 Okay, so we are now recording today is Wednesday, November 18, 2020. This is the Amherst, Massachusetts Conservation Commission meeting. So starting off with comments for me, there are none. Seeing that Mr. Zomac is not here, I will assume he has no comments at this point. So, Aaron, the floor is yours. Okay, so just to prepare you guys, we have a very, very business intensive meeting tonight, but I'm going to do my best to move as move us as quickly as I can. And so my screen. Okay, so let me see here. This is not going to work. I don't know if you can read this or not it's it's tough for me to even see this. Could you go into like presentation mode. I can try but I'm okay there we go. So, I'm thinking. Okay, maybe I'll start with Pomeray Lane first under the request for extensions because and excuse my flipping so fast here just to try to get us there. So we get a couple requests for continuations one of them is for this house lot on Pomeray Lane. It's immediately east of the poor farm property. And three years ago, in February, there was a wetland delineation done here and there was an approval of a single family home. They've requested an extension on the order of conditions work has not begun there. I walked the site with Mike Lou from Berkshire Design they did go and refresh the flagging which was really nice. We'll let it go and the flagging was refreshed we walked the site. No work had begun all positive things. If you look at the at the plan here on the right you'll see some orange highlighted points. And those were some areas where I saw some sensitive fern which is a fat wet species. It is starting to creep up the hill. And these are some photos again it was, you know, we were already in a, you know, frost situation so you know I could see, and it's difficult to see in the pictures but, you know sensitive fern is also called bead fern because you get those those stocks that almost like bead looking features on them, and all around Mike Lou in this picture is is the bead fern stems, and then the top left the the bead fern stems as well of sensitive fern so my advice to, to Mike Lou on this was basically for him to advise his client. And you know, if the Commission issues an extension on this, you guys should build the house soon, because if you leave this property on, you know, unattended it's the wetland is moving, and it's going to continue to move just like it that I mean that's why they have extensions on orders so anyways, it's really at your discretion if you want to issue an extension a one year extension a two year extension a three year extension how you feel about that bead fern area I didn't see any evidence of hydrology on the surface there was no standing water there was no leaf staining, but definitely a fat wet species was pretty dominant in those areas. What are they asking for an extension. They say at a time frame, they just said extension. They said they don't even have anybody to build there yet don't they. They, they do not. I think they they it's not even for sale to my knowledge. Because how long can we can we even issue it. How long can we issue extensions. Under state law you can only issue up to three years. So we're assuming that's what they're asking for them. Yeah, I'm just gonna. Sorry, I'm, I'm opening it as we speak. That's typically what we do extend for not that we need you but typically that's. Yeah, it's pretty standard, unless there's a. And I don't even have the letter right in the folder unfortunately. But usually I'm a little more. It's been a very, very busy couple weeks so I apologize. Let me just see if I can find the letter, but typically three, three years is, is like the standard. He doesn't say in his letter he just says an extension. I did upload it to the. Yeah. No time he just wants to, you know, from 222 to 18. Yeah, wants to get an extension. Yeah. I've got it in front of me now property was really tough. And you can see how they squirreled in this road. And the worst part is that there's this little piece that goes between two pieces of web. Right. And so did you see anything any activity in that little peninsula in there. No, no, I didn't. That area I don't believe was an area where the issue was observed. It was actually in the pocket. And I let me just pull this back up again and I apologize I'm jumping or jumping around because I'm like doing a remote into my machine. So there is it can you see my cursor. There's a field, a mode field in this area. And what it looks like is that water is sort of sheeting off of that field and coming into this little pocket right here. The area between the roadway was there was no indicators in there but this area was kind of where I think just the sheet flow from the lawn, which was just elevation wise just a little higher than, than where this site is I think it's just kind of all filtering down into that little pocket. You're probably right. They had to do some weird things with that road because of how everything that curve that went through there they had to redesign that and there was. Right, it was, it says they've got something in there a trench and so forth there's something that's already been put in there. I mean, when they had to build something in there right over the over the wetlands. I don't think there's anything there now. There's a little bit of an existing road. It's a little farm road. Yeah, it's it's at this point it's more like a hiking path. In some areas it's wider than others is pretty overgrown. We were bushwhacking through most of it. I mean, I like what they're showing. What they're showing in the plan is proposed them. Yes, you know, okay. Give them a two year split the difference give them a two year extension tell them hurry up. Yeah, I think I mean that's right or right about kind of in the ballpark of what I was thinking Fletcher I think that's a fair compromise and I mean I would even say beyond that. If you know if this expands any further that there won't be any more extensions to kind of, you know, give them some incentive to either move along or do something else with it. And it might also be helpful. I mean, obviously Mike Lou's going to know but you know what would happen if nothing happens in two years. Basically, it's a new filing in front of us. Right, right. That's clear to them. So yeah, two year sounds fine by me. So we would just need an extension to that effect. And it's for. I'm sorry emotion. Need a motion to that effect for DEP number 89 dash 635. I make a motion to the extent DEP file number 89. 635 635. Yep. Second. Okay, so looking for a voice vote so on. You put the time in there didn't you. Yeah, he's got you. Okay. Okay. Hi, Larry. Hi, Leroy. Hi. And I for me. So we are good there. Wonderful. So I saw that Dave just joined. And so Dave, do you have any updates that you'd like to give tonight so we have about 15 minutes before our first hearing. There's a new button. I can ask to unmute. He may weigh the rat for a minute. While we're waiting for Dave, I could jump to another probably fairly straightforward. Other business item I'm going to jump around a little for ones that are going to be less controversial to deal with that we can move fairly quickly on. Yeah, we have a couple beefy ones. Yeah, we do. So we received a, I'll just jump into this. We received a request for certificate of compliance from the common school. And I went out and walked the site with my glue as well. And I gave them authorization to remove their erosion controls. And so I, the site was pretty stable. I mean, 90% 95% stable. There was just this one. Let me see if I can share this. There was just this one area that it's kind of like a high traffic area coming down off this ramp. And I asked them to spread some wood chips there. So they're supposed to be doing that. But other than that, the site is, is very well stabilized. I do have pictures that I took throughout the site. I'd be happy to flip through them if you guys want to look at them. So the only remaining thing that is left uncompleted on this project is the plantings in the rain garden. And it's really not a great time of year to be planting herbaceous species. So they were planning to do that in the spring and they were also planning to do it as sort of like a school project. But the rain garden looks great. It's very stable. It's got stone in it. It's stabilized with, with grasses at this point. I wouldn't have any objection to the board issuing a certificate of compliance. I think it would just be another one to get off of our off of our monitoring plate at this point. Yeah, and the pictures look good. So those. Yeah, they do as well. Yep, I am fine. Does anybody else want to see the pictures or am I having questions on this one? I've looked at the pictures and they're there look good. Okay. So then we'll be looking for a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for common school. I'm going to say the whole thing. Certificate of compliance for the common school. Second. Thanks Larry. Thank you. So Anna. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. And I for me as well. So it looks like Dave is still on mute. So I don't know if you're saying technical difficulties or what's going on there. So why don't we just keep on moving here. Okay. Sounds good. So this is Amherst Hills projects. We did get two requests for certificates of compliance. Well, actually we got, let me rephrase this. We got three requests for certificates of compliance for properties on the hills. And then we got two requests for certificates of compliance. And then we got three requests for certificates of compliance for properties on the hills. I'd like to just start with these because they're, I think the easiest and most straightforward of the bunch. 108 Linden Ridge Road 111 Linden Ridge Road. Both of these lots are located outside of conservation commission jurisdiction. They're not even within buffer zone. They're actually completely within upland. The lots are stable and work is complete on them. I walked them and took photos. Happy to share those if you want to look at them. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So this is Amherst Hills. I'm using at 108 Linden Ridge. And there was. Some. Concern from the seller because the, they didn't have a certificate of compliance and it was, I became an issue. So I was, I contacted town council. And with town council guidance, basically issued a letter to the seller stating that the law, you know, was the best that he said I could do without being in a public meeting to have you guys approve it. But both of these. Certificates of compliance are. As far as I'm concerned, they're. Ready to issue. Confused Aaron, why are, why are there even open files on these are for the, division as a whole. So and the next one that we'll look at is actually one that was that was specifically for a house. So it was house specific construction. But these are actually for the infrastructure for the the roadway and stuff, it's just tied to the lots. So it's kind of more of a technicality really. That all sounds good to me. Anybody else have any questions on this? I assume we need separate motions for these. I would recommend it. Okay, so looking for a motion for certificate of compliance for 108 Linden. I'll make a motion for certificate of compliance for 108 Linden Road. Second. And I'm sorry, I missed state. So it's a Linden Ridge Road. I don't know if we have a Linden Road, Linden Ridge. We got it. Second. Excellent. So Fletcher, how do you vote? I LaRoy. Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. And I for me as well. So looking for a motion for 111 Linden Ridge. All right, I move we issue a certificate of compliance for 111 Linden Ridge Road. Second. Anna. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. And I for me as well. All right, we're cruising. Awesome. Well, as long as we're on Amherst Hills, and we have a few minutes, we can talk about this one. So 115 Concord Way is a little different. And so the reason for that is because there's a specific specifically, there is a an order of conditions for construction of the house. So if you look at the plan, the one that's in the center of the screen is the approved plan for the house footprint. And if you look at the one on the right, that is the basically as built plan that I was provided for it. The as built plan is is fairly accurate. The only exceptions I would make are outlined in red, which are difficult to see. But basically, I just hand drew on these little items, which are that the house, see how there's a turnaround in the driveway. The house actually extends to the extent of that turnaround. I'm not sure that that's a huge deal, because if you look at the footprint of the house, I think that it includes that, although it's a little bit closer to the 50 foot buffer, but I think that's splitting hairs. The items that I noticed that kind of jumped out at me the most on this were the deck. The deck is very close to the 50 foot, if not right on the 50 foot. And there's also a underground storage tank, a gas tank that, huh, okay, I put pictures in here. I'm not sure why. Oh, there they are. They're just in the wrong order. So you can see that these are the photos of the house. So you can I just wanted you to visually see the house extends as far back as the turnaround in the driveway. And then there's deck on the back and then top left, you can see there's a little red arrow pointing down. That's an underground storage tank. I believe it's a gas gas storage tank, which weren't included on the original plans. And so just a slight deviation, shall we say from the order of conditions that was approved underground tank gasoline or is it propane? I believe it's propane. Okay. I believe so. The site was otherwise stable. It's a little disconcerting that they're putting a tank that close to the wetlands though. Much worse than it was gasoline. What does it would you say what the tank was working? Apparently, she thinks it's propane. Yeah, probably for that. Yeah, that makes sense. What doesn't make sense to put gas in there. He puts so but it's in the I can't see quite the tanks in the buffer. It's it's looks like it's right on the 50 right Aaron? Yeah, so if you so I I estimated I estimated that the extent of the deck was approximately right on right at the 50 foot. But if you look at the photo, see that back of the deck. It's it's tough to tell but you know, it to me, it looks like the tank is a little further closer in. Not the greatest location from a wetland standpoint. But So what do you put? What are options? I mean, certificate of appliance is done to clearly that back that backyards all fill. Right. I mean, yeah, I mean, to be honest, at this at this point in time, there's, there's basically two choices. You issue the certificate of compliance, or you don't. If you don't issue it. And I, I can double check if the if it's still valid. Sorry, I'm in the middle of organizing my because I just moved. And I tried to do the background, but it didn't work. So forgive my mess in the back here. No one's judging. I know, but it's like, nobody needs to see that mess. Basement. It was issued 1017. So it would have expired in October. The only thing that we could have really required was that they dig it up and move it out. I mean, the question is really if they had come forward with this as a proposal, initially would the board have approved it? And you know, I think we it's really at it's really at the board's discretion how you want to respond. One thing you could say is is to notify Mr. Burke human writing that that can't happen again. On, you know, and if if tanks are being installed that they need to be installed outside of concom jurisdiction, or that somebody needs to come before the board for a a amendment to the order of conditions in order to propose placement of those tanks. Where is the fill location for that tank? Is it right there where the tank is? Do they have to go out there all the time with the big propane trucks and fill it from there or where where do they fill from? That's a great question, Larry. I'm I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I mean, if they were going to be going out there all the time, it might be more questionable. Yeah. So Nicole Burkume, who's Ron Burkume's attorney is is actually an attendee and she's raising her hand. So if it's OK, maybe we should make her a panelist so that she can answer to that. She's at least allowed to speak at this point. So OK, so Nicole, you should be you should be there now. And there's another Burkume on the list as well. Oh, that's probably Ron. Let me see. I'll add him as well. So Nicole and Ron, you are both panelists at this point and you can speak. Um, Nicole, we can't hear you, so I don't know. And Ron would need to unmute himself. I'm just going to try to unmute Ron, but that's not working tonight. So but yeah, they're both unmuted now. OK. Oh, yes. OK, great. The propane tank is filled up maybe once a year and it's filled up from the driveway. There's a long hose. There's there's still going out to the where the tank is. They do, but it's maybe once a year. OK, so what's the propane for? Is it for home eating or is it? Correct. All Burkume homes are heated with a propane tank. Correct. And so is the person who is asking for the certificate, are they the developer