 So, um, I'm going to go through the agenda first comments for me. There are no, so that is quick. Um, so Dave, floor is yours. Great. Yeah. I'm in South Amerson. It's quite a storm down here. So, uh, yeah, if I get, if I get scared, if the lights go out and I get scared, you know, I'll be back as soon as the thunder and lightning is over. Um, Yeah, I'll be fairly quick. Um, I did send an email to Brett. I'm hoping to talk about the keyed Haskins, conservation restriction later on. We're under kind of a, a time crunch with that document. I don't think it's anything or shattering. So we'll cover that a little bit later. Um, overall, I think things are going pretty well. Uh, we are continuing. Our efforts at buffers pond. We still have some staff from other departments. Uh, that's as, as things. Um, as demands increased later in August, I think that's going to get a little tougher to, um, The staff with, um, folks from LSC and other departments. Um, I did get authorization from the town manager to hire. Two additional summer staff. So that's great. They'll be coming on, I think, as early as next week. And, um, this is actually going to be paid for through some of the COVID funding that we're getting from the federal government. So, um, they'll be able to help Brad and Tyler out on the trails. Um, they'll be able to help the buffers spawn. So I think that'll be a good little shot in the arm for Brad and Tyler. Um, we continue to test the pond, um, weekly and it passed, um, uh, very easily yesterday and we post those, uh, those, uh, results online. Um, the conservation budget was part, it was approved, if you will, as part of the, the overall town budget on Monday night, the town council voted, uh, the FY 21 budget, which is great. Um, we are going to be doing some different things. With some of our funding within the department. And I'll tell you a little bit more about those, uh, in that, that in two weeks, but it's all good. Um, we're going to be shifting some, um, some funding from, uh, administration and get more support. Uh, for me and for Aaron and for Brad and Tyler. Uh, out in the field. So I'll fill you in a little bit more on that. Again, no new funding. This is simply, um, uh, reallocating money from within the budget, uh, for Libby Lass's position that was, um, you wrote. Many of you worked with Libby and she retired last year. Um, the Fort River watershed group. Uh, I don't know if any of you are on their lists, sir, but they're doing good work. They're actually doing, um, they're doing water testing in the Fort River watershed. Um, and we can get you some of those results. Maybe I don't know if Aaron is on that, uh, lists, sir. But some of you might be interested to know what's, you know, what they're looking at in, in terms of the, the Fort River watershed. So we can get you that information. Dave, is there a way that we can get on that lists, sir? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Um, let me. Yeah, I'll shoot an email to, uh, Brian Yellen. Yeah. Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. I think it'd be really interested there. They're, uh, they're testing the Amethyst Brook and the main stem of the Fort River and a couple of tributaries. So, uh, we'll get you, uh, that information. And if you want to be on the list, serve and get yet another email update, um, by all means. Um, It's all I've ever wanted emails. Let's see. Um, the Fearing Brook project, Beth Wilson, who's now in DPW is continuing to work on that. Um, I've asked her to give you all an update. So we could, we could schedule that sometime in August or early September. Again, that work wouldn't happen until, uh, 2021. But it might be good to have Beth come in or zoom in. Uh, on one of these calls and give you an update on where we are with that project, but all everything's moving forward. We have the funding. Um, yeah. So I think that project to restore some of the, uh, Fearing Brook is going to move forward. Um, I guess the last update, uh, Fort River Farm, our conservation area off of a route nine. I met with, uh, Aaron and Stephanie, Chikarello today to talk about the community gardens down there, pollinator gardens. So I think our next step is to come before you with a notice of intent for, um, Making that. Making that. I don't know if you can hear the thunder in the background. For that. I was awesome. Um, it's up on, I'm up on my Pollux. Um, anyway. Um, What was I going to, uh, so for a river farm, So for a river farm, we'll, we'll come to you with a notice of intent to improve the parking and the access down at Fort River Farm. So I, I hope that Stephanie can pull that notice of intent together and get it to you in September. So we can get those gardens fully operational for spring of 21. Um, so that's all I have for now. Brad and Tyler are busy out there. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, It's a two person show. It's a lot to take care of all summer trails and mowing, but they're doing a nice job. I am getting reports about trails that are overgrown. So I'm meeting with Brad on Friday and we can, we can try to prioritize some of those trails that are just overgrown. So that's all I have tonight. Excellent. Thank you, Dave. So any questions or comments for Dave? Dave, there's, um, Tyler and, um, Brad, do they do like, uh, trail work days? Historically, we have, um, yeah, it's been a little tougher in the COVID, uh, into COVID. Um, how do you get people together? How do you do it safely? How to share tools? So we haven't really been. You know, focused on that too much. It's really kind of hunkered down and with the people we have, I think, again, bringing all of those, you know, I don't give them a real boost because they can offload some of the routine trail maintenance and brushing of trails. And then they can focus on some bigger picture stuff. Great. Excellent. If you did just leave out one thing that was in front of con, comma, while ago, which is that the dog park broke ground today, which is very exciting. So if you see that happening, I brought my own shovel and then was made fun of ruthlessly, but I thought we were supposed to bring our own shovels. So whatever guys, but yeah, was it a dog's dog shaped shovel? It was not. And I almost debated bringing my dog. And then someone else will do that. And nobody did. So I should have, but it's all, you know, but that's exciting. So just as an FYI, um, that'll be hopefully starting soon. Yeah, it'll start officially like things in dirt, whatever machines they decide to use, uh, in September, right, Dave? And then it'll take about a year before it's all ready because after construction, they have to grow a whole lot of grass. Um, so it'll hopefully September 21 is the date. So we will, there is a wetlands element to that. So it'll take about a year. So we'll, we, the town will need to work closely with Aaron on erosion control and stabilization of the south end of that site. As you may recall, some of you who are out there. So yeah, it's, it's pretty exciting. And yes, that was kind of a missed opportunity for people to bring dogs. I don't know why, why did none of us. You know, somebody should have brought a dog, but anyway. All right. And congratulations. So, um, with that Aaron. So we still have about 15 minutes before our first agenda item. So it was like to start walking us through things. Sure. Sorry, I was doing some last minutes edits to the PowerPoint here. Let me just make sure I've got it up on my screen before I share. Brett, well, she's doing that. If there is any time before your first, um, Before your first hearing, we could cover that CR if there was time. Um, I'm sorry, Dave, can you say that again? We just had a huge crack at thunder. Yeah. Yeah. I was saying if there is any time before your first hearing after Aaron gives a report, we could do that CR. It's probably about a six or seven minute item. Okay. Great. Um, I mean. I, there's, there's quite a bit of other business on the agenda tonight. So if we want to get through the CR first, or if we want to jump into other business, um, it's really, um, it's, it's a great idea to, um, I think, um, I will defer to Brett and Dave on how you'd like to handle that. I would, why don't we do the CR now just to make sure. Um, particularly while we have Dave on and we're moving. And power. Again. So, um, I think Aaron. I don't know. Do you have that map that I sent you? and doing conservation restrictions and work with the state and Kestrel has been pretty challenging during COVID. And so we're under a very strict timeline to get this conservation restriction on record. So I apologize for the speed on this. Conservation restrictions, as you know, we've done a number of them through the years with you all. They're fairly straightforward, but in short, and for those people who might be listening, I don't know if you can, can you rotate that by chance? I should be able to. So while Aaron's doing that, we recently, the town, recently purchased with a land grant, about 46 acres of land off of Market Hill Road from the Coles Company. This was a high priority for the commission and for the town. So we own it. It is permanently protected, but the town, or excuse me, the state requires a conservation restriction to be placed on the land, essentially as a second line of defense, if you will. If the town, 50 years from now, says we need to do something different with that parcel that the town bought in 2020, the state is saying you need to have a third party holder of that conservation restriction. And in this case, it's usually and always our partner, the Kestrel Trust. So Keith Haskins is kind of outlined in green some of the land on one side on the, I guess it's on the right side of my screen is actually in Shootsbury, but we basically own everything up to the Shootsbury line. And this abuts the Haskins Meadow property off of East Leverett Road and includes some frontage along the Cushman Brook. I just lost power for a second, and I bet that's Dave, we seem to have lost you. Can you hear us? Guys, I just lost, I'm in South Amherst, too. Oh, fuck, Sandy. Sorry. Oh my god. I'm still here, and I'm in South Amherst, too. It looks like we lost Fletcher, too. I know, I think power went out across town. That's not allowed. We're having a conservation commission meeting. I know, don't they know? So. Yeah, so why don't we just give them a minute and see if they come back on? Yeah, it might be, folks might want to just jot down the calling number for the Zoom on your meeting invite, just in case you lose your Wi-Fi or something. Erin, can you post that? So for people who are, so we lost about six people who were from the public, as well. Actually, I lost power, too. But I have an uninterruptible power supply, and so it kept me on my computer and stuff system up. But the power is gone. Yeah, mine just went up for a second. But I think I'm, yeah, I don't know. Brett, you're in South Amherst, too? Yeah, I'm in South Amherst. Or Larry. Yeah, yeah. I'm down here. I'm down here at Hickory Ridge. I'm right near the golf course. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm in, like, the deep south, you know. You got, that means you've got more mosquitoes than me. Yes, but we also have more lightning bugs, so it's pretty. That's true. About to tell my son. My son, the last time he was here, was out looking for places to take pictures of lightning bugs. Oh, yeah, out here. He found some good ones. Mount Pollux is a good spot. Is it? OK, I'll tell him that. So any one of those numbers, Erin? Yes, yep, any one of those numbers. And just make sure you write down the webinar ID as well. You know, actually, when my son was down here looking for the lightning bugs, he scared some animals in the backyard. And I've got a wonderful picture of two young raccoons in a tree in my backyard. I'm just going to email this really quickly to Dave and Fletcher, in case. We also lost Leroy. Oh, boy. Well, depending on how long we go, you may lose me, too. And my uninterruptible, uninterruptible power supply goes. I'll just send it to everybody, just in case. That information is also in the email that we get as a auto reminder. Yeah, it's on the agenda. If you look on the agenda, it's all on there. Yeah, it is on the agenda as well. If anybody else needs it, I'll forward it along. Do we only have four of us? Yes. Technically, we still have quorum. Dave is back on now. We're starting to come back on. We can see you again, Dave. Almost. Are you back with me, Dave? Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear me, Brett? Now I can. Yeah, the floor is back on here. That's OK. So where was I? So can you hear me now? Is that all right? Yes. Yeah, if you could just wait one sec. So we lost a couple of other people. So Fletcher is back on. Leroy is the only one who's not back on yet. And we're still missing about five people from the public are no longer on the call as well. You let me know when you think you're ready. OK. Yeah, let's just give Leroy another minute, and then we'll pick up. Brett, what do we do if the public can't participate? Is there a phone number for them to dial into? Yes. Yep, that same phone number. Yeah, I can post all that in the chat as well. Oh, I mean, not for me. I'm just thinking about if people have joined specifically for an agenda item. Yeah. They can't come on phone. It is listed on the agenda as well. So anybody who access the agenda to get on should be able to get the info to call in. It looks like we have chat turned off, though, so. Oh, yeah, I don't allow chat anymore. Hey, Dave, how do you access? How do the guys access Haskin Meadows to Moe, like on the other side of the brook? Hold on one second. Sorry, I was trying to. So Fletcher had asked, how do they access Haskin's Meadow? Yeah, how do you get over there, where they Moe, you know where the sign is, and they use that guy's driveway? They do, yeah. I think we have an easement over his driveway to get him back there. Gotcha. OK, that's my question of the day. OK, so I'm not sure if Leroy is going to be able to come back on, so why don't we continue with the CR, and then hopefully Leroy will be back on by our 730. So, Aaron, why don't you jump to the document itself? So conservation restrictions, as the name indicates, they restrict the owner from doing certain things that might be detrimental to the conservation interest of the property. I think we've seen these before. Again, cell phone towers, dentist courts, buildings, roads, things of that sort are all prohibited uses. In this case, the only thing that makes this conservation restriction a little bit different, and Aaron may be able to scroll down, and we can see the section on certain uses that are allowed. The one thing, and we've talked about this before, that is allowed here. And you can see these are the background statements as to why the land is important and why we protected it. We do have reserved rights in this case. So the main reserved right in this CR is a little different than most conservation restrictions we have, because the water line from Atkins Reservoir goes under this property. There's a 10-inch water line from Atkins Reservoir that goes to the Atkins Treatment Plant, which is right in Cushman. So there was always an easement for that that was on the property, so we basically followed that language. And what that does is it allows the town to maintain and replace that. You can scroll down further to the retained rights. It allows the town in the future to go through the Kestrel Trust to maintain the 10-inch water line that serves Atkins Reservoir and brings water down to the town of Amherst. So that easement was a 40-foot easement. It allows the town to go in on one of those arms of the property off of Market Hill Road. And that's really the significant difference between this and other CRs that we've done in the past. So I think I'll stop there and see if you have any questions. What's all the forestry stuff there? You can allow forestry? Yes. Yeah, it just says need a plan or something now. Yeah, it allows forestry, have to follow best management practices, go through the state, state forester if it's of a certain size. We did not include significant agriculture. This is a completely forested parcel. So we didn't see the need for adding traditional agriculture that any of it would be tilled. There are wetlands on the site. So obviously, if the DPW wanted to do anything to the water line, they would have to file a commission and with the Kestrel Trust to do that work. So it allows trails to be built on the property. And if, say, we wanted an educational structure like a bird blind to be built, with permission we could do a bird blind or a teaching hut. If you wanted to have a little teaching simple structure for bringing children out into nature, you could do that with permission of the Kestrel Trust. And can you park up there on Market Hill Road, that access? You can. It allows the CR. I don't think we have time to go through every section, but the CR allows, I think, we excluded or we reserved the right for one or two. There we go, parking areas. Access to parking areas should be located via either area A, B, or C. And those are the long, thin parcels that go out to Market Hill Road. So in the future, we could develop a simple crushed own parking lot or two to provide access for hikers and whatnot. So I think way at the end of the document, there's actually language. Erin, if you scroll all the way to the signature pages, I think we can use the Conservation Commission's signature page for a motion. Let's see which page. I think you have to go keep going. Here we go. So if someone were willing to make a motion and you could use language from this. Can we have enough? We have quorum? Yeah. Sorry, we're all here, right? Yeah. No, we're still missing LaRoy, but yeah. So we definitely have quorum, so we're good there. From my opinion, I mean, this is great. I'm impressed that the town and state are still moving forward, so that's excellent. But does anybody have any questions before we entertain a motion or comments? No. OK, so if people are all comfortable with it then, yeah, we'll move into a motion. The motion could be something like, you know. Yeah, we just read that. I move to grant a conservation restriction to the Castro Land Trust pursuant to Section 8c of Chapter 40. All right, I got it. So all right, I move to literally say what Dave just said. I move to grant this conservation restriction to the Castro Land Trust pursuant to Section 8c of Chapter 40 and Chapter 44b of the Massachusetts General Laws and pursuant to Town Council Order of June 17, 2019, which you can see in this document at Exhibit C and grant the forgoing conservation restriction. Second. There you go. Excellent. So Fletcher, how do you vote? Aye. Larry? Aye. Anna? Aye. Laura? Aye. And aye for me. So we are good here. At this point, can we just use e-signatures? Erin, or is there something else we need to do? That's a good question. We have authorized e-signatures. And actually, I can check with Town Clerk, because I know she has your ID on file already, Brett. So I'll check with Dave and the Town Clerk on that before it's notarized. And if we had an issue, Brett, if you're around in the next couple of days, I could probably find you and I'd be happy to run this socially distanced over to you to sign. So we'll work it out in the next 48 hours to get it in. And I'd be happy to meet you out on the front steps of Town Hall as well, Dave. So. Great. Thank you. Meet him at the Hanyan. There you go. I'll be right back. I'm listening. I just have to make sure that there's not a leak, because I'm hearing a lot of water here in the space. So I'll be right back. But thank you. You're welcome, buddy. Very good. OK, so I do have 730. So I think we should go ahead and start our 730 agenda item. And so this is a continuation for abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for Shootsbury Road, Map 9B, parcels 11 and 12. So hopefully the people who are here from the public to talk about this are back on. And so if you could raise your hand and then I will promote you to a panelist. OK, so I got you, Maria. Is there somebody else with you, Maria? That should be a panelist or? Evan Turner may be participating tonight, but I'm not 100% clear on that. OK, so I did not see that person. So I think we are good then. OK, so Maria, if you wouldn't mind reintroducing yourself and just give us a brief update about where we're at and the last set of materials that you submitted in. I took a look at stuff and hopefully we're in good shape at this point. Yes, so Maria Furstenberg with TRC, we're representing WD Coles, who's the property owner and applicant for the ANRAD. At this point, we have done all of the in-field review with the peer reviewer that was requested. And at the last meeting that we were at, you had requested formal response to the last set of the peer reviewer's comments. And we provided that a week ago. So they were mostly things that we have discussed with you before or they were fairly straightforward edits to the plan set. For example, an old version of the plan set had potential vernal pool in the legend instead of just vernal pool. All that kind of stuff has been addressed. The other major thing that happened during this last deliverable is that there have been a lot of questions about the flag numbering at the site. It was basically a product of that because the wetlands expanded, several wetlands got combined. So we had repeat flag numbers in a couple of different complexes. So what we did is we provided you two sets of plans. We provided a plan that has the flag numbers that match what's currently in the field so that if someone were to go out now, that they'd be able to find where they were. But we also submitted a plan that says corrected flag numbers as part of the title that essentially took any area that had an odd flag numbering system in it. And we edited those flag numbers to be whole consecutive numbers. And we requested that you include a condition on the ORAD that any future filings use the corrected flag numbers and that before any potential future construction could take place that the site would have to be refreshed to match the corrected flag numbers. I think that that's everything if you want to pass it around to Erin or whoever else you want to pass it to. Great, thank you, Maria. So Erin, so do you have any comments or materials that you want to start us off with or that you want to? Yeah, I was thinking basically of kind of going through the comments responses from TRC, just briefly touching on a few points and just highlighting a few things for the commission. And if the board is comfortable with issuing the ORAD this evening, I spoke with Mark Stinson earlier today because the confusion with the two plan sets, I wanted to make sure that the ORAD form doesn't really provide for conditions, so to speak, like an order of conditions would. It basically just says, are the resource boundaries confirmed or not? So he recommended that we attach what is called a statement of fact to the ORAD, which basically clarifies exactly what Maria just described, basically noting there's two separate plans. One is the field flagging. One is the revised flagging system. And I can go into that in a little more detail, sort of some narrative points that I would suggest, including as part of that finding effect. That way, if three years from now there's an extension or there's a notice of intent within a three-year period, we have a paper trail that kind of helps to explain to future commissioners exactly what the decision-making process was. So this is just some points of sort of clarification. So Emily made a note about GPS and the accuracy of GPS in order to identify the flags. I know on the last call I had asked about the survey quality of the flagging. I was under the impression from testimony at the last hearing that the flags had actually been surveyed, but it sounds like they've all been, the points have been GPSed. So from my perspective, that doesn't necessarily mean each point is accurate. You know, there may be certain levels of accuracy for each point with a GPS. There can be a lot of error depending on the canopy cover where points are taken. So that's mostly just a point of information on this, that the points were GPSed. If it was an open site, I wouldn't be as concerned about the GPS, or if it was a smaller site, maybe not, but this being such a large forested site. I think that's an important thing for you guys to be aware of. It may be something where you would want to include in the statement of fact that those flags should be surveyed prior to a project coming forward, so that the accuracy of the points is pinned down in the field. That's just something to consider. Sorry, this is really hard to operate, because I'm remote in my work computer. So the riverfront area on the plan is noted as estimated. And Maria, do you want to just really quickly explain to the board the methodology that was used to just get that line on the plan? Right, so that goes back to the May 15th meeting that was based on the site visit that the board had, where we essentially agreed that the widest piece of the river from mean annual high water to mean annual high water was 23 feet. So the methodology that we used was to extrapolate a line 11 and 1 half feet to either side of the GIS center line that we had available to us. And then we based the 200 feet off of that. And just to clarify that, that wasn't a decision that was made by the board in the field. That was based on a discussion with the applicant, my professional recommendation as well as our peer reviewers recommendation in the field. So that's how we arrived at that being the best possible estimate that we could put on the plan. And the reason for that is because the Brook itself is offsite and the landowner does not own the property that Adams Brook is on. So they weren't able to go out there and physically delineate it. So that estimated line is on there to show the estimated location. And we did our best to guide the applicant in showing that on the plan set. But I just want to state for the record the commission is not obligated to approve that as a resource area boundary. If the commission is comfortable approving it as such, you may, if you're not, you don't have to. That was just based on our best estimation that we could do with the information that we had. So just to put that out there. So there's a series of comments that basically address the flagging issue. And Maria touched on this also, which is that the flagging in the field doesn't necessarily make sense from a consecutive numbering standpoint. And so they did their best basically from the original flagging system to the revised flagging system, which was devised when our peer reviewer went out and made recommendations on changing boundaries. They did their best to hang flags where they needed to be. And I think my understanding is Emily was comfortable with the flagging as it is in the field. It's the numbering system is off. And so we have an existing flagging system in the field. And then we have a revised numbering system, which makes a little bit more sense. And my thinking was to include in the statement of fact, basically that prior to