 All right. Welcome to the July 27, 22 meeting of the Amherst mass conservation commission. The first agenda item. Think is comments from the chair. That's me. I don't have major up any major updates. This is Larry's second to last meeting. We have a medium full agenda tonight. There are only two hearings. So the RDA for the railroad and the notice of intent for. 46 fearing street will both be continued. But the two hearings we have our. Complex sites. So we'll have a lot of details to work through. I think we're going to spend the first. Actually 20 to 25 minutes of the meeting talking about land use policy updates. I know. Michelle, you've been giving Aaron a lot of feedback. So thank you. I'll be good to discuss aside from that. I don't have many. Have a hydrology update drought. Like. D2 severe drought is moving rapidly in our direction. So. The drought coordinator was asking us for about drug conditions and streams. We're monitoring and weekly, for example. So. That front is moving west rapidly. I don't know if anyone's looking at a drought update, but. It's pretty serious in eastern mass and moving our way quickly. That's all I have for science updates. Thank you. Thank you. Do you know if Dave was going to join tonight, Aaron? He said he was going to join, but Jen, for some reason, it seemed like the attendees just popped in. So just to let you know that I don't know why there was a delay there, but maybe they joined later, whatever. But I just figured I'd let you know. Okay. So. So I'm here for the RDA for Keith Morris on behalf of New England central railroad company or the notice of intent. For 46 fearing street, both of those hearings will be continued. I don't think that the railroad has notified of butters yet, but. 46 fearing street has, we continued this the last meeting and it will be continued again to our next meeting. So the scheduled meeting is. August. August 10th. Keep an eye on it. And the 46 fearing is going to be continued to. September 14th. At 730. So just to let folks know who are trying to tune in for the 46 fearing. That it's continued pending some. Discussions amongst. Attorneys on all parties for that property. Okay. And I'll try to make that announcement intermittently throughout the meeting, just in case anyone else hops on. Okay. Well, I don't see a Dave yet. So Aaron, do you want to cover some other business or would you like to jump into the land use policy discussion? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about the land use policy. That would be great. Okay. And I don't know how you want to structure that. Jen. I did get comments from. Michelle. And I haven't heard from anyone else on the land use policy, but I have Michelle's markup. So like that might be a place to start for discussion purposes, and that's an option as well. Well, let's just take a kind of a loose poll commissioners. I mean, personally, I have not had time to get to it. So it's not that I have no comments. It's that I haven't engaged on it yet. Other commissioners where you guys have you had your heads in it at all, or would it be more helpful to do an overview at this point, then like a detailed. Just feedback based discussion. I've briefly looked at it, but not extensively. I haven't been able to make any, I haven't had time to make any. Any comments. Okay. Yeah, I'm in the same boat. But also nothing was like. Jumping out. In terms of, you know, sure, maybe some details there, but overall, I mean, it's pretty straightforward. So. Yeah. We'll put your, what do you think is the best. Use of this time. We have our first hearings at seven. Well. Well, actually I have a question with the enforcement numbers. Like. Where'd those come from in terms of like, you know, there's like one, two and three. Or do you want to like go heavier? Yeah. So everything came from, I think it was the town of Weston is where like the original template came from. And that was something that KP law had given us to work with, like as a starting point. And I want to say it was like maybe two or three pages long. The. Template that we were handed for Weston. And then it just kind of ballooned from there. So there, those numbers came from another community. And I. Have not compared that to other. What other towns charge for. Yeah, it was just interesting because it was just like 100, 200, third offense, 300, you know, it's like, all right. To be cared. Do we. Want to be stronger on that? Does it matter? I don't know. You know, third offense, like 300 bucks or third offense, like. Maybe you're not. Asked to come back now. You know, cause like honestly, how many times. Well, I'm not that pretty to it, but like how many times are we. Having repeat offenders on conservation lands. I wouldn't know. I don't want to. Just have this conversation about enforcement money and how much it costs. I mean, there's obviously way more important things to go. That was just kind of like. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean that's a, you're talking about the term, the deterrence value. Especially on, on. Recidivism or people who are coming back and doing it and doing it again. I think. If it's going from 200 to 300 on. On the third offense. Maybe it could be. We could discuss it more. Another time, but it's any service. Certainly. What's that? Community service. That's a great one. Aaron, do you have a sense of where enforcements. Occur. Is it, you know, like in any gardens or people doing the wrong thing on conservation lands or. Yeah. Is it enforced? Yeah. So. I'm hearing anecdotally what has happened historically and what. I know the biggest issues have been. In that realm have really been. Like we've had some issues with homelessness. Where there have been like. Camps encampments or like a couple of tents set up on a given property and that people have kind of been. In that general vicinity for a given period of time. And then when, by the time we figure out that people are there. To address it. Usually there's a pretty big mess associated with it. A lot of times the mess that's associated with it is. You know, like a lot of trash and refuse some stuff, but it's really like toileting. That's the problem. And then Brad. And his assistant Tyler or whomever is helping him is usually the ones who are dealing with it. And those are difficult situations. Relative to charging enforcement. Right. It's like, you know, if people are tenting in the woods, then they're in a difficult position to be fine. So those are really the only cases that I've heard. And I. I have not heard of, of cases where we've gone after. Violations on conservation land that the public has. Has. Has had. So. Or maybe potentially a butters would be another place where that could. Come up. And then I'm thinking like, yeah, and then maybe Pover's pond, but generally please respond to that. And it's more of like a verbal. Stop. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's what it is. Most of the time is sort of like these one-off situations. Well, I could see the monetary. Enforcement being motivating for a butters who are going to have a long time to. Have opportunities for incidences. I don't know if, if what's on the table here is money or. What kind of consequences, but. Yeah, I mean, it, I think it depends. Like, so for example, I'm. An encroachment issue. And like in those types of situations, I think that ultimately the solution is to get them to. Remove whatever encroachments have. Occurred. So like if they have a shed on the property, for example, making them remove the shed, or if they've been mowing, making them. Stop mowing and like kind of identify the boundary a little more clearly. And sorry, I'm multitasking because Dave couldn't get into the meeting. He's having all kinds of trouble getting into the concom meetings. I'm sending that along now. But yeah, I think it's, those are sort of, it's interesting. I mean, the, I think the violation. Is an interesting thing to discuss because I don't think we've enforced it and I don't think it's ever been done. But I do think it's important. In the. I think sort of as Andre was saying, like, if we ever get into a situation where there's parties going on, or who knows what the future might hold. So it's a good, it's good to be prepared so that we have something to point to. And have something that's reasonable that people aren't just going to say, like, Oh, who cares $300 fine? You know, I don't really care if I have to pay that. I'll just pay it and do it again. But I, again, I don't really see that happening very often. I think it's a pretty rare, rare situation that we're going to have enforcement on the conservation areas for. Use violations. Yeah, I think like my time on here, it's really, if there is anything that usually gets to a different, certain level, it just really goes. Right. You know, yeah. Like, did that ever get resolved? Remember a couple of years ago, someone had like the Satanic signs up over near Echo Hill or something. Yeah. Yeah. I remember that. Yeah. Yeah. I remember that. Um, Like what do you do? Like Hong Kong. Right. Documents saying, hmm, I don't know. Yeah. Like you said, like it's like, you know, or it's homelessness. And it's like, all right, well, is that a trespass? Like, how do you deal with that? Obviously you can't find people. It's not going to work. That doesn't help. Yeah. It's a tricky, it gets. Tricky. Yeah. Yeah. So I was like, also who would like issue the enforcement. Like the conservation department, you like, you know what I mean? Yeah. The police department, they'll give them the verbal like, Hey, like don't do this again. And hopefully that work. You know, I don't know. Right. Right. That's like, yeah. I don't see Dave Zomac out there with a ticket book being like, you know. Yeah. No, it's a good, it's a good point. Even for wetland protection act stuff, generally for, for violations, what we're, um, what we're doing to deal with that is the inspections department has a ticket system and ordinarily with the ticket system, the way that it works is that I believe you give a warning. And then, um, if the violation continues, then, um, you issue, you issue the tickets, but the tickets have to be issued daily. So for example, like they might give a warning one day than the next day ticket number one, the next day ticket number two, and they actually have to be handwritten out. And one copy goes to the owner or violator. One copy goes to, um, the magistrate of our local, uh, court. And then the other goes to, um, or is kept by the conservation department or the inspections department. And then, you know, so you can see that that becomes an incredible administrative burden to do that day after day. Cause you're writing this out. You're sending it to multiple parties. Um, and then you have to, if there's no payments of the fee, then there's a collection process, which is taking the person to court. A lot of times I've heard that once you get to that point where it goes, goes to court for payment, usually it gets thrown out. Um, so it can be all for not, but it's an interesting question and discussion because. It's an inspection department ticket system as opposed to like a wetland, uh, you know, wetlands conservation department or, you know, conservation land ticket system. Um, yeah. I'm, I'm kind of curious. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Catch somebody like dumping tires and a couch and mattress or something on concom. Um, so one thing that the preserves that, you know, the organization I work with has a lot of trouble is, is, um, the butters like dumping lawn waste or landscaping waste. So it's just like, or maybe like their plantings keep kind of creeping into conservation land because they live next to it so long and it's not maybe well used. So they sort of like increasingly adopted as their own. Um, and you don't necessarily figure that out right away, but then you see sort of like someone's compost pile. Um, so I think it is important to have some kind of mechanism of enforcement just for that. And then other things obviously are more complex. Um, and nuanced in enforcement. But. Do you guys think that the. The fees as they are now seem reasonable. Do you think they're not high enough? Do you think we should do some. Um, just checking of what other towns do for similar policies? Well, that was my, that's actually where it came from my first, my question came from, I feel like the third violation was 300 bucks. Just went up another hundred bucks. I mean, I mean, it's, it's cumulative, but still. It's not like you're losing your license. Like your UI. Maybe, maybe there shouldn't be a, maybe it should not be a hundred a hundred. Maybe it should be a hundred and 200, like third violation. That's, it's a lot of violations that you knew what you're doing wrong and you did it again. