a given applicant. In the case of Montague Road, that's a very unique outlying situation. But we're trying to resolve that because they should have had a pre-permitting meeting over a year ago and it didn't happen. And so I'm working to make that happen right now so that we can have all of the input from the fire department incorporated into the plan design. And obviously that's an important thing. And so it's like a layer cake. There's multiple issues here. But like, so let's say an applicant comes to us with a driveway proposal. We permit the driveway and they go to build and they can't get a permit because the fire department needs to adjust the widths. They would need to come back to us to get the approval. Now I know that that's a lot of time and effort for us to have to go back and amend it. But ultimately at the end of the day, it's the applicant's due diligence as to whether they incorporate the necessary bylaws and requirements as far as road width and turning radius and all of those things. So I think part of it is town staff need to do pre-permitting meetings. Part of it is applicants do need to do their due diligence and incorporate these things. What I was talking about specific to battery storage was relative to like the Hickory Ridge discussion where there was a potential for a battery to be fire prone and we're saying we're not gonna approve this without fire department approval. Otherwise the permit will not pass. That was where like all other elements of the plan are in compliance. All other elements of the plan meet town code except for that. That is where he's saying he would not recommend that we deny a project strictly because a given battery is fire prone. That that's really, you know, if we issue our permit or if we denied the permit, it goes to DEP and DEP approves it. And that's the bottom line is we would have no grounds. Like if we denied it, DEP is just gonna issue a superseding order and we don't have a leg, then we lose the permit. We no longer have local control of it. So we just have to have like some robust scientific documentation or other technical documentation to substantiate our rationale, like groundwater, surface water contamination or some other issue that is pertinent to concom jurisdiction. Basin, you're muted. Sorry. Can you clarify how it works when DEP issues a superseding order? Yes. So let's say, for example, a given applicant comes to us. So they're filing both under state and local law. If we issue a permit or deny a permit and the applicant's not happy, they have the right to appeal. So they can appeal to DEP and they can appeal to superior court. I've seen this happen before where we deny something and DEP turns around and approves it. And then like in one case, DEP turned around and approved it. And then that SORAD in that case was appealed by three separate parties in the case of the Tanbrook SORAD. Ultimately, we were able to negotiate through that to get the applicant to withdraw and we sort of started over again. But I have worked in situations where there were superseding orders of conditions and they were a nightmare to administer because the town in which the permit was issued was not owned by the Conservation Commission. It was owned by DEP. So DEP was in control of that permit and they administered it. When we issue an order of conditions, it's a very strong document. We have a lot of oversight and a lot of sort of power to control site conditions. When DEP does that, they're not here every day looking at it to determine if it's in compliance or not. So I like to avoid having a DEP superseding order at all costs. I've only had it happen to me once in close to 20 years. And we worked through that and we're able to get a withdrawal. But they, and the part I haven't talked about is the appeal to Superior Court. And that is really, if a bylaw is appealed and it goes to Superior Court, then ultimately they would be reviewing it to see if the decision that we render is in compliance with our local wetland bylaw and regulations. Okay, and thank you for that. And then, you know, as Alex mentioned, Captain Vascom, he mentioned too that the fire department's trying to figure all this out as well on their end. So it sounds to me like what you said was, if we approve a project, that's not, we're not the last stop. It seems like sometimes we may be the first stop, but we're not the last stop on this approval train. And so if we approve a project and then the fire department says, need to put a 200 foot wide road in here so the fire trucks can turn around and that changes the design of the project, then that triggers and that essentially nullifies our approval because the project design has changed and then they have to come back or do they only come back for the portions of the project that have changed? They come back for the portions of the project that have changed now. So where this can get tricky, and Michelle and I were talking about this earlier today, is there is frequently an expectation from applicants, even with very dramatic changes to plans that when they come back to the Conservation Commission, they want it to be a minor administrative change approval. And there are instances where that's a really