extending this order of resource area delineation for an additional three years, or prior to reviewing a notice of intent application that comes forward, that the flagging should be revised in the field with the flagging system as represented on the revised plan so that in the future, the flags that are in the field actually represent what's approved on the revised plan set. So that would be my recommendation. And it sounded like TRC in several of their comments sort of supported that. Can I clarify that really quickly, Erin? Okay. We are asking that before work has to happen. Part of the reason that we made this request and decided to do two plans like this is because it's a pretty big field effort to go out and change all of these flags. And it's a pretty typical condition on an order of conditions to require that flagging be refreshed before any work can take place. So the intent here because of the amount of work that's already gone into all of this was to not have to refresh flags until ground was actually gonna break someone. So I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, so that's from TRC's perspective. And that's great. I just wanted to clarify that that was our perspective and what we had tried to communicate in these comments. My apologies if that was not clear before. Okay, yeah, no, that's fair enough. So that TRC would like to only do the reflagging prior to breaking ground. My recommendation would be have the flagging revised prior to issuing an extension on this ORAD. And the reason for that is because if for example, three years from now they say we want to extend this ORAD when we go out to check the flagging in the field to see if it has changed, the flagging system is going to be a disaster to go out there and check it. So that's why I would recommend that prior to an extension being issued that we require the revised flags to be replaced in the field. And also if there's a future notice of intent that comes through, we're going to be doing a site walk and looking at resource boundaries and the flagging system. We don't want to be a flagging system that does not make sense because that will make a review very confusing. Just my recommendation, it's up to the board on how to proceed with that. We're totally on board with the extension part because the idea is essentially that we don't want to have to do this more times than we need to. There's such a lag between actually submitting something and getting it approved and breaking ground that it's just an expensive thing to have to do unless it's absolutely necessary. And we totally respect that it will be necessary at some point. So that makes sense. Thanks. Okay, so a lot of these comments are just referring back to the flagging system, okay? Multiple of these are referring back to the flagging system. So I just want to make sure they're just referring back. We've submitted a corrected plan. I don't have any issues with most of these. Just try to get down. Sorry, there's like a lag when I click on this because I'm remote. So I apologize if it looks like I'm moving slower than I am. Just by way of an update on this item, which is the comment number 19 regarding certification of rental pools, I did finally reach Shane Bajinosi at Kohl's and he said, my understanding is Kohl's typically does not support putting an encumbrance on their property. And by that he meant certifying the rental pools. He's not sure that that's something that the company would support. And also because they're under contract right now with the developer that he's not sure that even legally speaking because of that they could support that. That doesn't mean that the town already has the documentation so the town could do it without Kohl's approval or without Kohl's permission, but Shane was going to speak with the owner and review some of the legal background information to see kind of what their stance was on that and get back to me. So that is still in the works. Regardless of that, we have documentation that these are rental pools. And so it is recommended that in the statement of fact that we basically state that the rental pools should be treated and protected as though they are certified into the future regardless of whether the actual certification takes place or not. Sorry, Erin, can you just, but I've got to jog my memory here but at least the rental pools are on the site plan. And you're saying that at least we'll take out the potential and just call them rental pools. They're called rental pools. Yeah, potential is taken off. The potential is out, they're gonna be called rental pools. So then, okay, cool. I'm just saying that we, in our statement of fact that we state that we're deeming them rental pools and that they would be treated as such under the regulations regardless of whether they become certified. Gotcha. Thank you. And I think that's all of the comments. Yeah, I think the major attachments that are left are just the huge table. So one of the things that we provided was a table of what the field conditioned flag numbers are versus what the corrected flag numbers are. And then the latitude and longitude for each flag just for your record so that you know exactly how things would change. Yeah, and this would be helpful for us should we ever need to go out in the field and if things are ever confusing out there but nonetheless, I think it's important for us to consider the future. What might come down the road and the confusion that it could cause. But I think this is a good mitigation to keep things as orderly as we possibly can. Thank you, Erin. That's very helpful. So starting off with commissioners, comments, thoughts about what Maria said, what Erin said. So related to that first point, Maria related to the GPS accuracy. Do you know what the accuracy ended up being at the end of the day? I saw that you post-processed, but do you know if it's what that is? It's usually within six inches. Okay, oh. That's cool, that's nice. You got GPS going to go six inches. Is that based on prior experience or? It's based on prior experience but also this specific site. So the post-processing looks at the standard deviation between the satellites. And it can sometimes give you bigger numbers when you're in a canopy area, like Erin said, but we do have a very accurate GPS unit and it is our protocols that we don't save a point unless we can get the accuracy that we need in the field, the program that we use and the equipment that we have actually gives us real time where we're at. So there's that, but we also have had many flags surveyed that we've also GPSed and out of tens of thousands of flags, I've only seen flags moved twice from what the surveyor has found versus what we had. So I'm very confident in the level of accuracy that we have. Erin, when you brought this up, were you seeing big deviations from flags in the field versus the site plan? No. Clearly that, yeah, because why would- No. I mean, the reason I brought this up is because I used to work prior, I mean, for several years, I worked in consulting myself, GPSing wetland flags and I think in a closed canopy situation like that with a handheld GPS unit, to say that you've got six inch accuracy, I think is, I mean, I don't know what kind of GPS unit is being used that strikes me as being. Yeah, I mean, I think my feeling on this is that as long as prior to any sort of project implementation, we do an actual survey and look at the flags. Otherwise, I mean, I don't feel comfortable using anything but a physical survey to estimate flag. We have very new equipment. I don't know how recently Erin has used a GPS unit. I know that I've used a GPS unit over the past decade and that the accuracy has improved significantly in the past few years. It is also the industry standard that gets used for National Grid and Eversource and many of your larger projects. This is what all of their consultants do. We are one of them. So it's... Yeah, so that is true. It's... Mimi, a huge concern here. Yeah, well, yeah, Larry, I just want to close this out. So that being said, I still feel pretty strongly about that that's my opinion that I feel flags are required to any sort of project being approved for this parcel of land. But that wouldn't impact us on this right now. One of my concerns is we're talking about the idea of six to 10 inches. You know, this site could have changed in the next six months or the next six months of that kind of accuracy. I think that we're getting into the nitty gritty of getting beyond the idea of what we can actually reinforce. Which I think is also backing up what Laura is saying about prior to doing another project, that's when we need to physically have everything packed. So I think that... But I don't think that that's as relevant to what we're dealing with right now in front of us. Because that's... Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We're talking about nitty gritty things that really we can't really deal with, really. Well, eventually when we have to get it down to doing something future, then it makes sense to clearly define those. At that point, you might even argue that the wetlands has changed. It was five years on. So I just wanna address a couple of comments that were made. So GPS is the industry standard, particularly for utilities. I definitely agree with that. I mean, I think that a linear utility project where you might be doing pole maintenance or pole replacement is very different from a site where you're talking about basically a forested area that's going to be cleared and development going in. In this situation, I think it's very different. And I think... So I mean, the question was asked how long ago I used a GPS unit in the field. 2016 was the most recent I was out doing field work. And you might be lucky if you could get within a couple feet with a GPS accuracy. I mean, and again, I don't know what kind of unit they're using and the accuracy typically what happens is each, it's not like the whole survey has an accuracy level. It's every point when it's post-processed gives an indicator of accuracy. So one point might be within a few inches, another point might be within six feet, another point might be within three feet, which is not to say what they're presenting is not okay. I'm just saying when it comes to reviewing a development plan, I think it's a really responsible thing to do to have a surveyed plan at that point with the flags in the field. Again, both sides could argue with this. Five years from now, we're going to climate change. If we go into a mansion, a lot of Vonsun areas in the Northeast and it changes the wetlands, both sides could argue one way or the other in terms of doing it then. I mean, right for now, I think we're arguing about pins and needles. And the big thing that we're trying to figure out right now, I mean, the primary is, are we okay where the flags are now? This is more of an issue for how they get educated in the future. I agree, I agree. Yeah, and so I mean, I think for the statement of fact is merely to, for the commission to provide sort of a recommendation to itself moving forward of things that would be important to identify that were noted on the record as being important on this site, pertinent to the delineation. And again, if you guys are comfortable with the GPS, I know we've been comfortable with it on other sites, then that's fine. I just wanted to point it out because the statement was made on the record that the points were surveyed and they were actually GPS'd and they're two very different things. I apologize if that was my error on the record. We typically in our office call it a GPS survey. So if I was not clear on that, I'm really sorry about it. Yeah, I mean, so as long as we know exactly what we're looking at, I'm okay with where we're at. And as long as that's demarcated in the record, maybe I'm just kicking the can down the road, but we will tell ourselves in the future, this is what it is. And figure out how to deal with it at that point. Some of these don't go anywhere as well. That's true. Yeah, so we've had this issue with some of these properties before. Or not an issue, but set of circumstances. Okay, so that is the location issue. What about some of the, and so obviously there was lots of confusion around the points. I think we have a good workable solution for that. And with the idea that that will need to be refreshed in the future before work happens. So I think we're in agreement there. Exactly when that happens, if that's before an extension or before, or when an NOI gets submitted, I guess we have to decide on that piece though. So again, I mean, what we're deciding today is whether or not these points and lines are accurate as of today. And I think we're pretty much, I haven't heard any disagreement with that. Do any commissioners have a strong feeling about what we tell basically ourselves in the future regarding if an NOI comes, if an extension comes, because an extension will come before us. And at that point we have an opportunity to decide how we want to decide as well. Yeah. Can you talk through that a little bit more, Brett? Like what do you mean an extension for? So right now these points, we will quote unquote guarantee, I don't know if that's the right word for three years. These are effective for three years. So if they wanna do something and they wanna start making plans and doing all that, you say that we are comfortable with these for the next three years. Let's say their project takes longer and it takes five years. So they would have to come back within three years and say, we want an extension for two more years or three more years. And so at that point we