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. I think looking at some other towns to see what, what they're doing is a good idea. I mean, it seems like that's where that's what. You did from the beginning. Um, but maybe a couple other towns and yeah, I mean, if, uh, if it's just going up a hundred bucks each time that, and I don't really know the laws. I don't know what the maximum allowable would be. So I don't know if maybe 300 is the maximum, but, uh, you know, doubling it from one to 200, 200 to 400 or something like that. The police department does or something for, or like, you know, right? Is it funny when you like drive down the street and there's like a no littering science is maximum fine $250. You're like, so like, where'd that number come from? Right. Like 250 bucks. I can just throw my can. Onside of the road. Yeah. And in criminal. Numbers numbers come from something. You know, and, and, um, and criminal courts, what they'll do, you know, on sentencing or whatever, is they're looking at the, uh, the past. Past violations. And they'll take that into account when, you know, when handing down sentences and it's the reason for it is, is exactly what we're talking about is to stop the, the actions. And, um, you know, just along the same vein, um, just because somebody commits a violation doesn't mean that they need a ticket. You know, it's, uh, like Aaron was saying before, there are other, um, solutions, uh, such as, you know, mitigation, uh, or just stopping what, what they're doing or, um, what they're doing or what they're doing. But it, it, it does. I mean, uh, it's important to make sure that there's a disincentive for people to continue violating. I don't know how much time we have for this, but, um, maybe I could just pivot a second in case you guys do have a, a chance to look at the land use policy more for next time. Because Aaron and I talked a little about the mission statement that we wanted to pass it on for context, which is sort of that the conservation operates on two tracks in terms of our responsibilities, one's the wetlands administration, and then one is the land use policy. And there are two disparate areas. So when I was reviewing, um, and working on the mission statement, like I had something in there about wetland administrative, administering the state and local bylaws, but that's actually not relevant to this particular mission statement. So when you're, so when you're reading it, I guess, take it, take it in the context that this is the focus, specifically the land use and the conservation lands of, of the town of Amherst. So a different track than wetland. That was just some guidance that Aaron gave that I thought I'd pass on. That's super helpful, Michelle, because I remember last time we talked about this, you know, that was part of our mission that we are considering. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There was. In, in Michelle's draft and I can try to share that too. If you guys want to have a look at the markups, but, um, She had mentioned, you know, administration of the, the wetlands protection act and protecting wetlands and waterways and stuff. And I think that. I don't, from my perspective, it all ties together very. Um, sort of, I don't know, they kind of work together, I guess, is what I'm getting at, um, when we're protecting the land. We're also protecting the water. And so. And that also we have to follow the same rules as everybody else. Right. So if, um, If we're putting in a bridge on conservation area, we still have to have the property delineated. We still have to have it surveyed. We still have to put a plan together. We still have to put an application together. We still have to notify a butters, hold a public hearing, go through the same exact procedures. So. I don't think it's. Necessarily having to separate it so much as, um, just making sure it's clear that. As Michelle said, they're two, two different sets of legislation that, um, Dictate the conservation commission's role. Right. I guess there is. So, um, I don't know if I'm totally agreeing with what you're saying, Erin, I, I'm glad. I'm appreciative of the clarification on the separation, right? Like if the land use plan is to identify, you know, how we're managing the resources that. The town owns that are under our jurisdiction. That's one thing. I think. There's actually opportunity for conflict, right? Because if we're the. If we were actually talking about land use planning. Like the idea that we want to think about what the future landscape of Amherst looks like. Then we're weighing in more on things like. Setbacks, like. Zoning regulations, like things that we come up against in hearings that aren't in our jurisdiction, right? Like often in these hearings, for example. When, when an applicant is proposing, for example, if you're planning a buy law regulated wetland into a driveway, you know, our ants, you know, what we want to say is, can't you just make this property smaller? But that's not our job in that context, right? But in the context. Planning. And have it. Sorry. That was some weird. Did you guys just get. Anyway. You might have to meet yourself. Sorry. Yeah. Like it just seems like that actually is more in the avenue of like that hat that we wear, right? Like you had more of that under our land use, like. Land use job. We could be integrating and integrating and engaging in town planning. You know, Amherst has a really large percentage of conserved, like conservation land in our town. Relative to other towns and municipalities in Massachusetts. So like. Yeah, the point you're making is really well taken, Jen. And it's a challenge that I've run into again and again in this job. I'll give you an example. So we had like, I'll use another town as an example, but it fades into Amherst. Like I was serving as a conservation agent where I'm doing sort of the wetlands administration on one side. And then on the other side is land management. And there was a trail committee that came up with a plan to put in a series of foot bridges on a piece of conservation land. And they did their best to put together a proposal before the conservation commission to get it approved. And when they brought it before the concom, I was like, you know, it doesn't meet. Bank full requirements, the openness ratio is not correct. You know, the, you know, they hadn't delineated. There was no wetland delineation associated. There was so many issues. And it really created kind of a challenge for me because I was like, okay, so here I'm in the role of administering, but now I'm also in the role of like designing and putting permits through, and it's almost a conflict of interest, right? And, and it's the same way for the conservation commission. Let's say you know that there's a bridge that needs to be installed, but at the same time we're planning for a bridge. We're also the ones approving the bridge. And so. Dave's, he and I have had a lot of conversations about how to reconcile that and how we have done that is. A lot of times, you know, hiring outside consultants to do. So sort of the design work. And making sure we hold ourselves to that high standard as far as delineation and design that meets all those regs. So I could review it and still sit in that chair and review their work and say, you need to fix this, you need to make it comply. And also like sort of from a design standpoint that like, we have a land manager and a land management assistant. And so hopefully they're doing sort of some of the conceptual. We need a bridge here thought process. And then I can guide that from my hat of wetlands administration to make sure they're doing it right. But I think it's a, what you're saying makes a lot of sense. And it's, it might be something that we want to include. To say the conservation commission. Or staff of the town supports the, the visioning and the design components and the conservation commission maintains its rule or I don't know. I mean, I'm just trying to. It's tricky. Yeah. Outline sort of how the commission handles those situations. Right. I can think of numerous examples just in the time I've been on this conservation commission where we've come up against that. The KC trail bridge, like off Southeast street is one really good example. Yeah. Yeah. So sorry. So we're at the start time for our first hearing. I think we should keep things moving. What, so. Maybe we should double down on actually reading and giving Aaron comments in writing before our next meeting. And I'm, I need to hold myself to that more than I need to hold you guys do it, but. Is that a reasonable next step from, from, from everyone. I mean. To log a. You guys don't have to mark it up if you don't want to, you could make notes on the napkin and just bring it to the meeting. If that's more convenient for you. Right. My mind, Aaron. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. If you search your email, Aaron sent to just, I think on June 30th, June 30. With the latest markups. Yeah. Oh, not with Michelle's feedback. We have to individually respond to Aaron. And then she kind of has to collate that. We can't like see each other's markups. Outside of this. Yeah. So there's no way for you guys to see what I brought up. Like if we like share it on the screen real quick and then it becomes record. Yeah. No, absolutely. I feel like that could be useful. My markup. Yeah. So we'll just share it and then, you know, and I've done this before too. With. With papers that were like peer reviewed and there was multiple authors where. One person looked at it and marked it up. And then we reviewed that and then another person marked it up and reviewed that so that it was kind of. A little more. Structured and we weren't just getting comments. On all different versions. So that's one thing we could do is somebody could volunteer to be the next. Next reviewer. I could do that. Fletcher. You seem like you've also kind of looked at it. Would you be in a position to do that by August 10th? Review. Just be the reviewer. Sure. The next person kind of take now that we've seen Michelle's comments in this public forum. That can be. Yeah, fine to send me those. Send me that. Michelle's. That'd be fine. And I do have one more question about the agricultural policy. Did we, I forget if we talked about this or not. Is the ag commission. Wayne and on this. On that part. Yeah. So we pulled in. We pulled in. Yeah. From the. Agricultural committee. We pulled in information. We've pulled in information from multiple areas. So it's not like I've drafted this. It's. Well, do the. The agricultural. And agricultural license policy was actually. Completely already developed. And I just inserted it in here so that we would have sort of a comprehensive policy. So to answer your question. Yes. Yeah. That was my other question. I forgot my napkin though. All right. So that, I think that's a good plan. Fletcher, if you'll be next for viewer and then we can decide after that. How we move forward. Is that okay? Erin. Yeah, absolutely. I will, I'm just flipping through here so you guys can see this is public. This is Michelle's comments on the public record here. I'm going to forward them along to Fletcher. Fletcher will do his markups and then they'll forward on to the next person. Okay. Perfect. And then we can review the meeting by meeting maybe that might be a good strategy to get us through. Keep things moving. Yep. Thank you for doing that. Next. Okay. So keeping it moving. I think wasn't seven 30 or first. Yes. Okay. So let me just quickly make an announcement. Because we have a lot of just events right now. We have 20 or 15 attendees here. I want to let people know that if you're here either for the hearing, the RDA scheduled for seven 30 PM, which is New England central railroad company, or for the notice of intent for the application at 46 fearing street, which was scheduled for seven 45. Both of those are continued to the September 14th meeting. So a butters haven't even been notified for the railroad. Hopefully they'll be notified before that September 14th meeting, but 46 fearing street. If you are in a butter and you've been notified, you will not get another notification. You have to mark September 14th on your calendar and check the agenda beforehand to see the time. Aaron, do you have a comment? Just one correction, which is the, the 46 fearing is being continued to September 14th. The railroad is being continued to. August 10th. And that's, it was an error in the PowerPoint. I apologize for that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Long story short, if you're here for 46 fearing street, which is my guess, several of these people are September 14th market on your calendar. Check the agenda beforehand to see what time that hearing will be. Okay. So is anyone from the railroad coming to this meeting, Aaron, or we just, we're continuing because they haven't done a butter notification yet. Correct. That's a great question. I invited the railroad to come tonight. If they wanted to discuss. The about our notification. Keith. Keith Morris. Said he was trying to get permission from the railroad to do the butter notifications. And so I invited him to come if you wanted to talk about it. He, I think his. His idea was to wait and see what the railroad said. And then if the railroad is still not. Wanting to notify a butters that he might be back. And that's why I moved it to August 10th. So it wouldn't, it would still give us an opportunity to discuss it with him. If we need to on that day. Okay. But he's not coming to the meeting today. I don't believe so. He didn't confirm that he was attending. Okay. Okay. So then folks, I think we're just looking for a motion to continue the public hearing December to September 14th at 730 p.m. I'm sorry. August. August. I'll pull it up on the screen. Sorry. That was my, I created that confusion by accident. Cause originally he'd asked for permission from the railroad. He'd asked for permission from the railroad. He'd asked for permission from the railroad. He'd asked for permission from the railroad. And I said, well, I think we should. Have it on the, on the 10th, just in case something comes up that we need to discuss my better. And I just downloaded the older version of the PowerPoint. And I was looking at that. No problem. Okay. Motion to continue the public hearing to August 10th 2022. At 7. 