bad idea. There's instances where it's appropriate based on if something is indeed a minor administrative change. But it's a very tricky line to walk I guess in terms of, because if the commission has discretion as to whether they're gonna require an amendment to the permit or not. And ultimately, if it was something like the scenario you described, Jason, absolutely they should come in with an amendment, which means they re-notify a butters, repost the legal ad and we review it like we're starting from scratch, essentially with the change. I will say that we're often pressured to just consider it a minor administrative change and often that's what happens or just put that in the back of your head next time it comes up. Dave. Sorry. Are we in our purview to say or like, who makes that determination if it's a minor administrative change? If we're like, you just doubled the width of the road and now 30% more of your project is in the buffer, like this is essentially a redesign of half the project size, right? Yeah. And we're talking about this specific, we're using this Montague road as in my mind as an example, right? Like it's not a very big project. So increasing the width of the road increases like the overall footprint of the project by like at least half, I would think, right? Like that is not a minor change. Are we the ones that get to determine what a minor administrative change is? Yes. Okay. Yep. I have a follow up to that. Is that, is minor administrative change defined in the law? Yes, it is. But it's, it is. And I encourage everyone to go look at it and it's always subjective, but Dave, go ahead. We'll do. So one, this might be a longer conversation that started at 915 or whatever. But I also want to be careful. I really don't think we should be talking about Montague road. Specifically, I think we should be talking in the abstract. It's not on the agenda. We're talking about a specific project. So let's just go bigger picture 5,000 feet or whatever. So a couple of quick thoughts. One, you know, I don't, I don't disagree with some of the things that have been said about process. I think actually Aaron and I have a meeting, I believe tomorrow with permitting staff to talk about this issue kind of town wide what's going well, what's working well, what's maybe not. And some of these examples that we've talked about in others will be brought up. So that's number one. I think the more work staff can do to, as Aaron indicated, the more work that staff can do to guide the applicant early in the design process, the better, right? With feedback from the town, the town fire department, the building commissioner, planning staff, conservation staff, and who am I forgetting? I mean, I stand by this, you know, Amherst has one of the most robust permitting pathways and systems certainly in Western mass. In fact, we are often criticized by for how robust our permitting pathways are. You can take that for however you want. I often say there that our goal is to be efficient, to be thorough, to be fair, to be equitable and to follow the law, the local law and state law on permitting. But we have a lot of layers. Let's put it that way in Amherst and we have a lot of committees to go through. However, we don't always get it right. We're not perfect. And I think battery storage in general has challenged us like many communities. We permitted how many three or four solar projects without incident, without question, early in the solar arena, because they didn't have batteries, it was much easier. So I think these battery projects have added a layer of complexity. I mean, I think that's just, that's fact. So we're learning as we go. So I'm agreeing. I think we as staff need to assess our permitting process a little bit more, particularly when it comes to a solar project with battery storage or standalone battery projects. So I'm just offering that out there. And I think we're gonna take a look at that. Erin could kind of report back in two weeks. I believe the meeting is tomorrow or Friday. I know it's on my calendar. So I think we'll have some more feedback for you in two weeks. So I don't disagree. I am, the town attorney did say one thing that resonated with me, which is in your order of conditions, you can always add a condition and all other permits. You know, Erin helped me out here, you know, the building, I mean, nothing gets built. Nothing gets built in this town without the building commissioner often has the final say of when something gets built. So you can always add an order of that, then make sure every other board and committee that is relevant and every other department has signed off on a project. So that's always available to you in the order of conditions. And I think our town attorney, you know, certainly reiterated that. So that's all I have to say for tonight. It might be a longer conversation and we can have it on the agenda in two weeks and give you an update on staff feedback. Thanks, Jay. Alex? Yeah, I just want to make clear that I don't think I, I didn't put in what I wrote to Erin, the idea of denying a permit. I think what I wrote was that we not entertain an application until the fire department has reviewed it and how we manipulate that, I