have the opportunity to say, yes, we're fine to extend it, no, we're not okay or somewhere in between. Yeah, no, my opinion of that would be that if we're going to do an extension that the same process that was utilized for this would be done again to receive an extension. Cause I think our learnings as a, to Larry's point, things change and certainly things are changing more quickly than they have historically. Those are also hypotheticals. We don't have an extension in front of us right now. No, no, I just think. But I agree we should have flexibility when the extension comes to go back and say, we really need to look at this again. And we do. Yep, absolutely. I mean, you could say now that you're not issuing an extension, should it come back? Or you could say, we'll look at it in three years if it comes before us to make that decision. I like that. I like that. And when we said nothing, no extension. So, I mean, my opinion would be, we keep that on the table and we think true, obviously very carefully. Right. They're sorry to interrupt, but there is no extension unless we even come back and request something. So, it's kind of a moot point unless it even comes up. And honestly, I agree with the rest of you that it's something that you would review again at that time and say, has it changed or not? Yeah, and so, I mean, what I think Erin is trying to do for us, which I appreciate is basically leave a trail for ourselves in the future, more or less. So. So, is the commission comfortable with the way Riverfront was estimated? And if so, are you comfortable approving that as the Riverfront boundary on the order or you could leave that out of the, exclude that from the approval? If you're uncomfortable with it and you want it actually to be flagged down the road, should a proposal come before the board? Is it, I'm sorry. Is it, the reason it's on there is because a little bit of that estimated Riverfront area is on the plan, like a little bit of it. Is that why we're- Exactly, yeah. It overlaps the site very slightly in a couple of places our understanding from the March 15th meeting was that this was a methodology that the commission was comfortable with. That's why we did it this way. It was on the commission's recommendation. Yeah. So we're not talking about much territory. No, do you, Erin, I don't know. I'm looking at the map, I'm looking at the map right now. Yeah, I can open the map, but I just want to make it clear that commission didn't approve it. It was a recommendation made by myself and Emily. I understand that the commission didn't approve anything at that meeting, but our question to the commission was what is something we can do here that you would feel comfortable approving? And this is what came out of that discussion. Correct. And the underlying issue is that the actual water body is off of their property. Erin, could you, which comment is that? The riverfront area comment. Yeah, was that it? Yeah. Is it 13? Sorry, let me go back to the comment before. Oh, thank you. Sorry. No, no, no, no, you're good. I was like somewhere in the 40s in this document and I was like, this is not right. Yeah, and I definitely recall the discussions that we had and yeah, in general, there was no issues that I recall from the commission. It's a conservative approach, meaning that this was taken at a point lower down the water body and so therefore, likely slightly smaller, little higher up. Not certain, but likely. But just so we know the options, Erin, I mean, so what would happen if that piece was not approved? I mean... You just exclude it. So in the form, you can say, we're approving all boundaries shown on the plan or we are only approving specific resource area boundaries on the plan and in doing so, you can exclude specific boundaries. Yeah, I'm familiar with that, but I guess I'm confused about what that would mean to the applicant for that area. Does that mean that that area that is currently considered riverfront is not considered riverfront? Is that... So if you don't mind me answering, from our perspective, we would continue to consider a riverfront, but if you don't approve it as part of the ORAD, then it basically means that this conversation comes back up with future filings about, do we agree on where it is? And unless the applicant gains control of the property with the brook on it in the future, the answer is going to continue to be, we don't have access to it, so we can't delineate it in the field. This is the best that we can do right now. Yeah, I mean, there are other solutions. I mean, I've seen in situations like this, the landowner gets permission from the neighboring landowner to place flags so that lines can be set, but it's really at the commission's discretion as to whether you feel comfortable with where the estimated line is, because if you approve it as such, then that is the riverfront boundary that's set in stone should a project come before the board. Hold on, hold on. That's the boundary that is set in stone? The... Correct. For the duration of the ORAD, so for the three years? Correct. It's the same meaning as accepting the rest of the wetland lines that are here. Exactly. So what we're doing here is confirming the wetland boundaries and saying these boundaries are accurate for the next three years. So if you're... We used that to estimate riverfront area, but that was not actually flagged mean annual high water or first observable break and slope in the field. We didn't measure 200 feet off of those points because they weren't placed. We just did our best to estimate where that boundary was. So if you approve it, then that's approving that as the riverfront boundary for the next three years. If you don't, then they would have to... We would have to have this conversation again if a project came before the board. We would have to review the boundary or figure out how we were going to determine the boundary in the future. And from my opinion, I mean, we've had this discussion. I mean, we haven't been able to come up with sort of a better solution. I appreciate that if we could gain access, but apparently we can't, that would be the best way to do it. But I think we need to move forward at some point. So we'll just... We'll have to go on record one way or the other to say it's accurate that we're approving it or we're excluding it. And then just the other resource areas on the plan that you're approving, specifically stating if you're approving them or not approving them. We would have to include that in a motion that was made here. So bordering vegetated wetlands, isolated wetlands, vernal pools, I mean, in vernal pools, isolated wetlands, isolated land subject to flooding, which I think Maria's determined there is none on the site. I don't think that they're including flood areas on this anyways. The FEMA floodplain doesn't extend onto the site. There's no FEMA floodplain on the site. No, we show that as part of the process if there is. Okay, so that would not be... We wouldn't be approving that boundary because it's not on the site. And then, note whether we're approving riverfront. Am I right when I look at the map, it looks to me like the area we're talking about, the potential area with the riverfront. Is one or 2% of the whole property? Yes, it's very small. You can, so just to put in perspective what we're talking about, you can see the center line. If you can see my screen, the center line, and then the 200 foot offset. So you can see it just hangs over the boundary in a couple of places. It's looking at rumor that you could stay on Coal's land all the way up to New Hampshire, Vermont. That was the initial, like you could get all the way across. So they needed that little slip right there. But we are talking about a small part of the property. When I looked at it and looked at the map in terms of what they can develop, I mean, the place they can develop is the lower part. That upper one, it's not much air. Anyway, I'm sure if you put in certain things there like a cell tower or PV panels, that could go into part of it. But we're not talking about much area in terms of that part relative to the riverfront. I do think though, so Brett, is there precedent that's been set regarding these decisions in the past? President, what sense, Laura? I mean, I mean, like, you know, I think that we spoke about it during the last meeting and obviously we can't, you know, we're limited right now. Have there been similar decisions, you know, in the past that are or similar situations that have arisen like this, where we've taken similar action? You mean so basing that line off of an estimate? Yeah. I mean, my recollection, I don't know if you know better, Fletcher, but I sort of recollect that we have. I can't think of something specific. And this was also gone through third party as well, Laura. And my recollection is that Stockman had no issues with us. So am I recollecting that correct, Erin, that Emily Stockman had no issues? That's correct. I mean, she, well, that line that you're seeing is based on our recommendation for the limitations on the site. So that's the best we think it could get without access to the neighboring property. Yeah, okay. So I just want to state as well that there's land under water is shown on the plan and bank flags are also shown on the plan. So there are many resource areas that would need to be considered or included in an approval. And maybe what we should do is prior to the board making any motion is just kind of run through what those are. And I could list them to make it a little bit easier. Again, it's, the easiest thing is to say all of the boundaries as shown on the plan are approved and just approve them as they are on the plan set. That is the easiest thing to do. Excluding one or the other resource areas when it starts to get a little tricky. So it's really up to the board as to how to proceed. And I think that's typically what we do when appropriate. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, I'm still going to leave it to see if the commissioner still have more than we will open up to the public in a second as well. So any other questions from the commission or Aaron, anything that specific that we need to discuss before we ask for a public comment? I think we addressed the big ones. Yeah, I think we've covered most of the points. I think the big thing is going to be deciding what you want to include in the statement of facts and deciding which resource areas you're going to be approving. Okay. You can cross that bridge when we come to it. Yeah, okay, sounds good. Okay, so, and thank you, Aaron, for helping us through that. Thank you, Maria, as well. So I'm going to open it up to public comment now. So if you want to use that little feature to raise your hand, either Aaron or I can allow you to make your comments. Okay, so Tim Lang. Okay, so Tim, you should be able to speak at this point. Can you hear me? We can. I have a couple of questions, mostly I'm just seeking clarification trying to figure out what's happening. Maybe I should just ask them all and then you can answer them if they seem appropriate in the order that makes sense. We will do our best, and if not, remind us. Okay, my first concerns flags versus XY coordinates. And if a boundary, a wetland boundary is contested, what has the final say? Is it the XY coordinate or is it the flag in the field? Because what bothers me is that flags in the field can move, trees fall down, all sorts of things can happen. And we're talking three years. And so don't we need absolutely accurate XY coordinates? That's my first. My second, I guess, concerns of possible future development. And the land is owned by Coles, which was at least at one point a logging company. And I'm wondering, does logging require respect of the wetlands? And what is to prevent a logging operation to go in and just running roughshod over all the features that we're trying to protect? And then my final question is just what is the next step forward? If a notice of intent comes through, does it go to you? Or does it go to a different part of the local government? Those are my three questions. Okay, thank you, Tim. And we'll do our best to answer them again. Let us know if we miss anything. Okay. So the first one about, I mean, so the flags are, those are the actual things. Do they move, they do. So if we do, if there is movement, then they need to get reflagged. But what do you use to reflag them if you don't have a coordinate? So ideally it's done by a wetland scientist. So the same type of person who is flagging it now, they can go out there and flag it again, is one way to do it. And- Which means it couldn't change. Correct. So, yeah, I mean, you know, everything can change. Nothing is perfectly accurate, but. So Erin, is that accurate? Yes, it is. But I would say if flagging disappears in the field, which happens quite frequently, that flags blow away, then all we have to rely on in a situation like this is the XY coordinate. Because this is the approved delineation, the board is agreeing that this is the wetland boundary. And so if we were to go back and have flags replace the XY coordinate, would then be used to replace the flagging in that situation. So don't they have to be accurate? But I'm sorry, but Erin, wouldn't they also be looking for what the resource boundary is on the ground at that same time? Well, the resource boundary has already been confirmed. So it's a good example. And I'll just use the site that we were looking at last, at the last meeting, which was the 750 West Street. The site was originally flagged. The board approved it. And then the guy came back asking for an extension. And I went out