45 p.m. I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion. To move the public hearing of the New England central railroad request termination to August 10. 745 PM. I got Larry on the second voice vote, Andre. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hi. And I'm also an eye. All right. The next one is a continuation. It's a notice for intent. Mark Stinson on behalf of Wilson property group LLC for construction of a single family house. An associated site work in the buffer zone to BVW at lot two, Canton Avenue. So I think I saw Mark. If you are in attendance and would like to kind of speak to you or are the applicant for this hearing, I would like to know. Mark Stinson. Carol Wilson. That might be Pete Wilson. Yeah. And Jen, I think that we're opening this for the first time tonight. Just as an FYI. Okay. You don't have the language right on the end. Do you? I don't. I'll run upstairs. Mary Anderson. So just. We might want to be clear that the public comment session would be. Later on in the proceeding. That might be who. I'm not sure if Mary Anderson is an applicant. Part of the application group or if she's a neighbor. Pete should be here too somewhere. Okay. I should Carol Wilson. I'm wondering if that's Pete. Probably. All right. If you guys can just sort this out, and you can just get a little bit of a. A little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of an OI language. Okay. This is Pete Wilson. Hi, Pete. Hi there, everyone. Good evening. We're just waiting for the chair to get. The opening. The language for opening a public hearing, which is upstairs. So she's running to grab and coming right back. Okay. Okay. Sorry. 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act fell to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended an article 3.31 well and protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. So, Mark, welcome. Thank you. Is that Pete. Are you here. Yes, I am. Okay, great. Thank you guys for being here. I'm sure you're familiar with how this goes but just an overview of how we usually do this is we'd ask you to introduce yourselves and give kind of a five minute overview of the application. If you want to share a screen or Aaron can share her screen with the most recent plan I know. Mark you submitted a revised plan with some markups on it, we can talk through that, then we can talk through any updates from town staff, and then we'll open for public comment. We'll ask that members of the public limit their comments and questions to two minutes and keep it jurisdictional for us so relevant to protections of wetland water resources in the site. And then we will go through any commissioner comments and questions. And hopefully for this application it seems like we have what we need in order to move forward. So hopefully we'll have a detailed discussion of conditions, including any kind of public comment and move forward from there. So, Mark, do you want to kind of introduce yourself in the project and share screen or would you like Aaron to I prefer Aaron share the screen that revised plan. So my name is Mark Stinson I've been retained by Pete Wilson. I would like to submit the notice of intent. I think most of you are familiar with the property. Pete was not the applicant for the notice of intent submitted in 2017 that received the order, he didn't buy the property until 2019. The commission, there was a violation. Ward Smith updated the wetlands out there took care of the violation I think Aaron satisfied that the violations been are the enforcement orders been complied with that's my understanding. So this is just a lot. Two, just the smaller lot is no weapons alteration proposed this is strictly buffers. So if you've seen the revised plan, I added discussions with Aaron, and I totally agree. The addition of erosion sedimentation controls around pretty much the entire property line. Because most of it is in the hundred foot buffer there's this, there is a little bit outside the hundred, but it's inconsequential. Excuse me. Sorry, Mark. Could everyone else mute aside from Mark please. Thanks go ahead. So Ward, you know, I'm not I was not part of the original. Or any of the delineation most of the history. Ward just got busy and he couldn't handle this so he asked me to take it on so I said okay. So I've been working with Pete and Ward discussions and with Aaron to come up with this revised plan Berkshire design came up with the plan. Working with Pete, you see the rain garden. Now the rain gardens not taking the entirety of the run off, because the driveway on the south side doesn't flow to the north to the rain guard. You can see the contours there. So Aaron asked if we would pitch the driveway so that the runoff would go to the north towards the weapon line. And the plan doesn't show that, but part of the way Aaron and I discussed is, and I told Pete, is we'll get a revised plan. You know, is that will be the plan of record. It will address what you see on the current plan, plus anything else that needs to be added to. That's not a problem is, you know, this was submitted after your bylaw update of what was the beginning of this month end of June. And Pete can certainly discuss the discussions. He's had with the commission and he's had with Ward on this site in general. You can see the weapon line. Did you, do you have, did you give them the colorized version Aaron. Yeah, so we, we could see your like highlighted markup version and it looks like Aaron's tracing the delineation line right now the BBW line right now in red. Okay. Yeah. Thanks Aaron. So yeah, again, most of the project is inside the buffer. But this is, you know, a great plan very clear. I'm very clear where the project exists relative to our jurisdiction. I don't know if we need to, Pete, unless you have something you want to add, I think, you know, this is kind of an, you know, a new application I don't think we need to rehash how we got here, I do want to say thank you for this very organized application and working with Aaron to get everything we needed to get to this point in the meeting and I want to keep this moving because I know that this has been a drawn out process. I don't have anything that you want to add at this point. The only thing if it's the right time mark we we talked about my sharing a thought about the one requirement to keep all water on the on the property. Is that still a concern, Aaron, because I mean the problem with. You know, there's water going to be coming down the driveway hopefully most of it, most if not all will be going to the north, but you still have that area off the property actually on canton have is vegetated. There's not much we can do there. So you will have a little Pete said, there was a ZBA hearing permit, they required, what was it Pete the first 12 feet to be paved with two foot gravel offshoot that we don't have control over and water. The canton have in the outline is not fully paid part of it's vegetated part of it is paid. So that's why you see the driveway actually paved all the way halfway through Canton Avenue. So we really have no control not much control over that area there. So there will be a little water coming off. So during major storm events you're going to get major water coming off anyway regardless of whether or not it's developed or not developed. So I just if I could just jump in here so normally the process we follow and I think it might better for Jen to explain this but usually we have a presentation for five minutes. I think we have a lot of comments from the public comments from the commission and then I weigh in with conditions. Once I go through my conditions then we could start hashing out sort of conditions here and there. But I think just to keep things moving rather than jumping into the discussion of conditions right now that maybe we should just keep going with that. Yeah, otherwise. No, I think that's right. I, but point taken I see what you're talking about there. Well, we'll see what we can do. Yeah, basic it's a pretty simple project. The, the, the primary issue is the driveway is only, you know, three or four feet from the actual weapon line around that 195, I think it is contour. Yeah, yeah, see it. Okay. All right, well, I guess the next step would be to take any public comment or questions at this point, and then Aaron maybe you can give us a download on your thoughts on potential conditions. All right. So if you wouldn't. Yeah, thanks for stopping sharing. So if you are here and interested in making a comment or asking a question about the hearing for to Canton have please raise your hand and again as a reminder if you can introduce yourself and your address. How related to the project, and then ask keep any questions or comments to two minutes or less and relevant to our jurisdiction on this project, I would appreciate it. I see Benjamin Bailey. Sorry everyone it does. It takes an awkward amount of time for this to load. Okay Benjamin we see you. Can you hear me now. Yes, we hear you. Yes. My name is Benjamin Bailey I live at 165 North Whitney Street. The proposed plan puts a house very close to the property line right behind my house. This is a house that's not built on the street near sidewalks that kind of fits in with the character of the neighborhood. The substantive issue for the committee though is that the wetlands guidelines require something like a 20 foot buffer between any construction work and wetlands. This one is putting a permanent structure the driveway within a few feet of the wetlands. So I guess I would like the committee to to explain why this is being overridden in this case. I'm excited about this project that's so valuable, or what mitigation or, you know, in terms of the wetlands. Why is that being overridden here. Okay. Is there something else there with you. Actually yes actually my wife. So I'm Julia Risham I live at the same address 165 North Whitney Street. So we as a butters I guess we went through many of these hearings in the last couple of years and the last that I haven't followed it since the end of the last time but what happened last time is I went out and I was a year ago year and a half ago and trees were just being cut down and and I'm sure you all are aware of what happened last time that that it was just the plan wasn't done. And my understanding is the developers were being fined and they were had to mitigate the damage that they had already done which is you can't really put trees back on. So I just wanted to know like what has been mitigated. Has all the damage already been mitigated. I mean isn't that sort of the starting point and I might miss multiple hearings where that already happened. And it's been fixed or addressed. So my concern is what's going to be different this time. And what conditions, I guess the conditions are what you're going to be discussing but yeah. Yeah, great questions. Aaron, would you be willing to give a brief overview of kind of the enforcement and how that ended up. This is a new application so it's and definitely procedurally it's it's stretched our know how certainly. Yeah, Aaron, would you mind giving that brief overview. Yes. So, when I started with the town in October of 2019 we had received a request to extend the order of conditions for another three years so it was basically reaching as its expiration date. And as I do with any permit when it's coming up for expiration I go out and have a look and see if the resource area boundaries change has any site conditions change that would basically require that we not extend the permit and or that there be a new filing and so when I went out to look at the site. I immediately saw that work had been done there in violation and I sort of backtracked and discovered that the property had been sold that the new owner had gone into clear the in speaking with Pete and sort of I guess Wilson construction I'm not sure exactly who I spoke to back in 2019 but it came to my attention