don't know. But when an applicant comes into town, a first contact is Chris Brestrup and she says, you go to the zoning board first, you go to the concom second, you go to the planning board next and I don't know where the fire department fits. What I'd like for Chris Brestrup to tell somebody is if they've got a battery storage project or a project involving batteries and keep in mind people in town, residents are putting storage batteries in their homes. I mean, they're all over the place, but we're talking about commercial battery projects and solar projects with batteries. What I'd like for Chris Brestrup to say to people is since you're a battery project, I suggest you go to the fire department first, then go to the ZBA, then go to the concom so that we change the order in which that process takes place. And I understand the process is well-entrenched and changes hard, but it would save us and the applicant a lot of time and money if Chris would direct them to the fire department early, early in the process. And that's what I was after. I don't want to go into a discussion about what happens if we deny. I never brought that up. Well, emerging technologies, okay, go ahead, Aaron. But to Alex's point, if an applicant submits an application, we have 21 days to open the public hearing. If the applicant wants us to review the project, we can say, oh, we need to review by this person or that person, but at the end of the day, if they say, no, I don't want to continue and so I want you to vote on this, we have to vote on it and we have to make a decision. Does it meet the state and local regulations or not? And there's nothing in the state or local regulations that say that the fire department has to sign off on it before we can entertain it. So, and in that case, we'd be stuck in a situation where we didn't have a regulatory rationale for the denial. So that's all, we have regulatory constraints, I guess is all I'm getting at. I would just quickly add that I think there is basis for that because based on what the fire department says, how they would treat a fire, how they would implement the road, it would have impacts on how we assess impacts to wetlands. And so there is consequence for that that would at least back us continuing it with the need for more information. So I don't think that we'd have to vote. I mean, I think that our regulations say that yes, more information is needed to understand what the actual impacts to wetlands are. My two cents when you're going to have these staff conversations, go ahead, Alex. I just would ask that staff here, the commission, at least this one here, that I think in the case of battery storage, it would be very helpful if Chris Brestrup would change the order in which an application goes through. They may, they do what she says to do. They don't just come to us willy-nilly, they go through a process. And I think you understand exactly what I'm saying. And I think Dave does too, that it would save us a lot of time and energy if we don't get into a project that involves batteries that does not first have the fire department's okay. Go ahead, Dave. Yeah, and I don't know how long you want to go here, Michelle. Yeah, no, we hear you, Alex. I don't want to go back and forth, but I will say that not all applicants start with Chris Brestrup. Applicants enter the process in five or seven different ways, including we do have a permanent administrator, Jennifer Mullen. So many applicants start with Jennifer, and then they, you know, but I agree with you, particularly with solar battery, any solar project with battery or standalone battery should, you know, should early on get input from the fire department. And no question about it. So we're going to bring that message to the meeting, which includes the fire department tomorrow. The other thing I was going to say is, of course we should all recognize that the town is in the process of developing a solar bylaw, right? So some of this will undoubtedly be addressed in the solar bylaw. The status of that is that has been, Erin, help me out. That has been, the draft has been sent from the solar bylaw working group that Laura Paglia-Rulo was on. And it's in the CRC. Yeah, it's been sent to the community resources committee and it will begin to work its way through the community resources committee up to the town council. So some of this will undoubtedly be in that document. And but batteries are brand new as Michelle indicated, you know, evolving relatively new technology and we're learning as we go. And hopefully we don't make mistakes, but we will take this message to the meeting tomorrow and we'll have more for you in two weeks. Thanks, Dave. Alex, last thing, maybe? Just real quick. Commissioners, don't sit back and wait for the CRC on the solar thing. Their comments aren't due till June. And they have a long process to go through. And I'm hoping that we can do something, make some change to help ourselves long before that. Yeah, good point. Thank you for reminding me. I requested from Erin that maybe we reach out to them and then I went on vacation. So it slipped my mind, but can we request some kind of review? Cause we haven't seen that draft since we gave it to them like a