or are they the home owner? Because working construction is the developer. He's asking for the certificate of compliance. Correct. OK, so that's different than the home owner, because I don't think the home owner is going to be putting in any more tanks, but the developer, yeah. That was, you know, I don't know if my dad will be able to unmute himself to talk, but I'm assuming that that's, you know, where the tank was approved to go prior to him even putting it in to avoid the risk of having to move it. And I know it has to be a certain amount of feet from the home. So I think the options of where you can put a propane tank are quite limited, especially with the size of the lot. So and I know the septic systems in the front yard. So there's really no other place to put it, I believe. Yeah. And even if we wanted to move it, I would probably moving at this point might do more damage than leaving it in situ. So probably it's more of an issue for me sort of moving forward, because it doesn't seem like it was on the original plans. So that's problematic to us. Well, we can ensure that they're correctly noted on the plans moving forward. Yeah, it's going to probably be important because they weren't on the original plans. That correct when it came from the Conservation Commission? No. Right. So that's kind of a, but you guys, obviously, but you guys say you put all your homes of propane tanks. I'm sorry, propane heat, all your homes of propane. Just OK, just being clear. So I mean, if the board feels comfortable, you know, putting that in writing, then I would say, you know, the option would be if you feel comfortable moving forward with requesting that, then to issue the certificate of compliance, but maybe include a correspondence that requests that in the future, any tanks that are placed, and I would say dex as well, dex or tanks that are placed beyond the house footprint that was approved in the order of conditions that those be approved by the Conservation Commission. I prefer to say required rather than just requested, but. Required, yeah. Before that is what the what the bylaws do say. Just be clear. Yeah. And yeah, I also appreciate what you're saying, Nicole. There may not have been a better option. So it may have had to have happened, but it would have been good to at least have discussion and at least thought through if there were some other options. Yeah, absolutely. So and so are there other properties that you guys are working on in the area that may potentially have similar issues? I don't believe so. I believe that the lots that abutted wetlands are sold or already built on. There's other lots that he will build on in the future, but I don't believe those about wetlands. It's all up and down Linden Ridge, Aaron. I think you probably saw all the lots when you went to one away Linden Ridge or all. Yeah, yeah. OK, yeah. I mean, I'm not all that excited. Well, yeah, it's not nice where it is right now. And that makes me uncomfortable having something like that that close to a wetland. But I don't feel like there's much that we can do that will help rectify the situation at this point. Again, I think it just would make things worse. Taking it out at this point. I mean, so other commissioners have different feelings or comments? No, I feel fine. But, you know, thanks. I'm glad you guys are here. It looks like Birkheim senior is taking a picture of us. I think he's trying to get on. Those are parents trying to get on. Yeah. But I think I'm sorry. Yeah, I think moving forward, I just agree with what Aaron and Brett said, OK. Well, does somebody want to make a motion? Yeah, and so we're looking for a certificate of compliance and a letter requiring prior notice for all future endeavors that are potentially happening within wetlands boundaries or within wetlands jurisdiction. Yeah, I make a motion for a request for a certificate of compliance as long as you guys are making sure that we move forward, specifically with propane tanks and backyards for anything near a wetland. Second. Hey, Fletcher. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. Larry. Aye. And aye for me as well. So. OK, so I think we are good with this one. So thank you, Nicole. I don't know if Ron was ever able to hear us, but thank you, Ron, as well. OK, thank you very much. And Nicole, the other two were approved before. I don't know if you. That was on. OK, OK. Great. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll move you back to non-panelists. So attendee, I guess is the word. OK, so they are back as attendees. And so I have 735. So, Aaron, should we move into our first agenda item? Yes. Yep. OK, I think I saw Mickey was here. Yes, he is. Yeah. I think Niels as well. I see him there as well. OK. So we'll move them to panelists. And so is there anybody else here? So this is going to be our 730 agenda item, a notice of intended continuation for dredging at the UMass pond. There is anybody else here for that? You can just raise your hand. OK, so Mickey should be coming on. I think I clicked it right. OK, there we go. So Mickey or Niels, I don't know if one of you would like to start and give us an update on where we are and if you're ready to move forward at this point. Yeah, why don't I start and Niels will jump in as needed. Oh, Karen has a little kid. That's great. Hey, thanks all for continuing this hearing for many months. So we filed a notice of intended dredging at campus pond earlier this year. We concurrently filed it as a water quality cert and DEP asked us to have the wetland hearings continued until DEP Boston can look at the soil management dredge plan. There's one individual, Derek Standish, who does this work for the entire state. He's very slow, but we finally rose to the top of the pile and he in the end of the day had no changes in the plan. He asked for two things that we do additional sediment sampling for looking for lead concentrations in the pond. And he asked that the dredge spoil piles be placed on a plastic liner, but no other changes. So DEP put us on hold and put us back to you. MEPA has issued a certificate from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs for the pond work that was issued on September 25th. And Erin, you should have gotten a copy of that certificate. And if you don't have one, I'll send it over to you. The Army Corps is reviewing it. The Army Corps and Mass Historical Commission kind of work hand in hand and they go back and forth. And at this point, so everybody's reviewed the project and now they've said, okay, now we want the orders of conditions. So that's why we asked you to reopen the hearing. When we last presented the hearing, the commission had indicated you wanted to do a site walk. So I guess what I'm saying tonight is we're restarting this process. Again, UMass is trying to redredge the pond. It's about 6,500 cubic yards of material. It'll all get put on the east lawn to dewater and then disposed offsite. So I don't think we need to make any decisions tonight. I'm just asking, I guess, two things. One is, would the commission like to go visit the pond and see for yourself what the different aspects of the dredging plan are? And probably ask you to continue this to the next hearing to have a more in-depth discussion about what you've seen out on the site visit. But none of the plans have changed, I guess is the bottom line in going through DEP, Water Quality, Army Corps, all the other agencies. Like I said, the two changes are really that we just do additional sampling for lead and that we, the soil that's taken out of the pond needs to be put on a polyliner. Mickey, is the location of the dredged material changing or that's staying exactly the same just going on a liner? Yeah, it's three separate cells to allow the material to dewater, yeah. The only thing I would add to what Mickey was saying is that the Mass Historical Commission has requested that we renew our memorandum of agreement that we entered into with the Army Corps of Engineers when we rebuilt the dyke a number of years ago and, you know, which talked a lot about pond management, water levels, plants that are allowed to be, it had a whole plant list as part of it and all that stuff. And the UMass is fine with, because that was basically set to expire or has it expired. It was good for five years and I know it was right around now was when it would be expiring. So we're happy to re-enter into that memorandum of agreement with the Army Corps. Just so you know, so the campus pond and the surrounding area is listed by the Mass Historical Commission as an historical landscape. So when the university rebuilt the dyke and built the integrative classroom building, they