that they were unaware of the order of conditions and had gone in to do the clearing didn't realize that they needed to do a pre construction meeting and installation of erosion controls it it was expressed that they didn't even know there was wetlands on the site. So there was an enforcement order issued. We went through a lengthy process with the enforcement order close to a year to basically determine that it was in fact a wetland that had been cleared and excavated. There was some argument that it wasn't the wetland that was cleared but we determined that it was in fact that it was in fact the wetland that was cleared. As a result there was a restoration plan and we required that they go back in and re delineate because when we went out to check the plantings for the restoration plan. It was clear that the wetland had expanded and again a lot of times when you cut down trees in a wetland. The thought is oh it'll dry the wetland up but in reality it makes the wetland more wet so the wetland expanded pretty significantly. And that presented us with the challenge of how do we deal with this because ordinarily if the site conditions change it automatically triggers a new filing. We asked Pete to put together a revised plan that took into consideration the new wetland boundary, which he did and we had that new plan before us and around that same time the permit came up for expiration again. When we were reviewing the permit that was extended and sort of trying to figure out how to deal with this revised plan relative to one of the lots in the subdivision. It was discovered or determined that the wetland boundaries had changed on the other lot as well. We then had changed wetland boundaries on two of the lots in the subdivision and so at that point we basically asked Pete Wilson to resubmit and just let the old order of conditions die so to speak. So we would close out the old order of conditions, call it invalid and start fresh with a new permit. In doing that though, there is a certain expectation that the commission previously issued approval of building lots, buildable lots on these two sites and so there's a good faith effort on behalf of, you know, Mr Wilson to resubmit an application with the expectation that now he can still be able to build his house there. So that is why there are some sort of procedural differences with this particular application and also the setback that for the driveway was previously approved and so I think that there's a little bit of sort of discretion that needs to be made by the board to consider this application. And I think you're muted. Right, so I guess I would like to. So, so there's some precedent here, and you're respecting the precedent that essentially the same driveway was approved before, even though the driveway was not conforming with wetland requirements. I think it's worth hearing from you all why you would want to approve it now it's quite clear that the building permanent structures within his own that's normally not even allowed to do construction and of any kind. So we can permit this inside the buffer to the resource. This is something that we are allowed to permit and that's why we talk about heavily conditioning the project. And that's the discussion that we're about to get into is like really, really, really detailed. Another word aside from condition parameters that we apply borders that we apply to how this project works both during the building phase and the finished project. So I'd encourage you to stay on for that. And also maybe after public comment commissioners. We will open this up for discussion and I'll give commissioners a chance to kind of weigh in on this as well. Unless anyone commissioners does anyone have an immediate response that they'd like to make this plane. Yeah, so we're going to keep this we just have to keep this hearing moving Benjamin but if you have further questions after we talk we can we can come back to that at that point. This is a very separate question. Okay. So it doesn't seem like amiable people when we approached them in this wetlands area a year or two ago. They had no clue of where any property boundaries were. They had no clue where any wetlands were, they couldn't point to any pins, they were moving heavy equipment around. They had a couple of labors just cutting stuff down. And it was designed originally by Bucky sprinkle I think it was exquisitely done with a computer down to the foot nice drawings. Given the Wilson's tradition past history dear here. Do you all consider where that whether they're capable of doing such careful work here. When before they couldn't even find pins, aren't even aware of any of this. Actually, just one more thing when I told them they were in violation they said, Oh, I mean they weren't worried about they didn't care they knew that they were cutting down in violation of a plan. Yeah, same time. Yeah, I hear your concern. We've had quite the journey since that point so I don't want to speak for the Wilson's but I think they're very well aware now of the very very tight elbow room on this site. And I also this the screen that Aaron was sharing earlier is also very well engineered plan so it is the same level of plan that Bucky sparkle would have submitted for the original NOI. And the last thing I'll say is again, please stand and listen to the conditions that we put on this permit because we can do a lot in terms of making sure that there's oversight and reporting and supervision during the construction process. So, it is unlikely we will be in a situation again where there's heavy equipment out there in close proximity to the resource and there's not someone watching and reporting to the commission about it. Michelle did you have a comment. You're muted. I can wait. Okay, thank you both for being here and I would encourage you to stay on for the rest of the discussion because I think we'll be able to address some of these concerns. Okay. Mary Anderson. You can see you Mary. It looks like you're muted. I'm old what can I say. Yeah, so my family's had this property north of there since 1949 so there you go that explains part of it right there. So I have a couple questions. First of all, at the risk of sounding stupid, the point of the buffer, you keep referring to the buffer it looked to me like the buffer was like a raised area, intended to hold back water inside of which the house would sit. So am I misreading the diagram. The buffer is just a known distance from a delineation. So literally like an equal measurement if you move so say your wetland is a circle, your hundred foot buffer would be 100 foot radius around that circle. Literally like a known distance from the resource to that buffer delineation. Thank you. Thank you so those little squeaky lines those were not elevation lines like looking like a, you know, as I looked at it they look like a hill. There are also elevation lines on there. There's there's graded lot there's the grading is captured on that plan, and also actual resource delineation and then various buffer widths from that resource. There's a lot happening on that plan. The ones that look like a hill are probably topographic lines. Yeah. So, like you were looking at the driveway probably. I was looking north of the driveway. I guess that's north to where the house would be. And on the right as you look at it on the right hand side with those squeaky lines kind of curving around. Now, but I was wondering, we keep talking about all the water. Well, it seems to me if there are already water problems and stuff, and you're going to put a fixed structure with footings and so on going, you know, however deep they go, you're in effect creating a dam. And I, I couldn't tell, I guess, all of these other things you're talking about for water flow is going to be sufficient for whatever this. The dam now is holding back. Does that make sense. Because that's how it looks to me, but again I couldn't read the lines either so maybe, maybe it's just me. Yeah. You know you're talking about and then talking about the water along the driveway, I guess going left to right, and that's going to be banked so the water stays on the property because I heard someone say of the requirement to keep the water on the property. The water that comes from the house down the driveway toward Camden Avenue. Is that going to be extra highly banked, or, you know, like, yeah. Yeah, so you can see okay thanks Erin you read my mind. Um, so let's talk about can you see this plan Mary. Yes, that's so. Yeah, so the, let's how do I start here. Okay, so the green line. This is is a sediment and erosion control. That is hard for me to see it's almost exactly if you're looking along the driveway just above the driveway, you can see the green line and then there's like a dash dot dot line. That's the actual resource delineation. So that's where the wetlands are. Yeah. And then kind of fit in gray faded behind that perpendicular to that delineation line you can see a dashed like kind of very light gray line. You can see the existing topographic, like the existing topographic situation at the site. Okay, and then the solid lines are how the project grading will change that grading on the site. So where you see solid lines with numbers in the middle over the driveway. Those are actual elevation numbers and what the finished grading will be at the site. So there's a lot happening here but basically to address your sorry Aaron. Let me just finish my one thought. The other thing to note is that there's this rain garden in the middle of this proposed project. So if you look at where Aaron just highlighted in red over the wetlands delineation and go directly above that. It's what looks like if you look at the proposed grading, essentially a whole she's circling it now in pink. That's a rain garden. And the job of that rain garden is to basically absorb and encourage infiltration of water that drains off of the structure. So that the water, any water that lands on this property stays on this property. So your data doesn't quite fit. There is like a impervious like we're increasing the impervious surface here and so that's why the applicant has done so much work to make sure that any water that falls on what is now impervious is maintained on the on the site itself. I see. Okay. Okay. An addendum to that. Yeah, I just wanted to point out a couple quick things on this plan. So on the original plan prior to mark, marking it up with colors. This line right here which I'm following with orange. Okay, is noted on the plan. Let me see if I can find the call up or erosion control barrier or organic filter berm. Now I raised a concern about that and I'll get into my conditions later but I raised a concern about that berm because, okay, so for a variety of reasons. So I'm just going to I'm just going to choose a different color here to make this easier. Mark, the rain garden is not created to capture all the water on this site. It's only basically created to capture the water that's within the elevations above it. So anything that's elevation above that rain garden that is going to flow towards that rain garden, but the elevations that are below the rain garden, the water is going to move this way. Okay. That was why I had asked for a the driveway to be pitched to the north so water could move in this direction north. And basically that this that berm is not a berm. It's no that can't be a berm because the water has to be able to move in that northerly direction into the lot, as opposed to moving off the lot in this direction. So that's why that revision was made. The other revision that I asked for was adding a berm here and the reason for that is because there have been reports of water moving off the site in this direction. So the idea of the berm is to water water is is from all the impervious areas moving to the center of the site, and then when that water reaches capacity that this berm would essentially slow the water from moving down into the roadway. So that's why those design changes were made we haven't gotten into the conditions yet, but that's why I had made those recommendations on the change so I just wanted to point those out. And, and do all of your, all your calculations must also take into account the accumulation of water coming off the hill above. So if it's a heavy rainfall, heavy enough to be managed by the berms and the whatever you were just describing, and in the impervious the runoff from the impervious structure. But in addition, there's going to be exponentially more water coming from above. There's a lot of water that I think we're most concerned about, because that's going to overrun it it's already overrunning things. I don't know if Mrs. Hart is here, but she had to have the fire department come she owns a house on the corner of Canton. I'll let her speak if she's here, but she had to have the fire department come and pump out her cellar was almost needy. That was this past spring. And that has happened many, many times, and she's owned the house since the early 50s. And there's a