to review the delineation. And when I went out there, there was no flags for me to see. All I could do is say approximately, it looks like this is where the old wetland line is. And I believe it's expanded visual estimate only. So, but if it's an active permit that has an approved flagging system on it, then an XY coordinate would be used to replace that flagging until that delineation expired or a new permit was filed where it was contested in some way. It seems to me that we're in a modern state where in the past a flag was the situation. And you couldn't verify where a flag was with realistic coordinates. With a GPS system where you can flag them to an XY coordinate system, that comes back and being a reference in terms of things. Now, that doesn't mean that the actual site is the correct site as time changes, but it just does mean that you go back to a better reference than the flag. So, yeah, and yeah, GPS coordinates are not, nothing is perfectly precise. Yeah, right, yeah, but neither is the flag, but neither is the flag. I mean, the guy puts it down or the woman puts it down and they're one foot from where they were gonna do what they started doing. The accuracy is at a point where anywhere. Okay, so Tim, I'm not sure if that's a satisfactory answer for you, but that's the state of knowledge or on the state of affairs with that one. No, I understand. Related to forestry, that's a separate question. There are state forestry laws out there. And so when they are doing forestry, then assuming that they are removing a certain amount of material, they do have to get their plans approved by the state. And within there, there are something called best management practices. And a lot of those are related to wetlands and other sensitive areas. I'll just throw in there. Part of that, Brett is also the forest cutting plan, which gets submitted. That's the state process that Brett was talking about that also gets, then we also, the Conservation Commission does get a copy of that as well. And we have a 10 day comment period when that plan gets submitted. Yeah, and that has to be approved. Maybe you just said that that has to get approved by a local service forestry, I believe. Yeah. Yeah. So all resource areas need to be mapped for that forest cutting plan. So it's all, so there's no running amok really, as you say. Yeah. And one thing that's kind of weird about a lot of these Tim is these are somewhat agnostic to what's happening on the land right now. You know, we have, there's no proposals in front of us about what they might do with land. It's just simply what, where the resource boundaries are and obviously why people are doing that is for future activities, or at least to figure out what the potential future activities could be. And where we might argue with them. So. That's really, it's also where we might argue with them. It's the idea that we've defined what we think is the correct case. When they come back, we still have the opportunity to evaluate that and including what the plan says. Okay, Tim, so I had a feeling I was going to forget the one of those. So what was the third one again? What would be the next step forward? As a butters, as neighbors, what are we looking for next now that the wetlands is perhaps settled? Okay, gotcha. So nothing is settled yet until we sort of vote on it. But so a couple of things can happen. If it gets approved tonight, then these are the official boundaries that coals can work with. Again, we don't know what, if anything, they're going to do with this land. The next thing that would happen if they are going to do something with this land is something called an NOI. So notice of intent. At that point, they would submit this back to our commission because of the wetland issues. And they would have to do another, a butter notice. So at that point, they would have to, I'm sure that's how you found out about this. So you would get another notice. It would get back on our docket and then we would start, not this whole process again, but yeah, there would be public hearings and we'd have to approve it and we'd have to talk about what's going on. But at that point, these wetland boundaries, once they're approved, those are kind of moved. Those are what we said we agreed to at that point. Does that make sense, Tim? Yeah, so to make sure I have this right, it would come to you next, not to planning and zoning. It depends on what, we will get something in front of us if it has a potential to influence the wetlands. It somewhat depends on what they're planning to do with it, Tim, what the other, what other boards would need. So I don't know if Dave or Aaron would know better about the other boards. I apologize, Tim, I just know about ours. Can I jump in really quickly, Brett? No. Unless Aaron or Dave wants to comment first, but no. Okay, please. I was just gonna say that they're gonna have to go through planning board regardless. And in either case, whether it be through planning board or the conservation commission that a butters have to receive notice like you did for this application. Thank you, Maria. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you, Tim. So any, so we have a number of other people here from the public. Does anybody else have a comment or a question that they'd like to raise at this point? I'm just gonna raise your hand. Okay, so I'm not, oops. So as soon as you think, okay, there we go. Jenny, so you should be able to speak at this point. No, let's try again. Okay. Okay, how about now? Yes, I hear you now. Okay, great. We've talked about the difficulty in asking for reflagging, going out the expense. I wonder if Aaron or somebody could explain what would be involved in doing a survey so that we would have XY coins as a result of survey. So how does survey and reflagging relate in terms of the size of the project? I mean, so surveying would be even more expensive and more time consuming if that was what the question is. So I mean, we'd have to get, they'd have to get professional surveyors out there. They'd have to get their equipment up, set up all of their control points, and then start, yeah, it would be a much more time consuming endeavor. And that's the question. And that would be the most accurate, as I understand. Would that have been the most accurate XY points? Sure, yep, surveying is definitely the most accurate method that we have available to us, correct? Well, it still requires a decision. I mean, surveying, somebody's gotta make a decision of where that survey point is, but yes, that will give you an extra XY coordinate, but not necessarily a wetlands decision. Right, because they're not wetland scientists, is that right? Right, exactly, yeah. Well, they're just identifying where the flags are. The flags, yeah, only going with the flags. Just to go back to the flags and what the accuracy is on those ones. But they could do it with like, you know, a very, very high level of precision. True, that's right. Easily, I assume. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Okay, anybody else from the public have any comments before I bring it back to the commission and we'll figure out how we wanna move forward? Okay, so not hearing any at this point, so commissioners, now it is back in our hands. And so we've had this one in front of us for a while. We've had third-party review that was very thorough, extremely helpful. We've had the detailed responses to it. There's a couple of outstanding issues that Erin raised. So I think we need, or we do need to address those. Anything else that we need to sort of hash out? Is it really just, Erin, would you mind putting up that, your presentation there, those the outstanding issues that we need to hash out? Yes, let me get my presentation back up. So I think the question is, are you comfortable approving all resource areas? That's question number one. That's really what the ORAD is, is are you approving all of the resource areas? Are you only approving certain resource areas? From my perspective, I think that the board is being very conservative to approve all resource areas in this case. I think that that is completely fine. We've had a peer reviewer give us recommendations. We've walked the site, she's walked the site multiple times. We've reviewed revisions multiple times. So I don't think, I think that you are on safe grounds to approve the delineation for all resource areas on the plan at this point. I think from my perspective, you as a board just need to make sure you're comfortable with that estimated riverfront boundary as we've recommended. And that's really the main question at this point as far as that is concerned. And then the finding of facts that I would recommend we attach to the ORAD and specifically what we would want to state in that because we will look at that when we go to issue an extension or if a notice of intent comes before the board. And my recommendation would be that at a minimum flags be replaced in the field with the revised flagging system prior to an extension being issued or prior to an order of conditions being issued. I would say that would be my bare minimum recommendation if the board wants to require those to be placed or shown on a surveyed plan. That's at the commission's discretion. And then the vernal pools, I would recommend that they be treated as though they're certified and that hopefully we can continue to pursue certification with coals. To kind of can it up. Aaron, I thought that we already had both sets of flagging numbers on plans though. Maybe there's something I missed when we said we should get, we have the option to get the new ones on a survey plan. I thought we already had that. We have the XY coordinates. We have the XY coordinates. We have them shown on a plan, but they're not survey grade flags. Okay. That was just the point I was making. I consider that sort of a survey. I thought that was a survey plan what we were looking at. Not that they were surveyed, but yeah. Yeah. I think I agree with everything that Aaron had mentioned about just approving all resource areas we did. If that was our recommendation to estimate riverfront area, I say we'd go for that. I'm not, the one thing is I don't think we need to get a vernal pool certified, but as long as we make sure that those vernal pools are identified on the plans as is, and we're going to treat them like they're certified. I don't think we need to go through the process of getting them certified. As long as they're documented on the plan, then we treat them as vernal pools like we treat every vernal pool that comes in front of us. It would be nice to get them certified though just for nothing else, for perpetuity. I appreciate it. But from Herb Shane's response, so we, I mean, Aaron, you pretty much asked that. Yeah, it's not going to impact this order though. It's not going to impact this at all. That's a separate sidebar conversation. Yeah. So we're going to treat it like that anyway. Yep. Yeah, I'll definitely pursue it and see, and then we can make a decision from there if we want to try to move forward with certification with or without permission from the landowner. But I'll leave that to the board to decide once they give us a decision. Yeah, let's just treat them like they're vernal pools, they're mapped. Yep. We got them. They're already there, unless Larry changes them. This ORAD is in place, we're good, yeah. Okay, so Fletcher, it sounds like you're on board with what's here, I'm with you with what was said as well. What about other commissioners? I agree. Nope, I agree. I agree, I agree. Yeah. Okay, so we're looking for a brave soul to step up and try and think about what this motion will be. So I can help here. I just want to clarify one point is there was a question about whether the board wanted the flags surveyed in the future or not. I just want to make sure I'm clear if everyone's in agreement, is that in agreement that flags do or don't need to be surveyed in the future, survey grade? Yeah, in my opinion they absolutely need to be surveyed in the future, yes. So we're saying, so then what's that saying that we're in order to move forward, this has to be surveyed? No, it's saying if they come back with an extension before we would issue an extension or before an order of conditions was issued they would need to be surveyed, the flag locations. And the other optionaries, we could say nothing on that as well. You could, you could. The point I argue about the survey flags is the flags may not be right in five years or three years. Right. That's a separate issue. But yeah, maybe and Larry, it might be a bigger issue but it is a separate issue, yes. I don't know, maybe I'm just feeling. I like that, yeah, maybe not saying anything about it. Okay, all right, so you prefer that too, not our opinion matters? Actually, I'll be off the commission by then, so we'll. Yeah, no, actually, I do disagree. I mean, I think that I have to say that and perhaps I missed it on our last meeting but I was actually surprised that this was done by GPS. And so, and perhaps that was my misunderstanding from our last meeting that we had on this exact topic. So, that was a surprise to me in this meeting. So I actually, so I will, I agree on everything else but I don't agree on that point. If there is a, I want to be crystal clear that if there is an extension request that a physical survey should be required here. So, like I just, all of our, everything that comes from, not just this, other plans and everything, everything, all wetland delineation, as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, come from GPS points, how often do we see surveys wetland points come in front of us? I