ended up having a memorandum of understanding on planting plans and, you know, the commission talked about re-vegetating the north end of the pond. That was all according to like a prescribed agreement. So what the Army Corps Mass Historical Commission is saying is let's renew that for the dredging as well. So Aaron, do you have anything that you wanted to add before we open it up? No, I guess one question is, so we only have one meeting in December thus far, the 9th of December, and then which is only a couple of weeks away right now. And then beyond that, we have January 13th and I'm just not sure that in the next three weeks, you know, you guys are gonna have much more movement. So I'm almost wondering if it'd be better to postpone until the first meeting in January. Yeah, I guess the movement is now, I guess I'm asking the commission to finish their review and ultimately issue order of conditions and that's really what we're waiting for. And I think for those of you who are not familiar with the pond, it would be good to show you the pond and show you the outlet structure and show you the inlet structure just so you understand the drainage of the pond and what's proposed. But if we're able to, again, I would like to show those of you who are interested that surrounding just so you have a better understanding of the drainage hydrology. And if you're able to put us on a December 9th meeting, having a sidewalk that'd be great. If you can't do it, we'll postpone it till December. If you guys would be ready to have us issue an order of conditions on the 9th, then I'm completely fine with that. I just wanted to make sure you have everything you need in time for that. Yeah, I think what happened is we delayed this for like over six months to let all the other agencies review the project. And now we're in a circular firing squad. So we've got the comments back. They're very minor. And now they're saying, well, now we need the orders of conditions. So we've come back to you making sure that the plan's not gonna change now. So because this is such a complex project with so many parties involved, what I would like to do is just spend some time drafting an order in advance so that I can have some conditions. And, you know, I've definitely come up with some sort of boiler plates, but Mickey or Niels, if you guys have any suggested conditions that you think would kind of make things a little smoother for construction and implementation. Because obviously you're gonna have, there's gonna be so many players involved in this. There's gonna be pre-construction meetings. There's gonna be a lot of people who are gonna need to see and follow these documents. And so just to make sure that everybody's on the same page. So if you have any conditions that you think need to be included prior to the ninth, feel free to send those along to me. And I'll also get some draft ready. Thanks, appreciate the opportunity to do that. Yeah, and I'll, Erin, I don't know if you and the commission have seen the certificate from the state, but we talked about having like a little wildlife pool, like the pond isn't drained 100%. We've committed to having wildlife monitors. There's a bunch of things that are committed to that I think you're right. We just need to consolidate and put them in one place. One question I have, and I apologize. It's been a while since I've looked at this. Is there gonna be any revegetation or anything that happens afterwards? Is that already in the plan? Yeah, there's very little vegetation disturbance. There's an access point that they're gonna use, which is a little area of riprap. And then there's one other area of the bank about 20 feet wide that they'll enter. That's where the hydro rake has been coming in. And those two areas are supposed to be revegetated. But other than that, there's no disturbance of vegetation. Just sediment removal. Yeah, I mean, is the hydrology gonna get changed at all? I mean, around the edges, obviously the whole things can get deeper. But I don't know if there's opportunities for more wetlands plants or anything like that that you guys are thinking of? We're gonna leave all the plants along the edge. So the university's slowly been working their way around the pond, restoring the banks and revegetating it. The idea is not to disturb that. Okay. Yeah, so I think that, yeah, if you guys are ready, I think that'd be great to get this moving from our end. So does anybody else have any questions? Does anybody from the public have any questions on this one? I'm very familiar with the pond. I think probably a lot of people are, but it's always nice to get back out there with when we're looking at specific treatments that are gonna happen as well. Yeah, and Mickey, just so that for planning of site visits, it seems as though this semester, it's easier for a lot of people to meet before 9 a.m., like so like between 7 and 8.30 to do site walk or weekends, evenings, correct me if I'm wrong folks, but it sounds like those are kind of the best times to get eyes and ears of the commission out on the site. Evenings are no longer good because it gets dark so early. Right, right, yep. But early morning works fine for my standpoint. We're flexible, we're both in town, so whatever works for the majority of the commission members. And all the students are gonna be gone come Friday, so what few students there are on campus. Yeah, I mean, I'm almost thinking Mickey and Neils, if you wanna throw out like three or four dates with morning hours that would work for you, and then I can send them to the board and then we can just nail something down. Okay, yeah, I know for me personally, so just checking with the other commissioners, I mean, so what does early morning work, how's that, I mean, like so 7.30 would work well for me. I don't know about other people. That's really good for me. Prework is ideal. Work is 8.30. Okay. So Erin, do you want me to email you some dates that were available? Yeah, like for a 7.30 time meeting, I've already been to the site, I've reviewed the plans with your folks at SWCA and I felt very comfortable with the plans then. I think the revisions really kind of are what I haven't had a chance to look at in the revised documents, but yeah, just to give them a brief overview so that there's a couple commissioners on the ground, I think would be great. Okay. I'll throw out some dates after Thanksgiving, so. Yeah, I was just gonna suggest after, next week's Thanksgiving, so first week of December is probably what we're talking about. Okay, we'll do it. Sounds good. So I would just suggest a 7.30 time slot on November, or December 9th for continuation if somebody wants to move that. So for as I just want to see, is there any more comments or anything? Okay. So then as Erin was saying, we're looking for a motion. I move for a continuous, a continuation of this till December 9th at 7.30. Second. LaRoy. Aye. Anna. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. And I. So we are good to go. So thank you, Mickey, and thank you, Niels. We'll see you on the 9th. Great, thank you very much. Thanks guys. Good night as it is. Good night. Good night. Good night. Okay. So we have 7.50, so we're fine to move on to our next, which is another continuation. This knows some 10 from BSC group with ever source. So, so for those people who are here for this one, if you can raise your hand. I see Melissa. Okay. So Melissa, you should be turning into a panelist here. So looks like Erin already got Jonathan. Okay. So I don't know if, if Melissa, I assume you're going to, if you want to kick us off at this point. Yeah, sure. Erin, I don't know if you want to pull up the updated information I sent you, but we are continuing from the previous hearing for the access road that we're proposing to put at the Podic substation. In terms of that, the Mark Stinson requested, rightfully so, some hydrologic connection under the road to make sure we don't sever the wetland that's in the corner of the substation. I think I had mentioned that I thought, you know, we should just put some sort of larger stone or something like that. But I talked to my engineer and, you know, if there is a, you know, flooded waters or high water levels here, which this area is very dry, you know, the stone and the filter fabric that you would need to apply would probably get more clogged than something like a small culvert. So we went with just putting in a small culvert in this location we're proposing here, which would be kind of closer to where the wetland would be as opposed to going, making it flow more offsite. So I wanted to make sure it stays all on site. And so this is kind of what it