whole story that you know was probably more appropriate from her but the bottom line is recently, she said major water problems. So it's all well and good on a one dimensional paper to say oh the water will go here there and everywhere and when it rains, it can absorb X number of inch fault but in this particular case you must also consider the additional rainfall anything that's additional here is going to be very additional coming down the hill above it. And we already have evidence of that. Also, when you mentioned the, the extra little thing you put at the end of the driveway up there, because you heard to run off that was the one of the original streams, there's a stream that runs through there. And it's just about where you were saying that you asked them to put something extra so thank you for coming up with the ideas to do those kinds of things. I think this is going to be a nightmare for, and for the residents to buy it. It's not going to be a happy place for them either. There is too much water too frequently in that area. But I'm sorry I've taken a lot of. No, no, don't apologize. Thank you Mary, a lot of our, a lot of our best information comes from conversations like this so definite I don't want to diminish that kind of information and I see that is it maybe Joan heart, I think see that she's here so she raises her hand. Miss heart if you raise your hand I can give you permission to talk, but we appreciate you being here Mary, and I encourage you to stay for this, the remainder of this hearing. I will. We'll get into the details. Okay, I'm in California, so I have all night. And I'm jealous. I'm tired. All right, thank you. Thank you. Great. So then. Joan I see you raise your hand, Freddie has had their hand up for a long time so we're going to promote. Ready to a panelist and again just a reminder if there's any way just so we can keep our meeting moving if we can keep these comments and questions to a limited amount of time I really appreciate it. And through this Freddie should be on their way in ready we can see that you're there. Oh, I'm slow to move I guess yeah. There you go. It's always really slow. Thank you sorry about that. If you want to mind yourself. This be a name on the on the billboard. My name is Freddie Munger. I'm at 187 North Whitney Street and have been since 1976 in this location. And I would like to compliment both Pete and Mark for the exquisite detail and their attention to all of the concerns that had been raised. I believe the concerns that have been raised about the past plan and I it's really clear and I can see how you're really trying to manage all of the contingencies that are that are currently affecting this property. I'm going to deviate a bit and look at tiny bit ahead and I'm wondering where in the future when the other lot is developed in two or three more houses. So go up where you're going to put the cul-de-sac that will be necessary for fire trucks and school buses to turn around. Every place I look seems to be very fragile wetland. So I'm just wondering where, first of all why there isn't a requirement for a cul-de-sac at the moment. And in the future, how you see this, this looks like a segmented plan to me and this is like the first stage and something that will go on and how can we anticipate with this plan, the needs for further development in future to accommodate fire trucks and school buses that will need to turn around as there are more houses built up in that area. Freddie, I appreciate the forward-thinking nature of your questions in a disappointing way. Unfortunately, what we're able to consider is the application we have in front of us and as it pertains to kind of our jurisdiction, which is the Well and Protection Act and the Well and Bylaws for the town of Amherst. Not only can we not really consider things like a cul-de-sac and access, we also like aren't really equipped to do that. I will give Mark Stinson, if you would like to make any comments about this, I feel like I should give you an opportunity. But otherwise, if you would be willing to just comment on when this would be going, this application would be going to like the zoning board or the planning board so that Freddie could follow that the application and other commissions that would be jurisdictional. I would appreciate it. Wilson is, he got kicked off for some reason, or he lost his connection. He's back on. He'd be better able to explain anything for the future. But as I understand it, there's nothing planned for any additional house or lots at this time. Not to say there won't be, but at this time there's nothing planned. Okay, thanks Mark. Yeah. I think I just brought Pete back into the meeting. Pete, you can see you're there, but I see that you're muted. I don't know if you're able to hear Freddie's question if you wanted to make any comments. But last time I was talking, the internet must have stopped on our end because we lost connection. No, Mark, Mark said it exactly as I've explained it to him. There is nothing at this time we're going to work on this particular lot. And that's why we're here tonight. So Freddie, I'm sorry that's disappointing, but if there is any applications submitted. So Pete, can you, can you comment on any applications with the zoning board or planning board for this property. For this property, we will be going before the zoning board to change the ownership. I believe there's a requirement for that, but we're going to wait till we're through with your board before doing that. Okay, will happen later this summer or early fall. Okay, so Freddie, so a butters would be notified but Freddie, I don't know if you're immediate a butter, but you should keep an eye on agendas for the zoning board. It's a great place to ask your question. Hey, I think well thank you very much for for that and I will certainly do that but my question did pertain to where, since everything around there is wet. Where such a, where such a structure could go. And you know it's always. Sometimes I think we. It's good to think about the big picture when you're looking at the little picture. So that would be a concern of anybody. And there is really no place to put it. Okay, thank you. I'll mute myself. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. All right. Again, please raise your hand if you'd like to make a comment or ask a question. I see Joan Hart, I'm going to promote you to panelists. We can see that you're part of the meeting now, but we can't hear you. You might be muted which you would change by in the very bottom left of this application screen you would press that microphone. Can you hear me now. Yeah. I'm Joan Hart and I am the property at 40 canton Avenue. That's the last house on the street and the driveway looks like it's going to be more watered into my cellar. As it is now every time I get a small shower or anything else is watered in the cellar. And you know I've had that one time a year ago I had had fire department come and pump it out. And it's not going to change at all. So that's my concern, you know, what happens when I can't sell in the house because I would never not tell any particular person that wanted the house that it wasn't a real problem with the house. It's really making the house less valuable. And it's just been kind of a nightmare for me. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention that has been a real hard time for us with the water. We appreciate that and you being here Joan, Aaron did you have a comment. I have a question for Joan. Joan. The water that you're getting in your basement. Do you have a sense of what the source of that water is. What I mean by that is, is the water sort of infiltrating into your house from the floor of the basement up like groundwater or is there water coming in a channel formation down into a window or something that is pouring into your house. I can only tell you what the fireman asked me when he was down there pumping the water. He said where is this coming from. I said well we got wetlands in the back and I've never had it before with this stage of my life and I said, Now it's completely changed. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. So I don't know what else to say about it. Okay, but I just thought I just thought it was something that you know the conservation people should consider. We appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Joan. Thank you. Great. If you are here for the NOI hearing for Toucan Nav and you have a question or a comment, please raise your hand. Gaston, promoting you to panelists. Thank you so much. Let me get some lights here. I Yeah, and the neighbor across the street and Gaston your, your keep freezing. Is there any way to try turning off the video? The history of development didn't proceed exactly the concern about the wetland. Gaston, we're having a really hard time hearing you. It's like your audio is really choppy and your video is frozen. Could you try turning off your video maybe. Is the, is just for the, in a check. Gaston we really, we can't hear you or understand what you're saying. I'm sorry. I got disconnected. What I want to say is my, my main concern is that we're all that the desire that we did seem to have flowing water. Gaston really, we can't hear you seem to be new. This was a year and a half ago. Gaston, I'm not sure what to do about this. We really can't hear you. If you wouldn't mind writing your comments and emailing it to, to Erin. You can find her email address on the website. That way we can enter it into public record right now. Thank you. We can't hear you. Thank you very much. Okay. Should I have handled that differently? I mean, I don't know. Yeah. Okay. Last call. Any comments or questions about the hearing for two can have. Please raise your hand. Okay. All right. So I feel like there is kind of an outstanding question that became clear from a butters just there particularly Benjamin Bailey's early comment that I just want to make sure we address. So Erin, do you want to go through your suggested conditions and let's just like get into the nitty gritty on that and we come out the other side I want to make sure commissioners weigh in on kind of permittability and if we've done everything we can to protect their resource with the conditions that Aaron's proposed. I think that they better said great comments and I want to make sure that we're weighing those heavily in, in how we move forward with this application. Unless Michelle did you want to, I know you were holding on a comment. Do you want to wait until after the conditions or make a comment now. I was going to relay something I talked to Aaron with privately before the meeting. I don't know if he's just I wait after. Yeah, I mean I can, are you talking about the taking thing. Yeah, so since the commission issued a permit to develop this lot and very recently. The permit for the subdivision expired, but Michelle and I were talking about was, like, could the commission deny it, could the commission deny putting house there and my recommendation was not to and the reason for that is because if you say somebody can build some somewhere and then turn around and say no you can't then they may have ammunition for a lawsuit for a taking of land like that it was developable and is no longer developable. So that's what we were talking about offline was just that the complexity of this case relative to that. And so I think that's what Michelle was wanting me to mention. I was going to mention it relative to the first comment we had but that's that's what I wanted to add off about. Okay, that's great. Thank you Michelle. Okay, Aaron, should we jump into conditions. Yeah, I'm going to jump in and what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to address everything that I can holistically, and then you guys can just take it from there as far as discussion goes. So, my outstanding questions and I don't want Mark to jump into this right now I want to run through everything but the outstanding questions were planting and stabilization of the rain garden and then Mark had mentioned at the sort of kickoff of this that there was a ZBA requirement for stone drainage along the driveway edges and I just wanted to make sure that I point out that if there are any formal revisions made to this plan that any revisions that were approved as part of another border committees review process and approval process that those need to be incorporated on here. So for example and I'll just throw this out there now if there was limitations on the driveway length. And the driveway is now longer than it was previously. Those are things that are going to affect your approval when you go back before ZBA. If the there was drainage incorporated along the driveway that's no longer there, then the ZBA is going to have a problem with that so you may want to consider having a look at what was approved by the ZBA and those requirements and making sure that those were incorporated just wanted to state those two things because those were two outstanding issues. So I was going through