don't. Usually it's when an engineered plan comes for us. Yeah, okay. So, a plan design. Like a Lord Smith's not doing it or like a Chuck D'Achi's not doing it. No, but, but. I'm just trying, I'm just looking for clarifications all. Yes, no, you're absolutely right, Fletcher, but I think, and maybe this is a good distinction to make actually. Is that if an order of conditions is issued, that it should be stamped by a registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, landscape architect. If an order of conditions is issued, the plan needs to be stamped by one of those individuals and that the flag locations need to be surveyed in those instances, because what you're saying is 100% correct and that's exactly why I'm bringing this up because if an engineered plan comes forward, it's gonna be important that those flag locations be surveyed. But in the case of an ORAD extension, it might not be as essential. So maybe that's a good distinction to make in the statement of facts. Yeah, I mean, that all feels and sounds like just standard stuff they're always dealing with. So Fletcher, I like they sort of put it in context. And so, yeah, I mean, I'm with you, Laura. Once it reaches a certain stage, it will need to get surveyed. At this point, personally, I'm okay, kind of being moot on it, or mute on it, I should say. But yeah, that doesn't push our decision in the future one way or the other. Yeah, I mean, I guess as long as Aaron is existing as kind of history keeper on that motion, because like Brett, like you said, if you are not on the commission at that point, it would be a good decision to make. If we're not on the commission at that point, depending on when it comes forward. I think that's my only concern about it not being in writing is depending on how long this project goes, if it comes back around and everyone's like, oh, I don't know, like seems fine, whatever, then kind of losing that effort and that work that we've put into kind of considering the importance of that. And so I'm a little wary of just leaving all of this kind of conversation that we've had out regarding future plans. I think that's just a standard thing that we always expect though, Anna. I mean, I think that we'd expect anything that came back to us into the future with an engineering would be surveyed. Yeah, it's like that. And I think perhaps that Anna and I are responding to the fact that there have been a number of, you know, agenda items that we've reviewed in the recent past where there was history that wasn't necessarily recorded. And we were all kind of guessing of, oh, well, what was the intention here? And why did we let that, you know, not to call out specific instances, but you know, that's one of my sort of driving forces as well. Yeah, I mean, if we want to say something along those lines related to that distinction, particularly that Fletcher helps with, yeah, I'm fine with that. I think that's standard practice, but I'm fine having that. If it's standard practice and we can clarify that we want to maintain that standard practice, then I'm comfortable with that. Does that make sense? What we said, Erin, in language that, I can't quite see what you're typing, but does that make sense in language that you can translate? Yes. Yes. We had our rambling conversation. Yes. And so I just want to kind of paraphrase back what you guys just said to make sure I can create the statement of fact to accurately reflect the record. So my understanding is that you would like the site to be reflagged with the revised flagging system prior to an order of resource area delineation being issued or prior to an order of resource being issued or prior to an order of conditions being issued, that vernal pools on the site that have been identified on the plan be treated as certified, and that in the future should an engineer, a project come before the board that requires engineering that the flagging be surveyed that the plans should be stamped by a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect surveyor, et cetera, as would be standard practice. That all sounds good to me and that sounds accurate. Okay. Great. So I just put up on the screen, this is basically what the approval looks like on the ORAD form. So the motion would essentially be that the board was approving the delineation on the most recent submitted plan set as accurate. And that would include the boarding vegetated wetlands, riverfront, isolated vegetated wetlands, vernal pools, isolated land subject to flooding, land underwater and bank, and then see also attached statement of fact that we referenced. Okay. Okay. So are we good for emotion then? Sorry, I'm not allowed to make it. It's my excuse. Convenient, isn't it? Easy enough. Can I just say so moved? Poll area here. As long as I hear a second. Was that you saying it? So moved. Can I say that? Are we good with that? We're going to, I'd like to make a motion to accept all resource areas. Okay. I lost. I couldn't tell where the motion started and ended. Sorry, Fletcher. It didn't go any or actually did really just said so moved and really started our end. So the motion is to approve or to move forward with what Aaron stated earlier. I got last. That last piece. Okay. So Fletcher, how do you vote? Hi. Anna. Hi. Laura. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I from me as well. So I think we are good with this one. Thank you everyone. Okay. So Maria, I'm sure you and Aaron will be in touch about paper work and all that sort of stuff. Thanks again. I know that this was a lot of work on everyone's part. So thanks for all the time that went into it. Thank you, Maria. And thank you to everybody from the public who participated. Thank you for sticking with it. Thank you for the questions. Again, as we through Tim's question, we don't know what's happening with this property next. If something does happen, then a notice of intent will come through. So that's all we can say. Okay. So that was really the only, you know, that we had. And then there was the two potential administrative ones. So the one for 55 lilac and then Aspen Heights. Can I comment on the last thing? So can I comment on the last thing? The motion has already went through. But besides that, you're more than welcome to comment. Yeah. I'm going to put my point on what I was arguing about. And that is that a surveyor is not a wetlands evaluator. And the surveyor goes back to identify points that might be by a flag. And could be an error. And they don't know how to make a decision with respect to that. So my concern about this whole thing has to do with the inconsistency of a surveyor versus a wetlands identifier. So we go out and a wetlands person goes out and puts the flag in. If that person at the same time makes a GPS coordinate or does a GPS coordinate, that becomes a record of sorts. And if the surveyor goes back to the record or goes back to the flag, it's a different situation. And, you know, six months or six years from now, GPS could come down to two inches. So I'm concerned with we're getting hung up on things relative to this. I do believe we've got to evaluate them, but I'm concerned about this aspect about surveyors versus the wetlands coordinate. Okay. Yeah. So all valid points. Thank you, Larry. Okay. So unless there's anything else is okay. If we move on to lilac. Whoa. Yeah. Can I just quickly run through some other business? And I will try to get through these as quickly as possible. Okay, that is fine. So I just wanted to let you guys know that in the last week, I issued the three outstanding determinations, the two outstanding orders of conditions. We do have still have two outstanding permits, which is 152 log town, which I think went to Laura, a first signature. And I'm just awaiting getting the permit back with wet signatures so I can issue. And then the one that was just approved at the last meeting, I still have to get that one out, but I'm been catching up, which is great. And so I'm just with that one. So Laura, you received that and that's back in the mail at this point. I don't know if we lost Laura. She's still there. We can't hear you, Laura, if you're trying to speak. Okay. My recollection is I dropped all those signable things off at her house last week. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. You know, the, the, the packet that was circulating. I dropped off at her house. I didn't mail it because the mailing thing was getting ridiculous in terms of the packaging. Yeah. Sorry about that, Larry. All the communities, everything together. And I had to like make some serious concoction there. It was pretty good though. Yeah. But I wanted to go up there and look at the area again anyway. So I figured that was a good reason for me to go up there. And I dropped it off at her house. I dropped it off with her husband. Okay. Okay. We'll find out. Yeah. I can follow up. Okay. So we've got done Pete. Okay. So we have actually four requests for minor administrative changes. And some of these, I think we can burn through pretty quickly. And one of them I don't think is can be approved tonight. Aspen Heights. Aspen Heights is just a, it's a, just a sewer line adjustment. That's already been approved by DPW. So I'm not super. I was trying to read through the emails about it. Okay. So let's start with lilac lane. So you guys might remember. This project. It was. Late in the year last year. They pulled out a fence, um, made some drainage improvements. Um, and basically what they want to do, they have an existing determination of applicability, but they wanted to install, um, a new fence. And so, um, this, this, um, application was submitted showing the, um, the approximate old fence line location that they had. And the new fence line that they are requesting. Um, and I just want to check my email really quickly because. Did anybody else download this file and because when I opened it, the lines didn't show up. And I thought I was really bad at reading maps because I could not figure out where the fence was trying to go. I had the same problem. I couldn't see the figure she just showed the figure that she just showed is, is delinitve. You can figure out what's happening. Um, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the, the stuff that I got. I couldn't read it like you. Yeah. Okay. That's what I saw that kind of stuff. Yep. Yep. I wasn't sure if I had the wrong file or if something happened on down. But just wanted to let you know, Aaron. Yeah. She provided a bunch of these marked up PDFs. And I think that's what the problem was. They were just, um, They were just trying to figure out what's going on. And they were just looking for a approximate distance of the proposed fence from the wetland. And so that's what these green lines are. Shows the setback of the fence from the existing wetland. Um, So she's just asking basically for the commission to. Kind of grant her permission to replace the fence in the new location. Um, Oh, sorry. Keep going. That's fine. If you guys have your bend to this site. If you look at topography, they're on top. And so that slope goes pretty far down and long down to that marsh. I walk that trail. Right. Um, So I don't see any issue. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have any issues with this as well. This is the one where they are planning to basically replace it with a like fence as well. Um, So I don't see any issues with that. Um, I don't see any issues with that. Similar height or something. Um, I think that it was previously a chain link fence and they're doing like a stockade fence. Um, for the replacement. Um, So it's a slightly different style of fence, but they did finish, I believe all of the work that was, um, associated with the RDA besides the fence replacement. So. To give you a sense of. Um, Um, So they, um, put an addition on, they were, they did some drainage improvements. And they put in a retaining wall. Yeah, they improved the site big time. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I don't think that we necessarily need a motion, but if there's a consensus that the board is okay with this, then that's fine. I'm okay. Okay. All right. Let me move on to the next item. Okay. So the next item is Aspen Heights. Um, And this one is an order of conditions. So we definitely would need a motion because this would be a, um, minor amendment to the order. So this is the recall. Oh, is this right? Hold on. Sorry. Um, So a request for a, um, minor amendment to the order of conditions that was issued for the Amherst housing project 408 North Hampton road. Um, existing conditions is a six inch water pipe that was connected to the water main at route nine. Um, they're looking to, um, Abandon a portion of it. Um, So the modification is to remove this section within the town right of way. And this is abandoning basically an old, um, Uh, water line. Um, and this is a requirement of the town for the project because, um, you know, they're putting in a new water line. So they have to remove the old, the location of the old water line. Um, Um, Allow removal of water main located in the town. Right of way is basically all they're seeking permission to do. And I did talk to Guilford about this and Guilford said he wouldn't sign on the permit, but he said that the town has given permission through its permitting process to allow work on this utility. So I don't have any problem with this. I don't have any problem with this. Um, It seems like a good thing to get the old pipe out. So. Yeah. I agree. And so you're saying that we are, anybody have any comments or questions on this one? Fairly benign. Yeah. So this would be a, um, I would ask for a motion. To approve this. So I have a motion to approve this minor. We just said it. Administrative. Minor administrative change. For Aspen Heights. Second. Okay. So. Anna. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Laura. I don't know if you lost Laura or not. So Laura, how do you vote? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So Laura, how do you vote? Aye. Thank you. Larry. All right. And then I for me. And yes, I don't think we ever got LaRoy back. So. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, so. So these, these are actually one in the same Aspen Heights and four, oh wait, North Hampton road. Okay. So mountain view circle. This one's a little more of a can of worms. Um, and I don't think that the board can approve it. I already spoke with, um, Bob Predmore. And I, I'm going to have to talk with him a little bit more, but I'll show you the plan. Um, and just get the board's general opinion on this, um, to make sure that you guys are kind of in agreement. With my perspective. Um, or what your perspective is, feel free to, um, to let me know. So, um, you may recall that Bob had a, has, uh, I think it's plum brook that flows through his property. And there's a failed culvert behind his property, which floods regularly. And he, he had to do some improvements on his property, um, because of a failed septic system to connect to the town water and sewer. Um, and so he had like a phased approach for his order of conditions. Um, to, to connect to town water and sewer or connect to town sewer. And then, um, he was proposing to pull out this culvert and do some stream restoration work. And then the final phase of the project was to, um, replace his driveway once the stream restoration was complete. He completed the first phase, which was the sewer line. And then he has been held up with the, um, stream restoration portion because of the cost. And, um, mostly because the contractors that he has hired to try to do the stream restoration work, um, that the cost has been over $10,000 to, to do the, just the pump around and the engineering for the pump around of the stream while the construction goes on. So, um, Bob was previously, um, I believe a landscape architect. He's, he's very skilled with, um, you know, his, um, his illustrations and he came up with his proposal basically and that his proposal is on the right to, um, create a new stream channel that's immediately adjacent to the existing stream channel that would serve as essentially, um, create a new channel, stabilize it. And then, um, once it's stabilized, allow the stream to flow through that new stream channel so that he could go in and pull out the old, um, culvert. Um, from looking at his plans, I don't think this is permissible through this process. He's asking for a minor amendment for this work. And from where I sit, this is creating quite a bit more, um, resource alteration and that it could only really be done through a new notice of intent, not even through an official amendment process. But I did tell him that I would present this to the board. I gave him the option to be here this evening. I don't know if he's on the call, but these are all things that I told him over the phone today. And I spoke to, oh, he is on, um, and he's raised his hand to speak. Um, Brett, what's his intent to restore it after the culprit was repaired? Um, his intent is to, or is to leave it permanently that way. I think his intent is to pull the culvert out, but he could probably speak to that. No, but after he pulls the culvert, takes the culvert, is he going to restore the street the way it was? I don't think so. I think the intent is to keep the new, um, channel that he designs. And I think that that's because that is where it's overflowing currently. Um, when there's a flood, I think that's the area where the stream is flowing over land and back into itself because the culvert has completely failed. And so yeah, we do have Bob online. So I don't know if Bob, if you'd like to add something at this point. Yes, I would like to add something and I appreciate the opportunity. I've been working on this now. I've owned the property for years and I've been working on this particular improvement for four years. Uh, I have a very small window. Uh, three months and I'm trying to get started. Uh, the numbers that I've been getting are three times what I have, uh, to do the work. And part of the problem is the pump around. And what we're proposing, and I've discussed this with the engineer. Uh, is that instead of the pump around, we just allow the existing culvert, which is perfectly fine as long as there's not a tremendous amount of flow, uh, runoff coming, coming down the stream. Uh, and we, if you, if you see the, uh, the plan on the left, that plan, and it's kind of hard to see, but that is the approved channel location, uh, for the new, uh, daylighted stream. Uh, the sketch that I did this morning on the right simply flips that existing alignment opposite hand. And it moves it south or just really a few feet. I mean, uh, and it allows us to use the culvert as a gravity bypass. We can, we can grade and, uh, stabilize the banks and do everything, uh, and have it all ready to go. And then we could actually abandon the existing culvert. We could remove the head walls and stop the, uh, uh, block the culvert at both ends. And it's a simple, quick, easy fix. It would allow me to proceed with the resources that I have right now. Uh, I refinanced my house. Uh, I got $45,000 out. I did $15,000 worth of sewer work. I've got $30,000. I have two proposals for $30,000. If I, uh, if I'm allowed to use the gravity bypass. So that, that's really the, what I would like to do is have a pre-construction meeting on the site as soon as possible and start work. Otherwise I think I'm going to miss the, this year. And I'm going to have the flooding for a fifth year, which is pretty exasperating, honestly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Bob. You're definitely in a tough situation there. Um, but yeah, I mean, this is a pretty major change to the original one. And so it's not that it's any better or worse, but it's yeah, pretty substantial from what was originally there is the problem for us. Um, so commissioners thoughts, ideas. Sorry. When was this last, when was this first one submitted? Um, it was approved prior to my arrival. I, um, It was last September. Last September. Yeah. I remember going out, but there's a really nice field on the other side of the stream. Yeah. And that totally floods. How can we help? But we can't just, that's a big change. It's too big of a change. It looks like a big change, but it's, it's, it's moving the proposed, uh, stream channel. A few feet south into that big field. Uh, and it's leaving the culvert in place. That's, that's the change. It actually minimizes the impact. Moving a few feet. Only a few feet. That's right. What is it? What is a few? It's less than five feet. Okay. I can't see in the figure. So it's kind of hard. My, my station to be able to look at that that way. Yeah. The scale is difficult to see. Um, I think it might be one to 20 feet, but I, this might be. Is one. One to five feet. It's a very large scale. It's almost like that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But does this. So this could, is this potentially. This is going to be an improvement. To the resource. Because we're now. Not going to be using it. I'm just saying this, this proposal. Would not be using the culvert anymore. Right. We get rid of the culvert. And so now. That's the, that's the proposal today. Right. Yeah. Well, either proposal Fletcher is to get rid of the culvert. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. So the other complicating factor with this is, um, because this is natural heritage endangered species area. And so. Um, that's it. Natural heritage would need to, you know, buy into this proposal as well. And I don't necessarily, I don't think that this is a bad proposal. Um, I don't think that what Bob is proposing to do is. I don't think it's going to be a good proposal. I don't think it's going to be a good proposal. I don't think it's going to be a good proposal. I don't think it's going to be difficult. From our position to approve it in this manner, because. Um, There's additional resource alteration that's proposed and we can't account for it. And, um, I'm not even sure that this could be done through a standard. Amendment where a butters are notified. It's just that dramatic of a change to the original. Proposal. There's no time. We're talking about timing and all of that sort of stuff. And again, our, our, our sympathy is there. The question is whether it's legitimate to do it this way. Yeah. And unfortunately, I mean, unless it makes me otherwise, I'm with it. You know, I'm sitting where Aaron is too. I mean, this is a pretty. I realized it's only a few feet, but, um, it's a pretty dramatic difference in my mind. straight of one, which is the right. Is there any ways that and I probably work with these people in the same office, but contact or maybe this is for you, Bob, contacting natural heritage? I don't know, Aaron, would this work like run in by them to see if they can look at a fast track way and like, hey, that looks OK to us. We actually maybe like a letter of support or is this just not as going beyond precedent here? Yeah, no, I hear what you're saying. And that's, you know, initially when I talked with Bob, that was kind of what I was thinking was maybe we could do it in this fashion. But once I saw the plan, I was like, I'm not sure. But I think any entity that saw this would say a new permit needs to be filed. I mean, we could certainly get comments if Bob wanted to run it by them, get comments from them. I could pass it by Mark Stinson over like a Zoom call and see what he said as far as what he would recommend. But I mean, my recommendation to Bob on this would be to file a new notice of intent to do it. And I know that's costly. And I know it's more time. But I feel like it might be the only way that we could legally approve this. So what sort of timeline are we talking about here, Aaron? So I mean, what's a reasonable length of time that Bob might think about if he did want to do this as new NOI? I think if he has his plan ready to go and he either wanted to fill out the permit application on his own, it would be requesting a butter notifications, notifying the butters of the proposal, notifying natural heritage of the proposal, and then we would post the legal ad. So the cost associated with the legal ad, which is anywhere from $150 or so to post the cost of the NOI filing, which I'd have to look at that a little bit more closely to see what category it would fall under. But I think it's possible that it could be filed as a resource area improvement, in which case we might be able to get a lower application fee. But I think he'd still have to go through that application process. If he could pull it together quickly, I think maybe a month or two he might be able to get a hearing before the board and have this considered. But I know that that's not on the timeline that he wants. OK. And then that also is contingent upon natural heritage reviewing it in that time period as well. Right. I'm also thinking about what natural heritage there. You could just, if it sounds like Bob, this is we're going to have to go with the NOI route. But give them early heads up. I don't know if we can give an email to them too and say, hey, Amherst Concom, we like this project. We just want to give you a heads up. It's coming down the pipeline. That's one step out of this many multiple process here. But I've done that with permitting with them before too. So hey, heads up. Yeah, I mean, I've seen this call over. I recognize that this situation needs repair or removal immediately. It's unsafe. I mean, I think it's a public safety issue at this point. Can we go that route? I mean. What's an emergency? That's interesting. Yeah. I mean, the thought has crossed my mind. But it would need to be something that was deemed an immediate threat to public health or safety. And then we would need a public entity to order such. So we could have Jason Skeels look at it, maybe, and say, is this a public safety issue? Or wait until it floods. I hate to say that. But if Mr. Predmore's home was in danger, then that's another reason to consider this an emergency, in which case they could literally just rip the culvert right out. Yeah, I'd rather not wait to that extreme danger. Just exploring options. Right. I do think the angle of public safety is actually a good one. Yeah. Not necessarily delaying until the event happens. Yeah. Bob has documentation here, and Bob has a plan here. Yeah. Well, maybe I could ask if Jason Skeels would be willing to look at it. I mean, he is the town engineer, and this is private property. So I don't know the implication that. Is Dave still on the call? Dave Z, he's still on with us. No, he's not. It's like your calling Dave Z. Dave Z, you need to answer mine. But maybe I could try to talk to Natural Heritage, reach out to Jason, and see if there's any other avenues that we could explore. Right, because this is like we have a great opportunity here. Yeah. Oh, I agree. And this culvert is a disaster, and it's not helping the resource area at all that it's in there. I'm just not sure we can permit moving the stream channel in this direction. I mean, the easier thing would be to somehow, yeah, just get that out and let it be in its current channel. So. Right. Yeah, Bob, you have a comment? I'd just like to point out that the proposed new channel actually relocates it away from the culvert. Jason is