is. It's just a small little, I can't look on my plan, I can't do that. Yeah, I apologize that for whatever reason I'm on my bigger screen. Image quality is not great tonight. And I can open the plan as well if need be. It's an 18 inch HDPE pipe is all we're proposing to put there. Match inverted with the existing ground with about a six inch embedment. And it's flared in, you know, pretty basic, just a small little pipe culvert. Just to make sure there's a connection there, should there be a large storm or some sort of ponding of water here, which is, I have not seen too often back there. Is there also stone proposed underneath the access road as well? Well, the whole road is going to be stone. So yeah, it will be back filled with stone. And like other than the surface roadway, will the stone underneath the surface be larger diameter stone as opposed to just the surfacing? I think that's usually how they build their access road. Yeah, I thought so too. Yeah, they usually put the smaller stone and then kind of level it off. So it's stabilized, we call it, you know, pack it down kind of. Yeah, almost like a rip wrap and then with like a layer of like stone on top of that for the roadway itself. Yeah. And Melissa, is there a maintenance plan for the culvert? I mean, just like everything at the substation, everything needs to be maintained, but I did not prepare a maintenance plan for this. I can't imagine it's going to need too much maintenance. I really don't think it's gonna get too much waters in it, but I mean, we can ensure just like any stormwater infrastructure requires maintenance. Yep, we can just add that to the conditions. Yeah, you can do that too. Yeah, I mean, I would just suggest the annual cleaning at the inlet and outlet and making sure that the pipe is functional. Okay, so this seems pretty straightforward, just some additional details, so that's good. Yeah, and then the other part was the access to the mitigation site, which I think Erin, you had those photos too, or that plan too. And we added that in, there will need to be a little bit of matting. There it is, a little bit of matting. Once we get past the opera house, I think it's called or whatever that building is that's right at the beginning. And then we can utilize the existing road. And then because it's an agriculture field, we want to protect the field. So we'll mat in to the field and then to make sure we can construct the mitigation site without impacting the areas outside of our proposed mitigation site, we'll mat that area. Is there gonna be a stockpiling area or how is that gonna be handled? I mean, they'll probably use the existing areas until they have everything graded, contained. And then maybe we can put down a little extra mats or use the existing matting that we have and then they can just, we'll have to, we'll probably have to take it off site. Yeah, I would suggest either mats for the stockpile or that it just be taken away. Because I feel like the stockpile anywhere other than the construction area is gonna create a big mess in that field as well. Yeah, but eventually it's gotta be taken away, so. Yeah. Yeah. And it looks like you guys have the easement on there now. It looks like there's no issue. Yeah. Exactly. Okay, that's great. And can you also just remind us, Melissa, what's happening with the beaver issue out there? Well, as part of this, we will remove the beaver dam. We have contacted, Thomas and June, remember the name of the company? We've contacted a company that ever source uses and has a contract with. And once we get approval for this and probably out of the winter season, we will remove that, we'll get that dam removed. Okay. But I don't think they can do it right now. They have a specific period when they can do it and when they can't just for the beaver trapping, things like that. And I don't, I think we might be out of that season. Okay. The dam removal does include beaver, the trapping of the beavers, right? Yeah. Okay. Yes. I think you have to, or they're just gonna come right back. Right. I mean, they might actually come back anyways, but this will at least give you some time. Right. I believe it's integrated wildlife services. Thank you, John. And the dam removal, it's more of a breach, correct? They'll sort of take it down in some areas. They'll have to do, they'll start with the breach and go slowly, but I think we talked about doing a little bit more significant than that. So you and I could talk about that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think just from that standpoint, like, and we can talk more offline about this, but I think the town's definitely gonna wanna be sort of in the loop as far as what's being proposed with the dam removal itself, just because we would like to do it in an incremental way. And I know they may need to do it in a specific way in order to target the beavers, but the town would definitely like to do it in a slow, let down fashion as opposed to just ripping it out and having it flood downstream or something. Well, absolutely. I think they acknowledge that. And as Jonathan mentioned, you'd have to breach it first and let it kind of slowly go down and then you can manage it from there how much further you go and how fast you go. So it looks like all the outstanding issues have been addressed. Is there anything else that you see, Erin? No. I mean, I'm pretty comfortable with what's proposed. I don't have a big list of conditions prepared for this. I would just say that the maintenance issue of the pipe at the substation would be an important thing to include annual maintenance to make sure it's functioning and to clean the inlet and outlet. And then the town wants to be informed every step of the way with the beaver removal. And particularly less so with the beaver trapping, more so with the let down of the water levels with the beaver dam removal. So however we, I can, you know, wordsmith some language, but the town definitely is gonna want to 100% be involved knowing what's happening and when, like date's certain and what the plan is and stuff. Like myself and Dave should definitely be copied on notices of when that's happening since it's happening on townland. Well, yeah, and you definitely will because of that and because we have to get your approval during the board of health permit for any trapping of the beavers. And I am assuming for the breaching of the dam as well. So yeah, but even before that, we'll let you know and talk to you about that. Yeah, and like for, I know we had talked at the last meeting about having some kind of signage to install at the conservation area, like an educational kind of, this is what's happening here. We're creating a wetland and this is a wetland mitigation project and to let people know that it's a ecologically friendly project that's taking place on conservation land. And maybe, I don't know, Melissa, is that something that we could word Smith together? Yeah, I mean, I suppose that we could just work offline on that and do it anyways. I don't know if it can it be a condition of a order of conditions? I don't know, but I mean, it is for the mitigation. So I mean, I don't have, we don't have a problem with it, so. Yeah, and I'm not talking anything too crazy, more or less just like something under the DEP file number. That's, this is a, you know, a project, a wetland creation project in association with the town of Amherst and for more information, call a number or something, like something very basic so that people can. All right, and Ever Source and Jonathan can speak to this, but I'm sure Ever Source would love to have their name on it. You know, I think you and I talked about that too. So I don't think they have a problem with that or and it's fine. So we can work on that one or you can just say a educational sign will be prepared and then you and I could to be coordinated with the town, with the conservation commission. Well, and I think we're talking about two different things here just to make sure one would be during construction, just to let people know. Oh, okay. You know, just very kind of rudimentary, let people know that it's a, you know, wetland creation project. And then once it's constructed, yeah, I think putting an educational sign of some sort that, you know, we could work on together would be a great thing. I'm not sure that that's something we need to condition unless we want to, if we want to include it as a condition, then that's, that's great. But yeah, I think that, I think that would be great for educational purposes to include. Yeah, so I mean, I think that in the conditions we should just have something about a temporary sign, signage. Yeah, I think