this from the standpoint of recommended conditions that we could impart on the permit to keep this under as sort of strict of control as possible and part of that is just because we don't always have the owner doesn't always have control over the contractors working on the site and we already had a history of that occurring here so to in an effort to try to keep things as buttoned up as possible. So state and local boilerplate conditions, permanent demarcation of the limit of work with boulders and that could be another type of marker it could be signage it could be a split rail fence it could be there's something to indicate that there's a limit of work that can't be crossed. And that in a condition standard pre construction meeting and erosion control inspection with the wetlands administrator, no future alteration of the wetlands on this lot is permitted and that's a requirement in perpetuity. And that would be an ongoing condition and the certificate of compliance, no vegetation removal permitted outside of the limit of work line. The site monitoring by a third party competent professional wetland scientists during the construction phase from groundbreaking the final stabilization inspections including photos of the entire site including erosion control boundary and recommendations for maintenance and repair. And again those can be an informal email format. The runoff may not be directed toward the roadway or neighboring properties all runoff from the site shall be directed toward the rain garden. If the runoff is documented coming off this property after construction will be considered out of compliance with the order of conditions. There was an argument or sort of discussion going on offline as to our jurisdiction on that and I just wanted to point out in our bylaw that we do have a requirement that proposed plans that propose directing drainage toward neighboring areas that are not subject to the application will not be accepted all proposed drainage discharges stormwater features must be captured treated and infiltrated on the property subject to the application that is the reason for that condition. The water needs to stay on the site and dealt with on the site infiltrated on the site. The entire law is within the buffer only native plantings may be used on the site including landscaping. And the erosion must can encircle the entire work area as you could see previously there was like a organic berm that was proposed and it and or erosion controls. It's got to be erosion controls and I'd like to see straw bales with a construction fence circling the entire site to make it extremely clear that there are property boundaries tight on two sides of the lot and a wetland that's tight on the other side. It's clear that those are boundaries which are not to be crossed over. I recommended in the conditions of 30 foot stone construction entrance be installed at the driveway apron with three to four inch riprap to be used as a tracking pad to prevent sediment from being tracked from the driveway onto the roadway during construction. That snow may not be stored or pushed into the wetlands or buffer zone on the east side of the property or the rain garden that snow storage must be in the gravel turnaround only or taken off site. And that grading should direct snow melt toward the rain garden. Prior to the start of work revised plan shall be submitted to the conservation commission which incorporates notes for all applicable special conditions. The rules construction fencing snow storage area boulders conservation administrators shall sign off on the order of conditions which serves as an acknowledgement of the revised updated plan being submitted with the requirements prior to the start of work. The revised plan shall include native plantings. The proposed proposed in the rain garden and the operation and maintenance plan for the rain garden which were not included in this application. The maintenance requirements should comply with the DEP BMP manual the filter berm. That was proposed around the driveway my concern was that that was going to serve basically as a means for water to not go to the site for it to go off site and so I think that filter burn needs to be all together removed. And that that should not be used in lieu of erosion controls. I think I covered everything. That was very thorough. I'm not able to think of anything to add, but give me a few minutes commissioners any questions additions comments. Michelle. So we're putting this rain garden is going to take a lot of responsibility for the water on this site and I was interested as what what's the plan capacity for it like what is the total impervious surface is being added to the site and based on comments from others about stream flow and some flooding. I guess I have some concerns that this rain garden I mean is it does it have the capacity to hold all the water from this entire site because it's basically functioning as the entire storm water system. Mark, do you want to take a crack at that one. Okay. Oh, I think we have an audio problem. Mark's muted. I think he's having trouble getting unmuted. It's my guess. Okay. Pete, I don't know if can you hear us or comment. Do you are you able to answer Michelle's question. Yeah, I mean, we had the engineer from Berkshire design group go over that. I don't know the criteria he applied off hand. But that is something that marker I can check with, and we can get you the details as to the size and why it's that size. The other thing, just in general, while we're on this subject. And again, no disrespect intended towards the, the neighbors and so forth. But it is hard for me like with Mrs heart. I don't know where her home is exactly in relation to this particular lot so it is a little bit ambiguous. And it's, you know, it's the first thing we've ever heard of. So I just raised that question. I'd like to clarify is with this lot, the western edge of the property. There are neighbors who have, you know, long yards and yes there is water that probably flows towards our property along that west line. But it sheet flows not only towards our property but all those yards. Which back up to ours on that western edge, it would be their eastern edge our western edge that their slopes also run south. So as water is coming from a rainstorm off their lawns, it's not only just coming at us it's also migrating south. And the other question I will or the other thought I wanted to share is with Mary's comment, she owns the land to the north. And if you've been out there on the whole parcel. In this particular smaller lot. There's a swale just to the north of where the house is. There's a swale that runs beyond and into the larger piece. The swale carries water away from this smaller lot, you know, down through. So, I think she was saying water coming from her property south would go into this swale and would never even get to this, the smaller lot. So, I just wanted to, you know, share those couple thoughts. Because it's a complicated system for sure. I actually so try to answer Michelle's question. Aaron or Jen. Once we when we did this back in 2017 bucket sparkles put all in there. And she showed us the reason for how big the rain garden is going to be. Obviously because of the impervious surface and the roof drainage and how that all is going to fall into the rain garden. Has any of that changed. No. I was just trying to ask Aaron real quick. Because that is without help answer. Aaron, do you know if it's changed. Well, so the plan design did change slightly and I am not the designer so it's difficult for me to assess like the caring capacity as far as water volume from the previous approved plan to the current plan. I would say that might alleviate Michelle's concern about the water would be to have the plan stamped by the engineer that designed it and right now the plan is not stamped so that might alleviate some of the concern to have an engineer stamp asserting that it was designed properly. I think it's probably also something that the engineer that did the plan has their stormwater Celts and they can share those. So, in addition to the revisions to the plan Aaron that you have conditioned we could add, you know, please provide stormwater Celts for review by conservation agent prior to issuing a permit. So the grading is based on something right so they've done it the way they've done it for some amount of storm like a one inch storm lunch and a half storm so they they have some capacity that they've designed that rain garden around and it's just we need to know what those numbers are. Mark unless you know unless you know them off the top of your head. No I don't. Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Michelle. And so some recent changes would be that now the driveway is going to be sloped to filter more water into the rain garden. And there's, I don't know if this was designed after the additional wetlands for discovery but in any case there have been some changes to the direction of the water. And there might be more pressure on that rain garden. So, yeah, I would appreciate Aaron suggestion. Well I can talk to Chris Chamberlain of or Pete will of Berkshire design did the, did the plan make sure we get you the information absolutely. I mean that's a good question. Great. Thank you. Um, okay commissioners, any other questions, comments, concerns. Um, there is a condition about permanent markings. And we, we didn't really decide exactly what they'd be but I'd like to see boulders to make this. I just think you know would would fences rot and can get knocked over by cars and snow plows. It's hard to see. PVC is not great to look at. So, boulders are pretty obvious for, you know, for trying to make this run in perpetuity. That would be my request for the approval. Great, if I may. Yeah. The primary problem I see with the boulders is along the driveway. And, you know, if you put boulders there, you're not going to be able to have that two foot gravel offset from the pavement and in a few do the boulders are going to be in the what sitting in the web. Yeah, so I propose, you know, some lolly column or PVC pipe. And then just signage. I said here in some examples that she can decide what's what's best that basically says protected area. Where's that effect. I mean the other the rest of the site I don't know how much ledger boulders are on the site. I mean we prefer to have some truce of them big boulders and that can, I think that can be accomplished by, you know, four inch PVC pipe. I mean that's not going to rot three feet down two feet up. Or, you know, yeah, something like that. But along the driveway it's just not feasible to put boulders there. Michelle is that a reasonable compromise I mean that's pretty visible signage. Yeah, that's signage is good. I mean I, I've only seen a couple of these situations before us I don't know commissioners have more experience with seeing how that ages, but I liked the look of the sign. Yeah, it's educational and makes the point. Yeah, I think it would achieve the goal and in my experience like what we end up going for demarcation really runs the gamut, depending on site conditions and this is no different. I agree, randomly having giant boulders in the site that's a lowland wetland areas. Kind of strange. Anyway, so this might, you know, serve to actually do a better job but we're trying to achieve Aaron do you have any wisdom or strong feelings. Yeah, no I think I think along the driveway makes sense to do something else. Because of the proximity to the wetland which is a very unusual proximity that the commission would allow that level of encroachment and so I think something else might be good in that section. I haven't seen the planting plan is there planting markets are planting plans on that part of the driveway that we're talking about the gravel setback. No, that goes. There's still a little room. Right, I know I'm not sure you're going to be able to have anything come in besides grass. Yeah I know I was thinking like shrub or something. Then it's going to be eventually come on to the driveway. I know it's tight. There's no open suggestions elsewhere. You know, especially the south side of the driveway. I'm not sure what you guys want. You caught that because we're in the buffer according to our bylaws we've got to go with natives. Oh, absolutely. But I didn't know if you want native shrubs or grass or combination I'm not sure what you were looking for. It's hard to get. I mean it's wet. You know, I don't know if it grass would even be happy, like it might be more of like a hydric, you know, like a witch hazel elderberry kind of situation than a. Okay. You want to specify that. That's fine. A question. Hydric native wetland shrubs. Yeah. On the, the firm Aaron, at the beginning of the driveway that hits north to keep the water from going on to Canton. Do you have a specific what you're looking for coming I thought something six inches up should divert the water. Is that something you think of. I, as far as a design or specification. Yeah, I'm not