year ago or something like that. I don't want to see it when everybody has decided that they're good with it and then the commission has zero input on it. So I don't know what the best process is for reaching out to them or the commission to give comments on it, but I don't want to be left out of the process. Any advice on how to pursue that or what the appropriate way to do it is, Erin or Dave? Yeah, Erin could reach out. I mean, certainly it's a public document. The draft is a public document. So we could get that anytime. Okay. Things can be hard to find on the Amherst website. Erin can track that down through Stephanie Chick-Ellio, our sustainability director. And again, you can be mulling it over, spend some time on your agendas and be ready for the CRC process when they reach out again with, again, it's an early draft. I think there may be some preamble that came with it that said, hey, this needs work CRC, but we're ready to hand it over to you. Okay. Bruce? The notator is fading. And we still have enforcement and monitoring reports. We have enforcement. It's not on my agenda. It's on the Trillium Way staff proposed possible dates for upcoming site visit. And that says monitoring reports. I must not have printed page two. I'm sorry. Apologies. Okay. I think we've suspended ourselves. The point you said last week is in the... No, not that. This is the... PowerPoint. PowerPoint presentation, which is the one this afternoon. It's just a placeholder for Trillium Way, for us getting out there and having a site visit to see the site. And obviously we're sort of getting into a season where it might be more appropriate to do that, but I don't know if we might have a cold snap and it's going to be frozen again. I'm not quite sure what's going on with the weather. But I can set up a site visit at this point if the commission would like to, a Trillium. And monitoring reports are always in your OneDrive folder. So it's kind of just a placeholder on the agenda that they're there for review. And the public comment is also a placeholder. Like in case there's anything specific we need to bring up relative to those issues. Yes. Maybe now is a good time to go to Trillium Way. I have crocuses in my yard and snow drops in my yard. And for all I know Trilliums will be coming up too. I have a comment back on something to say back on the previous topic. I hope we haven't switched yet. Yeah, let's just probably wrap it up because I'm fading with the note taker. I don't want to go look for salamanders, it's raining. Yeah. So the chair of the CRC just had a meeting with Paul Bakerman to get clear how that committee can coordinate with town staff. So that's in process. And they will be hearing, holding hearings and getting input. And I'm sure there's be lots of time for the commission to provide input. And I think I can arrange to get copies of the solar plan to all of you. And I'm assuming that's not deliberative. Well, it's a public document, right? So this could just be a link on a website maybe the area could distribute or we could just find it somehow. That sounds good. I think I can get it and send it to you. Great, thank you, Alex. Oh, anyways, I think I've heard from Dave that you're going to have a meeting with Chris, I think it is, or somebody else, tomorrow. And hopefully... Yeah, the meeting is with a group of staff that are involved in the permitting and prepermitting process. And we routinely meet, we'll meet with a developer who wants to propose something downtown university drive, an apartment complex, a project at Amherst College, a new science center, et cetera, et cetera. So pretty standard process. And it'll include an engineer, fire department, building commissioner planning, zoning, conservation, of course, et cetera. Okay. So there was one other topic which we can put on for the next meeting. But I'd like to have a discussion about our regs where it talks about invading 20% of the 100 foot buffer and how we handle that and what the regs actually say. And then just a... It's just to put it on the table. I don't want to talk about it now. Right. You mentioned that before. Okay. Andre? Yeah, just a note. I said, just a note. I sent an email to you all about the open meeting law. And if there's folks in the meeting who are out of order and so on. So I sent that. I found the site while we were prepping earlier and and the wording and I sent it to you guys in an email. So look out for that. That's all. Thank you, Andre. Appreciate that. Okay. It was a good discussion. Some of this stuff. We generally don't have time for, but makes us all better commissioners to hash it out and better understand these things. So thank you everybody for staying on and discussing. Thank you. Thank you. But with that, I guess I'm looking for. Emotion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. I think Andre on the motion and Jason on the second. Jason. Hi. Alex. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm an eye. All right. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Can you stay on for a minute or two? Or just give me a shout tomorrow, which, whatever. Yeah, that's probably better. Yeah. Yeah, let's talk in the morning. Andre. Sounds great. Okay. Thanks.