we'll be good with that. And as far as the road coming into Podic like from route 116 into the conservation area, if that road gets chewed up or damaged, I'm assuming that they'll kind of smooth that out once the construction is completed. Yeah, all of those roads, no matter what's being used will be returned to the construction division in terms of, you know, rutting during construction may look like, you know, all messy and stuff, but then they are, they will, and we will tell them, we will recommend to them that they need to fix all of that and repair any ruts and stuff like that. Yeah, absolutely, because it could happen if it gets muddy out there. Okay, so I mean, I can rerun through some of these, but in addition to sort of the specific ones that we're talking about, I definitely like to include some just boilerplate conditions that we would include under state and local, like as far as posting a DEP file number, having a pre-construction meeting, sort of those basic ones and the only ones that would be a slight variation from a typical order of conditions would just be the long-term monitoring of the wetland because in this case, I think the town is sort of taking it, taking onus of the wetland upon itself as far as monitoring it. So it will more or less just be for construction of it written in into the boilerplate as well as like the other standard boilerplate conditions. Okay, so let's see, are there, other commissioners have any questions or comments? I'm not a commissioner, but I, sorry, I just wanted to talk about the Colvert and the condition for that for a second before we move on if that's okay. In terms of the maintenance, I mean, as I mentioned the, they do regular routine maintenance out there for the road and for any, you know, because they definitely don't want the flood, the substation to flood. I don't know if there's any way we could maybe not require it to be every year, but I don't know if there's any way we could say routine inspections should be conducted to ensure the Colvert and the Inlet and the outlets are, you know, maintained instead of saying every year it has to be inspected. I don't know, just to maybe, I don't know. I mean, I leave that up to you guys, but I didn't know if there's any way that could be just. Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we have like a maintenance log on it or anything like that. Like I'm not saying that I'm going to be stopping out there saying like, I want to see your maintenance, your annual maintenance log of when you clean this and who did it, you know, like I'm, this is more so really for, you know, the long-term viability of the wetland and also the stability of the driveway itself. So, okay. Annual doesn't seem like that big of an onus. Okay. So, okay. So again, any other commissioners have any comments or questions? Is there anybody from the public? You can just use that little feature on Zoom to raise your hand. Okay. So I'm not seeing any. So, Erin, did you want to put up the order of conditions on the screen? Did you want to read those out loud and we can have somebody, you know, just parrot them or, you know, just say so. Yeah. Yeah. I think I've been just kind of jotting them down here. I don't have them on the screen, but I will verbally run through them. So, first and foremost, I would include the standard boilerplate conditions under that we use under state law and our local bylaw with the exception of the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the replication area that the town wants to be included and informed of all steps related to the beaver dam removal. Temporary signage should be provided for the project to alert people and provide a contact number for the project that the road will be returned to a stable condition upon completion of the project. I believe that's all the conditions that I had jotted down. Sounds good. Thank you, Erin. So, Larry, you want to work your magic on that one? How about so moved? That's the magic I was looking for. Second. Okay, so Fletcher. Aye. Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. And I, for me as well. That made me miss Jen, you know? She would have done the whole laundry list for a while. Off the top of her head without any notes. Not ready to jump or anything. She's just like, yeah, no problem. She didn't do that tonight with a child on her lap, so. Yep, absolutely. One hand tied behind her back. Yeah. So, thank you very much, Melissa. So, I think we're in Jonathan. So, I think we're pretty much closed on this. Obviously, Erin will be back in touch with the details. Thanks. This is going to be great. Thank you so much. Yeah, it's a cool project, guys. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thank you guys for working with us. We really appreciate it. Yeah, it's going to be fun to see what happens out there. Good luck with, I guess it's us. So, good luck to all of us with the viewers. Yeah, good luck with all of us. All right, happy Thanksgiving, everyone. See you. Bye-bye. I'll be in touch, Erin. Talk to you later. Okay, bye-bye. Go to attendee. Okay, so I think we are back with just commissioners as panel members. Okay, so, a tent. So, we are good to move on to our 740, which is another continuation of a notice of intent. And this is from Conservation Works in Kestrel Trust for the same area. So, for Podic Conservation Area and Catherine Cole. So, I thought I saw Pete on here before. There he is. Pete is now a panelist. And, oh, now we can see Dave. So, we can see you now, Dave. Yeah, I was having some technical difficulties earlier, but I could hear you. And now, I can see you and hear you. Yeah, Zoom is doing something a little different tonight, I think. So, I know they did some updates on it. Same with Teams. So, seem to make things better, do they? Yeah. Okay, so, I thought I saw Pete. So, Pete should be a panelist. And yeah, so Pete, you should be able to, we should be able to hear you now. And so, if you want to give us an update on where you were at. Sure, and Dave will have more to add, but as you may remember from the previous session, what we're proposing is actually only on the Catherine Cole area, the Podic part that was put into the original application has been deleted. So, we're asking for approval for 220 linear feet of bog bridging in three sections, 80, 90 and 50 feet long, on basically what is disturbed ground that's been pretty well trampled. And the disturbed areas that will no longer be walked on after the bog bridging is in, I'll tell you what Hadley suggested is that we keep an eye on them for a year and see if they green up well. And then if not, we can reseed them. Hadley met last week and approved the wooded parts of the bog bridging that are going to be in Hadley. So, those will be partly on Podic and partly on Catherine Cole and partly on Food Bank. But this proposal is only for Catherine Cole. So, what Hadley did, just so you know, is to approve the wooded parts of the bog bridging. And then for the field part that is different in that the bog bridging would go on existing vegetation that hasn't yet been trampled. But they agreed that what we need is to keep people confined, walkers confined to a given route so that no unnecessary damage is done. And what they asked for was a small replication area totaling 56 square feet, which is about 10 by 6. So, we're going to outline that and present that. But for the wooded part, they did not ask for replication. And Pete, can you just remind me? For the part that's on Amherstland, that's all wooded, though, I believe. I think the. That's all wooded. Yeah, OK. I don't know where that boundary is. I was out there recently, but I can't quite tell. Yeah, it is marked with flagging and it's several hundred yards west of that bridge across the stream. OK. Right. Could I add a few things? Please. Yeah, so for Fletcher and just I think tonight is kind of a chance to reset a little bit on this project. And I just wanted to clarify a few things. So, as most of the commission knows, we were part of this much larger conservation effort spearheaded by Castro to preserve about 190 acres of land, both in Amherst and Hadley. We ended up with the fee interest in the so-called Zala property between Catherine Cole and Bodick. And our goal here overall is to create a trail system that makes sense, is a responsible trail system that safeguards the ecology, both in Catherine Cole and Zala and Bodick. And so really conservation works was asked to come in by the partnership between Castro and the town to really do some of the bog bridging work. So that's what brings conservation works and Pete to the table here. In some regard, if we took conservation