looking to to build build something that's going to hold back a moat or something like that more so something that's going to just slow the water down as it's moving towards the road. Okay, that's fine. And I think that the incorporation of the stone on either side of the driveway which we have done previously in riverfront area on another site which was very steep and actually has been working really well. The incorporation of stone on either side of the driveway I think could further assist with infiltration along the driveway and capturing some of that run off from the impervious. You're thinking she'd spray road Aaron. East Leverett. Oh, yeah, I know you were thinking of the same side. It's just the wrong road you're thinking Cushman Brooke across the street. Yep. Okay. No, I agree. I mean gravel anything to help infiltrate there. No, you don't have to worry about a septic. You know, who knows which depth of ground water you get there. Close. I don't know if Pete has anything he wants to add. Let me mark commissioners is anyone have any other comments or questions about the order of conditions. Okay. Okay yeah we're so we're going on an hour and 15 minutes on this hearing. I think it's about time to take the next step. Pete, did you have any questions or comments about the order of conditions that Aaron proposed and as we've discussed. No, Mark and I had gone over that earlier today. Okay. Great. Aaron question. So just with the volume of revision and also some of the information that the commission has requested in terms of confirming the capacity volume capacity of the rain garden. I feel like we've got a really good framework for the order of conditions and I think we're getting really close, but I just wondered if we should wait to get revised. Okay. Yeah, we should continue the hearing I don't want to the reason I don't want to close the public hearing mark and Pete is because we just puts us in a tough situation. We're going to get to a point where we're not happy with any of the revisions we don't have any vehicle to again revise the order of conditions. So if it's okay with you. We're really close I would like to continue the hearing to the August 10 meeting and by then, if it's if it's feasible on your end if we have these revisions, primarily the stormwater calcs are probably like the heaviest lift. And we can move forward at that meeting as expediently as possible. Is that okay on your end, Mark, and I would recommend you, you agree to the extension to the hearing extension. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, so with this commissioners, I think we're looking for a motion to continue the two can have hearing to August 10, you know what time Aaron. Yeah, bear with me for just one moment. I know we're stacking 750. Yeah. I think it's our fifth hearing already scheduled for that meeting. We'll try to make it quick. Thanks. Yeah, again, I appreciate the detail in these plans and the work to get to this point and I think we're really close but I think that's a legitimate it's a legitimate due diligence to go over the stormwater calc so I appreciate the operation. All right, thank you. Good seeing you all and we'll see you again on the 10th. I have any questions I'll just shoot Aaron a call. Okay, great. Thank you. And Pete. Commissioners, I need a motion. I move to continue the public hearing on to Canton Avenue to August 10 2022 at 750 p.m. Second. Let's run the second voice vote Andre. Hi, Fletcher. Hi, Michelle. Hi, Larry. Hi. I'm also an I. All right. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Pete. Appreciate it. Good night. Good night. All right. That one was always going to be complex. Thanks for the attention to detail everyone. So next hearing I know is SLBC and behalf of Ron La Verde for construction of a multi-family residential building and associated site work and mitigation in the riverfront and buffer zone to BVW at 395 West Street. This is a continuation. I know if you can rate if you're in attendance and you want to represent this application if you could raise your hand I'm assuming Mickey Marcus and Ken Hoffman. Hi, Mickey. We can see you. Okay. So we last met on June 22nd and commission had some suggestions and recommendations. We're able to make all those changes in the plan and those were submitted to the commission. Two weeks ago. Also, since the last hearing we did receive a letter from natural heritage. They did not require any plan changes. They did ask for one condition that the commission included in the orders. And that's that no work is allowed to take place until a turtle protection plan is prepared and approved by natural heritage. And so that we have a turtle biologist actually working on that plan that will get submitted to heritage and once they approve that will give the commission a copy of that. So we added a note to plan sheet number three requiring that the turtle protection plans required. We did add a raised wooden footbridge across an area that's currently a paved driveway but we're going to restore that as well. And we've shown that as an ADA compliant footbridge. We showed a location that commission suggested for educational signage. Next to West Street, we showed the location of that and we don't have a design for that educational signage so we expect that we would have the commission review and approve that before it's installed. We did include a note on the plan. We talked about some dead and dying trees along the current driveway that's to be removed. There are several white pine trees that are dead and Norway spruce that are dead or dying. What else? One of the commission members I'm sorry I can't recall who requested some information about the invasive species control and how that would be taken place and so I provided details of how that work would be done and basically the invasive shrubs would be hand cut and a wick application of an herbicide. And there's a glove white method that I've incorporated. And then if we're going to treat the frag mites that are in the wetlands that would be done by spray. I think I included in the site plans all the information that the commission previously asked for. I will say that Aaron did ask for some riverfront area calculations and some other calculations I was not able to provide to her. This is information that's required in the DEP or condition form. I can't get that to her but all my CAD people are either on vacation or out of town so I don't have the numbers that are announced for. So I apologize for that but I couldn't get that prior to this year. So if you decide to close the hearing, I'll get Aaron that information prior to the issuance of an order of condition but I don't have those riverfront area calculations tonight. Thanks, Mickey. I think just to manage expectations based on the nature of like how necessary those calcs are for the actual form. We can't close the public hearing will have to continue because otherwise, if there's some discrepancy or something isn't clear after we close the hearing we don't have an avenue to correct it in the conditions. So we'll have to continue the hearing. I think Aaron did you have another like, was there like a clerical situation that we wanted to clear up about. I, so it might make sense to just go through so far like comments and everything if we're going to continue anyway that way we can take care of everything and hopefully be prepared to just close an issue at the next meeting. And I'll just pull that up and I'll run through similar to what I did on the last site. Should I take public comment. I would definitely open it up just to give folks the opportunity. The outstanding information. The footbridge that's shown we don't have any detail regarding the footings or the cross section of that and so any information even if it's a standard spec of some sort that just explains it'll be like four by four pressure treated posts that are, you know, sunk in or it'll be helical peers or it'll be, you know, just something so that we have design spec to include with the approval I think would be important. The other thing is sequence of construction and what kind of I guess triggered this was I was, you know, ordinarily I'll always condition that the restoration be completed first. The restoration area is designed first and then constructions of the other construction starts in this case, the restoration is, is sort of like a an added bonus in, and I think it's kind of a mitigation for some of the riverfront impacts. So I'm not, it's not a deal breaker so to speak but in the course of discussing this with Mickey earlier today. I guess one point of confusion was the fact that the existing driveway might be used for a period of time for the initial construction phase, which I was a little unsure. The construction entrance is shown coming in through the existing West Street development as opposed to off of Route 116. And so, it just needs to be clear like exactly what that access path is being used for in the initial construction phase and that's really important. I know that driveway is paved but heavy equipment if we're carrying materials, and also is the pavement being taken out and sort of like what is the, what's going to be the construction sequence for access off of Route 116 particularly when it lands on either side. And the other thing I was concerned about relative to that is that when you come up that driveway immediately in front of it is where the rain gardens are proposed. And so, compaction is a really serious issue there. So understanding sort of that area is going to be protected where's the access road coming in is there going to be a construction pad there, or am I overthinking this and it's going to be something very simple happening there for a brief period of time and that the primary access is going to be from the other side. So just trying to understand kind of how it's all going to be constructed and when the replication area and the invasives treatments and all that is going to occur. So I see those things happening while construction is underway, as opposed to constructing the place and then like oh we'll get to the restoration three years from now. So just to make sure that they're sort of on the same or similar track. I've already been over. On the plan itself the revised plan that was provided the temporary and permanent impacts for the resource areas were the same and to me that seemed like it might have been a type of graphical error but I just wanted to confirm what what was going on there. So where snow storage was going to be on the site to confirm that. And there may have been a notation and I apologize because the plans were really large and reading them electronically and I've been just unable to find those fine details. And then I do have a series of conditions that I have been working up and I sent some of those along to Mickey. A lot of them pertain again to the turtle protection area. Do you want me to read through these now or we can go over these when it comes time to actually issue. Yeah, I think there's enough that's kind of outstanding in terms of information I think we should hold off on these until it's time to issue. These are all really good thoughts Aaron. Mickey is this all making sense to you. Yeah, can I just briefly share the plan or do you want to do that or pull that up quickly. It's so big Mickey if you have a way to share it that works and you can like navigate it because what's happening is Aaron's are moaning into another consumer and it's just really hard to deal with big plans. So you should be able to see the site plan. So one of the things is that for the, I'll provide you a more clear sequence that Aaron was requesting but the existing driveway runs through here and you can see this, we're going to rip up all the pavement and restore this whole area as wetlands grass rain gardens. My thinking was that because there's an existing building here, there's some demolition that that would probably take place with the existing driveway, but then as soon as they do that work they're going to have to start roughing in all the storm water controls. So the driveway then becomes unusable. So I'll provide a sequence plan that Aaron suggested that's a good idea. Okay, thank you. I'll pause for a second unless there's something pressing on a detail of one of those conditions and just open this up for any public questions or comments is that okay with everyone. Aaron, so I'm good. Okay. Yeah, so if you're here about 395 the project proposed at 395 West Street and you have a question or comment relative to the protecting the weapons at the site. Please raise your hand. Okay. All right, hold on a second. Ken you're already in the meeting. So you should be able to unmute yourself and talk. A couple of questions. One is. And Mickey referred to the Fragmites. Right when he first started, but I wasn't clear how he, well, the first day we're the butters immediately to the north. Just with the pumping station roads separating us. And we have substantial wetlands, which would be ideal habitat