very familiar with this situation, because part of what has undermined the culvert head walls is drainage that comes from Mountain View Circle from the cul-de-sac. And I've been working with Guilford for the past four years to try to get him to correct that situation, because it has also added to the erosion of the head wall. The water comes all the way down when they flush the hydrant up at the cul-de-sac. The water comes all the way down and goes over the top around the side of the culvert head wall. So the town knows about this. They're very aware of it. Jason's been out here. They know what the situation is. And they're part of the problem. And they have been for years. And I've been trying to work with them. I've submitted three separate engineering drawings for improvements to the cul-de-sac. And I've also lobbied my neighbors to help with the drainage up there. So I've been doing everything reasonable. It would be a very significant improvement to Plum Brook to have this obstruction removed from the site. And I have a great engineer working on this with the STV, Tony Wenceski. And it's not anything that's going to get done again this year. If I have to go file another NOI and go through another public hearing, believe me, if I get started the middle of this month, I can have the bank stabilized with planting by October. I can't go beyond September 31 because of time of year restrictions. So I'm already half a month through the window of opportunity here. So if we're not going to go, then it's going to be another year of exasperation. And believe me, I spent thousands of dollars on these plans and to not be able to proceed with it because I have somebody who wants to charge six figures to do 40 feet of culvert removal. No, I can't afford it. I'm retired. I'm on fixed income. I've blown my savings and I've refinanced my home. I'm trying to do this. But it just seems like it's very, very difficult. Yeah, we're sympathetic. And I wish we're trying to figure out what we can do. I mean, yeah, through a administrative thing, that's just not within our purview, unfortunately, Bob. That's just not legal from our perspective. The only short term thing is potentially asking Jason Steele to see if he considers this to be a public threat or a public hazard. Besides that, unfortunately, Bob, I think this would be another, it would be a new NOI. I hate to say that, but I don't see what other options we have available. Sorry. I mean, if Jason deemed this a public safety issue, then maybe that would give us some flexibility to come up with a emergency response. Is the stream is still flowing right now, Bob? Yes. Is it really low flow right now? Yes, it is. I don't know. It's really coming down pretty hard out there. Probably flashed pretty good just a minute ago. Yeah, exactly. South Amherstead Lotterine. Yeah. I mean, I think we should table this. I hate to say table this, but I think we need to table it and explore some other options and see maybe we can brainstorm. So, Erin, are you going to be reaching out to Jason on the issue? Yeah, I can reach out to Jason next week and see what his thoughts are. Kind of go over the dilemma. What other creative ideas can we have? Yeah, I mean, I guess, is there a reason why we're waiting until next week to reach out to Jason? Erin, knowing this works so many hours a week. Yeah, I mean, I'm only 20 hours and today was a 10-hour day. So Friday, I come in and I'm only there for three hours. I knew there was a reason. I just didn't know what it was. An alternative would be Bob can reach out directly, I would think, as well. Yes. Well, does he know what he has to do to do that? I mean, it makes you. It sounds like you already asked. I mean, I guess my question is, Bob. Different morning knows about it. For the culvert removal, I know you're getting some exorbitant estimates and you keep talking about the bypass, the pump bypass. It sounds like is the is the factor that makes this impossible for you to implement because of the cost associated with it. You have to have a pump bypass? Well, you can't after a heritage condition or something. You can't dewater the stream. Essentially what they would do is put up a cofferdam and then get a pump and then pump on the downhill side. But I mean, I'm wondering if there might be some alternative to that? Like if we could put up a turbidity curtain on the downhill side while it's being pulled out to allow the turbidity to settle out of the stream. And maybe that would be a way to get the culvert out without having to do a bypass pump if the bypass pump is the financially what's inhibiting the work being done. But I think we need to talk about all options on this because that might be easier for the commission to approve as a minor amendment than reconfiguring the stream channel. So I mean, is that something that the board would be willing to consider a minor administrative change is to do a turbidity curtain instead of a pump around? Just to kind of explore that. What does that mean as far as he's concerned? What it means is that instead of blocking the stream and pumping the flow through a pipe, it would mean that they would put up probably some sandbags and a turbidity curtain, which would hold back the flow a little bit in such a way that it would allow the water to the sediment-laden water to be held back and filter through a curtain so that water that would come out on the other side would be cleaner, but it wouldn't be the same as doing a pump around. But it might be more. Is that a temporary fix while they're doing things? It's temporary while they pull the culvert out. And once the culvert is out, then they could take the turbidity curtain down and just allow the stream flow to reestablish. Because I assume it's pretty quick to pull out the culvert once they're in there. Right. Well, that's what I'm wondering as well. And I don't hear Bob on the call right now. I'm here. I don't know if everyone really understands that the proposal is to daylight the stream in a channel that's very, very similar to it. It doesn't follow the same course as the culvert. It actually cuts across where the water goes when it spills over the head wall. So the proposal, the approved plan, shows the Plum channel relocated to the south of the existing head wall. In fact, it clears the head wall entirely. So that is the proposal. So what I was suggesting was what I thought was a minor reconfiguration of the channel. But I can see that it doesn't really work that way. What do you think about what Erin said? What she suggested in terms of the temporary fix to get the culvert out, what do you think about that? Well, what I was hoping by staying clear of the culvert was that I was going to be able to abandon it in place. That was one of the cost reduction. So kind of similar to what the commission did down at Owens Pond, where the pond outlet goes through the spillway. And then we allowed Eversource to create that new stream channel outlet for the pond on Wentworth Farm. And then that section of stream was essentially abandoned, where the old outlet was. So you're saying we would have to get a new notice of intent to be able to go that route? Or is there a way we can get around to that approach without doing something like that? The approach that Bob is suggesting would require a new notice of intent from my perspective. I mean, unfortunately, I don't make the rules. I know, gotcha. I just wanted to understand that part of it. That's. Well, if I can try to wrap this up here, I appreciate all the time you folks are spending on it. I will make a call to Jason tomorrow and ask him to come down and take a look at the head walls I have a five-year-old granddaughter that lives here with me. And public safety is an important part of it. My basement floods a couple of inches of water when it's peak flow. And so there are public health and safety aspects of it. I'll ask Jason to take a look at it and to get back to Erin. In the meantime, I'll try to brainstorm with my engineer to see if there's some way I can work with the plan since it seems like if I could come up with some more money, it would cost me quite a bit of money and time to refile this thing and go through the whole process again. If I'm going to do that, I'd rather scrape up some money from some place and try to keep the plan the way it is. I mean, that's certainly one alternative that I'm going to explore immediately. So I'll call Jason, I'll call my engineer tomorrow, and I'll call the contractors that are interested in the job and try to come up with something that keeps the approved alignment right where it is. And then I'll get back to Erin if we can do that and try to schedule a pre-construction meeting. I'm optimistic. There's no reason why we can't blow through this and get this done this year, but I got to get started at the latest sometime in August. Yes, and my only comment to that is if you're going to stick to your approved plan, Bob, then I'm happy to come out and do pre-construction with you as soon as possible. If there are changes to the approved plan, then we've got to get them approved by the board because I don't have any authority to approve them. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And Erin, when is our next meeting? Just Bob's aware of that. It's going to be early August. August 12th. August. Yeah, so unfortunately, Bob, that's going to be the next earliest. I will have a chance to talk about this. Yeah. But if there's no change and you're going to stick with your original plan, then you wouldn't need to come back before the board. It's only if there's a change to it. OK, if I stick with the original channel, there was still ways to cut the cost here because I don't have to take that culvert head wall at the outflow out as solid as a rock. And I could leave it in there as long as it's not getting pressure from up top and undermined from down below. So that would be which is supposed to be the second phase of the construction. So we might push through the channel, the first phase, and then I might ask to be allowed to abandon the head wall in place. That would be a cost saving item also. So I think we should maybe explore that offline a little bit. And then if that's a proposal we want to bring before the board, we can talk about it at the next meeting once you've hammered it out. OK, good. Thank you. OK, thank you, Bob. Oh, good luck. Thank you, folks. Much appreciated. OK, bye-bye. OK, so Erin, next on the agenda, are we getting close here? Yes, we are very close. I haven't even had a chance to look at our monitoring reports, but I will try to take a look at them tomorrow. I had a meeting with Mass DOT today regarding that determination of applicability that we issued to DOT for the repaving project on Northampton Road. They had concerns about treatment of the invasives there, the Japanese knotweed. They basically said they think it's their folks who do invasives treatment looked at it and basically said, and I have the documentation if you guys want to see it for the request. Let me see if I can grab it real quick. But they're basically saying it's a waste of time and resources because there's a huge stand of Japanese knotweed that's behind the area that would be treated and it wouldn't really do anything to treat it because it would just grow back because there's a huge stand of it behind it. And after talking with them, I am inclined to agree. It doesn't really require any action on the part of the board. It's more or less just an acknowledgement that they're not going to be doing any spray treatments, just continue to mow it back. And that's basically it. They just wanted to communicate that to us and make sure that we were OK with that. I totally agree. I'm in a battle right now with a grass restoration project of my own with Japanese knotweed right in the middle of it. That's the battle. Yeah, it's literally every day. It's that stuff is, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's just spraying a bunch of chemicals. It's not going to do anything. It's going to do anything. It's going to come right back up. Yeah, exactly. And the only time, the best time to do it is in the fall on the flower. But even then, you've got to keep. There's a whole stand. Yeah. If they can't get the whole thing, it's not worth it. Correct, especially that big piece. For 10 years. Right. OK. OK, so there's that. And I just wanted to give you guys an update. I did walk the Lutty property with Lincoln Fish. And that property is completely overrun with invasives. It's a mess. I can give you a more lengthy update at the next meeting. But they're not going to be starting work as quickly as they had originally mentioned. So we have more time to discuss it before work starts. But yeah, I just wanted to let you know I did walk the site with him. And other than that, that's basically the most urgent business I had on the agenda this evening. OK, thank you, Aaron. So anybody have any other comments or questions for Aaron or anything else we have to talk about tonight? Just keep up the good work, Aaron. You're crushing it. You're literally the best. I agree. Great. Great. Thank you. I was all like, oh, Beth Wilson. I was like, oh, no way. Oh, no. That's cool. We're good. That is great. We're all on the same team. We're all on the same team. You make our work much easier. Thank you. I try. Thank you very much, Aaron. OK, so with that, I think we're looking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. That's it. OK, so Anna? Aye. Lara? Aye. Letcher? Aye. Larry? Aye. Brett? Aye. We are done. Thank you all and good to see you. Good to see you all. Take care. Have a good week or two weeks.