works out of the equation, this would be the department, if you will, coming to the commission. And Brad and Tyler would be proposing to do the work. In this case, we had funding through Kestrel and it's a way for one less projects to be on the shoulders of Brad and Tyler. So it's a great opportunity to partner with Kestrel and conservation works. So I think tonight is really about resetting. And I just wanted to rattle through the trails that Bodick, the trails we're talking about and are focused on, have probably been there for 50 years. Our choice here in kind of doing nothing is that if you've been out there, as some of these trails are muddy, wet in season, and what happens is when hikers, when users, when people encounter those conditions during wet seasons, what do they do is they go around them and they create braided trails and they impact more wetland resource areas, riverfront areas, et cetera, and the list goes on. So the trails are becoming braided through the woods. And I think a great example of this, frankly, is at Amethyst Brook. And I think none of us want Bodick or Catherine Cole to become Amethyst Brook in that regard. So our goal here is to try to keep people on the narrowest portion of the trail, which would be on these raised boardwalks. If we take action, that's the result, is that we concentrate those impacts on this so many linear feet of bog bridging. So I think that's our goal. Our feeling is that this project doesn't adversely impact any of the interest of the act, of the Wetlands Protection Act. The goal is actually to protect wetlands. So, Erin, I'm not sure we did hire a Wetlands scientist to go out and do some delineation. I'm not sure, is that ready for prime time yet, Erin, or not? I could share with you what the plan looks like, but it's basically a hands-on rendering, which it makes sense to me because I spoke with him and he kind of explained the methodology behind his notes. But just to kind of give an update on that and what he saw when he went out to the site is that basically very similar to what my interpretation was when I walked, which is there are some segments that are wet, but what the DEP wetland layer shows is that the entire area is wet and that is not an accurate representation of what's going on out there. There are sort of fits and starts, there's like sections where it's wet and then it's dry again and then it's wet again. And then there are sections where there might be a wetland that encroaches on one side of the trail or encroaches on the other side of the trail, but it's not just bog bridging, plowing through a huge wetland complex, like it would appear looking at the DEP wetlands layer. It's sort of a meandering wetland boundary and the trail does not just wholesale plow through that wetland. So I think that it's a very good thing that we had. The wetland specialist go out and take a look at it because at the end of the day, there's gonna be quite a bit less documented impact in wetlands than what we're showing now. And the other thing that's interesting and this is related to Hadley is that the gentleman who did the delineation discovered that in one section on the Hadley side, that if the trail gets moved about 15 feet to the east, they would be completely out of the wetland. And so that might be an opportunity for mitigation if the trail just gets moved 15 feet because then the previous trail could just get seated down and it wouldn't be putting the bog bridging through the wetland. So that's just kind of a brief explanation. If I could add one thing, an item that Hadley wanted to know about was the extent of temporary disturbance as we put the bog bridging in. And we have a way of putting it in as we go basically. So you put in one section and then walk on that to put in the next section and they're tied together. At each end so that you don't get different heights as they are used over the years. So the disturbance during construction is very little. Erin, I realize this is just an informal sketch but can you enlarge that at all? I might, maybe others are having trouble. Yeah, I can. And let me just try to interpret this a little because he did kind of explain his methodology here. So like if you're looking at this area where the trail is located, sorry, just trying to get this to stop popping up. So like you can see the trail comes in, there is a wetland between one and two and five and six. There's a wetland there and then there's an upland and then the wetland starts again between 10 and 11 and extends to 15 and 16. And then it becomes upland again and it continues on until I think that's 20 to 21 there. So then it starts again, that's where the stream is. And then I can't quite, I think it's 25 to 26. It becomes upland again. And as you continue along the path, there is in this case, there's a between 30 and 31 there's sort of like a little wetland that encroaches on the trail. And so you can see like on the DEP wetland layer which is the yellow hatched, it shows the entire area is wet but based on the delineation, there are sort of these little sections that are wet and that there are uplands in between. So based on those, we could collect data points in the field and actually estimate how much of this bog bridging is proposed in wetlands. And I think at the end of the day, it's not going to be very much. So I just wanted to give it a sense of that. And then... Could you point out just, I know it's in another town but just because this whole trail system is all one, where did he propose moving the trail 15 feet? So up here where it's 70 to 77, I believe and then 60 to 68. This is the area where if the trail gets moved about 15 feet to the east, that this wetland complex that the trail is currently going through could be completely avoided. I know that section well, that makes a lot of sense and Pete does too. Oh yeah, and that's something we can definitely look at. I've walked that section to the right. You know, it's always an issue of how easy it is to close the old route that's been used for a long time, but it's definitely something that we can look at. But I mean, I appreciate that. I know we don't want to get distracted tonight over in the neighboring town of Adley, but we provide that information for Pete and the concom. We're, I'm curious, Aaron, what would be your recommendation for us to move forward in terms of the delineation? Is he contracted to do more than this and actually? He's gonna prepare a report to us, which has actually his data sheets, the filled out wetland delineation forms. And so what I'd like to do with that is, you know, basically just prepare more or less a response to the DEP comments, because the DEP comments on this project were extensive. I mean, there was more comments on this than there were on some pretty major projects that we've done. And so just to address some of the comments, a couple of them were related to the wetland delineation itself. And so to say, okay, well, we're not using the DEP, we're not using the DEP wetland layer here. We've hired somebody. This is what the delineation looks like. And then we can actually get into more nitty-gritty as far as the footprints of alteration. Because on the original NOI application, it was noted that there was BVW alteration, but there was no quantifiable square footage, cubic footage of wetland impact. And what this would allow us to do is to quantify that so that we could revise the form and actually include what the modification would be and address some of the additional comments. But I think it's a great start. And I don't think we have to really change the project. I think the project can stay as is. I think it's just merely illustrating that there's quite a bit less impact than what it first appeared from the application. I can add, I think we identified something like 45 square feet of impact. And from the looks of the map there, it's going to be probably 38 instead of 40, 45. So you can see that there's some difference, but not a lot. And I guess Brett for the commission, Pete, Aaron and I had some long conversations about this. And no, we took the DEP comments really seriously and took the added step to say, let's get somebody out there to delineate along this trail. And I hope that the commission appreciates that. And we are trying to address as many of the DEP comments as we can and reduce any impact. And as Pete said, the impact could be really quite small when all is said and done here. So I'm curious what the commission kind of thinks and if they have more direction for us because it is really the department working with Pete and Kestrel to move this Bob Bridging project forward. And I think all of