for Fragmites. And I've been looking for years now with some apprehension of that large, wonderful pond of Fragmites just up the road from us. And I just like to hear Mickey say a little bit more about how he's going to continue to isolate that pond. And then the second question I have, looking at the plans. It looks at their essentially planning to clear cut the whole top area around the construction. And I wanted to check if that's true because there's some very nice trees there that don't seem to be on the footprint of the building they're putting in. And then this day and age it seems the town should be doing everything to preserve mature trees. When possible. And certainly the plans for plantings afterwards there's just for a couple of very small trees, but nothing of the kind of swamp white oaks, and other large trees that are currently there. Okay. And thanks for being here. Mickey, do you want to address? Yeah, no, I'd be happy to. Ken, so the area north of the driveway so close to your house is that that marsh is mostly Fragmites. And I put together a plan that we're planning to pull out the driveway that goes into the site and restore that as wetlands and I was a little concerned that the Fragmites would expand. And I put together a plan that if Fragmites expands into this restored wetland that we can kind of knock it back but it's a very large area of Fragmites that is not proposed to be fully treated under this proposal. It's, it's, it's a large area between the site and the pumping station. And my development has no clear cut. There's it's re reusing the existing footprint that's already cleared. The only trees that are proposed to be cut the whole project are. There's a couple of Norway spruce that are dead or dying and white pine trees are already dead along the driveway. So I'm going to put a note on the plan just to remove those, but there's no live trees that are that are proposed to be cut there's no forest clearing at all. Okay. Um, this, the Fragmites spreading thing came up in our, in our last conversation about this is can you just clarify sorry I'm not up on the detail of this but so you wrote into the plan that if the Fragmites starts to spread into the newly connected wetland and you have a mechanism to knock that back I think is what you said Mickey can. What's the details on that. What I did was I provided the commission a memo on one, sorry, I can't remember which commission member asked for some details. So I provided for any woody invasive plants, they would be cut by hand and then wiped with herbicide. They would be overspray. And that for herbaceous vegetation, the invasives that are in that whole riverfront area, they would be a glove wipe system so basically you take a cotton glove dip it in herbicide wipe it on those plants, there are very few of those on this particular site. So, the Fragmites, Japanese knot weed, and multi flora rose and species which you can't do stem wicking, or wiping those would be over sprayed, and use a die. So that, and I suggest that the herbicides that could be used would be either clear cast, or like to say, or those are the two that work for those species. I don't anticipate treating the Fragmites, but I think in the long term, probably we're going to want to keep them out of the wetland mitigation area. So if they kind of march to the south. I'd like to have the ability to hold them back. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to change Ken to attendee. Thank you for being here, Ken. Are there any other, we have six other people in attendance. Does anyone else have a comment or question relevant to this application? If you do, please raise your hand. Okay. All right. Michelle, do you have a question? I'm going to head off, maybe a future question regarding the herbicide since we were just talking about it. I saw that Aaron has a condition in there but just to clarify like the information needed I know you mentioned glyphosate. So that's, you know, I guess what we're looking for is the specific formulation so roundup rodeo it wouldn't be roundup it'd be rodeo and then you know the chemical and the the breakdown of everything in that chemical so if you have, you know, rodeo has a, yeah. Exactly so I just wanted to clarify that just because you just mentioned glyphosate but there's a lot more to it than just that so we're just looking for that kind of level of specificity. So Michelle talking to stance or one of the things that I had put into the memo to the commission is that before you allow to treat the herbicides in a wetland in the DEP license to apply. It's an annual license, and they would review the quantity and whatever side you're using so any year in which that herbicides can be applied that would be a license for a copy of the commission, and that has to be submitted by not just an herbicide applicator but an aquatic applicator that's required. So, I basically, you know, I would assume that there would be conditions in that that Aaron would put in but it's whatever the formulation would be discussed with the DEP that specific case. I mean, that would be in the license to apply we would have the quantity there beside whether it's clear cast or right, or quite to say or whatever else is approved in a given year by DEP. Yeah, I tried to head that off at the past with some conditions and I didn't share all of them with Mickey but they're relative to getting the formulations approved and in this case since DEP is involved and NHSP is involved I think it's it just makes sure that those are rolled into the order of conditions to make sure that they're okay is required prior to the application. And then of course I also included the sensitive area restrictions. So far as scheduling on days when precipitation or strong winds are forecasted, and then being applied but work being overseen by a well on scientists so there's definitely a couple additional conditions in there relative to that that I, and I've been sort of chipping away at it and adding some back in there so just to point that out. I can just say Michelle that I'm not sure they're going to need to spray the frag in that area. I think it's it makes sense to have a condition that permits that if it becomes an issue. You know knowing how invasive that plant gets is probably going to, you know, try to march right across the restoration area so it'd be good to have a condition to allow that work to take place if it's needed. I agree thank you for answering that so. Okay, so it sounds like we kind of we have a plan, Mickey, I feel like it's clear what we need to move forward and then at the next meeting we will just review these orders of conditions and hopefully move forward with this. Thank you for the attention to detail and for working with Aaron to get this to the place it is the plans when I can get them to load in my computer look great. Aaron are you comfortable with that. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay. All right, thank you Mickey for putting up with my emails today it's always hard trying to juggle getting comments to you and revision and stuff and I want to appreciate I appreciate all the back and forth at the last minute today. If you can get it right. It's going to be an ongoing condition right. Um, all right. So commissioners I think we're looking for a motion to continue this hearing. 395 West Street to August 10 at 755. Oh boy. I move to continue 35 West Street hearing to August 10 2022 at 755 p.m. Second. Second from Larry. All right, voice vote Michelle. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm an eye. All right, thanks everyone. Thank you, Mickey. See you next time. All right. And final announcement, if you are here about the hearing for 46 fearing up that has been continued to September 14 at 730 p.m. So if you are interested in following that hearing your best bet is to mark September 14 on your calendar and double check our agenda. The for the meeting, but it should be starting around 730 p.m. September 14. All right. Erin. So I don't think we've made a motion to continue it. Oh, sorry. That's okay. I'm exhausted. I'll make the motion to continue the 46 fearing street. Notice some intent to September 14 2022 at 730. Second. Okay. Voice vote. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Andre. Hi. Michelle. Hi. I'm also I. All right. I'll try to burn through this because I know you guys are tired. That was a lot. So I didn't put this on the agenda tonight because there's still negotiations ongoing, but I think it would be a good measure safety measure to have a motion to put it on for the. Oops. That was a carry over. For the. 810. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Commissioners need a motion if you can read exactly. I can do that. So you want another. You want me to read the whole thing? Yes. Please. Yeah. We'll make a motion for 52 fearing street DEP. So rad to move the schedule to an executive session pursuant of GLC 30. A section 21. A three. To discuss strategy of respect to litigation at 52. Okay. Recently issued DEP so read to beyond the August 10th, 2022 agenda. I got Andre. Did you say second Andre? Okay. Second from Andre voice vote Andre. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hi. And I'm also I. I'm just going to be a big one. Yeah. I think there were already like four hearings and then we just added two more. But I think it's just the two that we just went through in detail. I'm hoping we can. Get through those orders of conditions. Erin, is there anything else that we want to cover in this meeting? Yes, if possible. And it's pretty quick. So I don't have the certificate of compliance pulled up for Canton. We did receive the request for certificate of compliance for. Canton. And that would be. To close out basically the old. Order of conditions essentially saying that it's no longer valid. I would. Prefer to do that. Maybe. Well, I don't know if I want to kick the can on that one. So, yeah, I guess we should deal with it tonight. If you can bear with me for just a moment, I just want to make sure I get the language right. For the, I didn't have a whole ton of time to. Get the detail on this, but I'm going to. Okay. Take your time. Just want to make sure I get the language right on the certificate to make sure that it's stated correctly. Okay. So I just want to do that first thing in our next meeting. No, it's okay. I've got it. I think I've got it. It's just a little. I'm having technical difficulties with. With the, for some reason I can't. Something's funky with my computer. I think I got to restart it, but this is, this is the language that we would want. Can you guys see my screen? Okay. So I'm going to go back to that. I think we're no longer valid in the work regulated by it was never started. Correct. Yep. It's not exact apples to apples to the situation because it was a violation, but the violation wasn't. Basically starting construction. It was clearing. So I think that that would be the most appropriate for the canton have to issue. A certificate of compliance. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. We're issuing the certificate of compliance because the order of conditions lapsed and is no longer valid. I think it's so moved to work in that situation. Commissioner. So moved. Again. All right. Voice about Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Andre. Hi. And I'm also I. Perfect. Thank you guys for bearing with me through that. And then the last item is certificate of compliance for. Oops. I prefer that. There's no compliance there. They're famous. Let's see what happened. I don't know why it's not letting me open PowerPoint. Okay. So it's for 74. It's a solid. East. Levert road. It's the site. Single family house that was built. Adjacent to the Cushman Brooke. I've been having discussions with the developer. The site is stable. The problem was that there was. The catch basin still had erosion controls around it. And it had sediment in there that needed to be cleaned out. He was out there and cleaned it. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. He was out there and cleaned it out. And what's happening with that, they're putting it in a garden, which is behind the house outside of concom jurisdiction, but it's taking them some time to move it. So I'm comfortable issuing the certificate of compliance. With ongoing conditions. Subject to. The stone being removed from the riverfront area. Okay. Move that. Yeah. So move it. Okay. My computer is going to die too. Let's do it. Okay. Okay. So moved. We need a second. I saw. Yeah. Second. Second. All right. Oh, plus you got the second voice vote. Michelle. Hi. What's your. Hi. Larry. Hi. Andre. Also. Is that it? That is us. We just need a motion to adjourn. Anyone. I'll make the motion to adjourn. 921. Second. Okay. Okay. We got it. Andre. Andre. Hi. Hi. Michelle. Hi. Larry. Hi. All right. I'm an eye. Always a pleasure, you guys. Thank you so much for your work and your volunteer work. Thanks. Take care Larry. Take care. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.