us need to be, I'm sure everybody is, we have to be cognizant of our potential conflicts of interest once it's on our own lands. And so that definitely gets kind of awkward. And so making sure that we're holding ourselves to at least the same standard as if it wasn't townlands. Well, if I could, that's why I wanted to point out that this really, I signed the application. So even though conservation work, conservation works is the contractor, I signed the application. So that's why I also pointed out that this could be Brad and Tyler doing this work. It's really, I think that was a great comparison there that it's Pete and conservation works, working, if you will, for the town of Amherst but being paid by Kestrel to do the work. Yeah, and I mean, one of the reasons for all of the initial DEP filings or DEP notes was because I don't know if the property, the project was much expanded at that point. At that point, there was also work being done on the Northern property. And I think that's where most of it was. And just by removing that, I think that's probably solved most of the issues that's right. I think that set off a few alarm bells. And just so the commission knows about the POTIC section which was in the original application and was removed, we won't know what the trail looks like to the North on POTIC until the beavers are removed and the water recedes because that trail for most people, I know I've walked it and actually took off my boots and peat walk right through there, but there's a good, I don't know, four to 10 inches of water probably in that large ponded area there where there used to be a stream crossing with a couple of culverts. We'll have to wait until the beavers are removed, the water comes down to see what the condition of that trail is. Will we need to redo that stream crossing? Will it still be there? Will we need bog bridging there? What will the condition of that be? That is an old road. I will point out that is an old farm road just like much of on Catherine Cole. This entire area was farmed and of course the Zala's harvested firewood in POTIC and Catherine Cole. So that's why, you know, we're for the most part use these old woods roads, these old farm roads as trails. Okay. So Aaron, I know that you were making comments, you know, as this one long, I don't know if you have additional comments as well. Well, I mean, as staff, I mean, my recommendation would be for me to, I haven't gotten the report from Dave Haynes yet, but to take this and actually get it onto a GIS plan where I can plug in the distances of the bog bridging through the wetland areas and quantify a square footage of impact to include on the NOI form. And then to be able to provide this data back to DEP to address some of those issues. And then basically what I'd like to do is kind of get all our ducks in a row so that at the December 9th meeting that we're, you know, I'm prepared with a recommendation for us to issue an order of conditions. And I guess just to feel like I'm not sure giving this review some rigor based on the, you know, extensive comments that were received. And also potentially some recommendations for the Hadley side based on the delineation, we could share this with Hadley as well. Cause I think that that will eliminate a lot of impact on the Hadley side. Okay. Yeah, I agree with the overall assessment. I mean, I think this will, you know, at the end of the day, it's really going to improve the conditions out there. So, okay. So other commissioners, do you have any comments or thoughts on this one? And I agree, Dave, that's going to be interesting to see what happens with PODIC once the water goes down. And just as an FYI on this, the, there were for this date, there were additional abutters notified for the first hearing that opened. Only a portion of the abutters were notified. So just to make sure that we check that there's no public here that attended that was not notified the first time around. And for any commissioners who haven't been out there, I know Fletcher, you're out there regularly. It is a nice little walk out there. So it's pretty flat, but it's a nice little walk. Yeah, I'm hoping to get out there later, like this week or next. I'm really hoping. I would, I would recommend wearing orange during the next. That is my go-to color now, Dave. I'm just going to dye my hair. These areas were historically hunted and still be today. I mean, I'm not sure. I bring muck boots. I've been hunters out there at a long time, but it's possible. All right, orange and muck boots. I'm now very scared. Thank you. Stick your hands in the woodchips really. You know, I really get it out there. Are there any comments? I know we have a couple of people on the call. Any of those folks want to make any comments or? Public, if you have any comments, just raise your hand virtually. Yeah, so one of those is Michael Lou. So he's probably in the other two. I'm not sure. No, not hearing any at this point. And so anything else on this one? If not, we'll be looking for a motion to continue. The only thing I'd like to say, and Pete, I think we'll get a chuckle out of this. When we say those trails are 50 years old, my birthday was yesterday. And I can tell you that I was out on those trails when I was very young. So I remember being out there when I was, you know, eight, nine, 10. So Pete and I go way back on these trails at Bodick. Is that right, Pete? Yeah, you look pretty good, Dave. You're getting old. Yeah. Well, Dave was just saying that's only 20 years ago, Pete. So, yeah. Yeah, it was a long time ago, but it was a 50 number rings true in a lot of ways. Congratulations on the big number. So my number is higher. I said I was out there when I was eight, nine. So I'll leave it at that a little mystery. What number is it? Well, congratulations on a number, so. Well, also congrats. And we got the property protected in the middle and we're doing some good, some other good stuff going on there too. So yeah. This is all wonderful stuff. I mean, it's fantastic. I mean, this is like, this is, this is what we do this for is to make things better out there. And at the end of the day, I think that's exactly what's going to happen. It's just going to be such a great improvement. And the wetlands are going to be protected better than they were before. I think one thing to mention is that this probably wouldn't have been put up this year. If the food, bank, if this is all a property hadn't, we hadn't finished the APR on, on that one. I think Dave and I both worked for years talking to Tony and then talking to Ray in the family about the APR. And now that it's with food bank, Andrew Morehouse, the executive director is very glad to support the project. He thinks it's great. Excellent. Just a quick side note be a related Pete, P West over myself and rich Hubbard, who has done land conservation in the valley for 30 plus years. I can distinctly remember being in Tony Zala's living room. Trying to convince him to protect his land. And I think one of us even brought a pen and, you know, and he would look at the documents, maybe have the pen in his hand and then go, nah, I don't think so. And, you know, we went multiple times through his living room and we would talk for an hour and hope to come out of there with, with wet ink. And we never did. And sadly he passed away. I think in his seventies or so, but his, his brother ultimately did the deal. So anyway, good Ray is still with us. He's a great guy. Yes. So good, good stuff. Takes a while. That was 25 years ago, probably. The long game. The long game. Real long game. Okay. So to move the meeting along, do we have anything else that we want to say about this one before we get started? Okay. So to move the meeting along, do we have anything else that we want to say about this one before we continue? I just, do we know the date and time of that? Um, I would recommend that we say December 9th at 735. All right, I'm ready. I wrote it down. I'm not Jen. All right. So I moved to continue this to December, the meeting on December 9th at 735 PM. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. Leroy. Hi. Anna. Hi. And I for me as well. So Pete, we will see you then. Okay. Thanks very much you guys and have a good Thanksgiving. You too. Okay. So, um, that is our last official agenda item. Obviously we have some other ones that are on the list. And so I was noticing over on the attendees, I, that Michael Lou that you're with us. And, uh, Aaron, does Michael have any other. Um, items. He may not know that we already dealt with some of them. So. Yeah, I'm going to promote him to panelists real quick, just so we can give him a very quick update. Cause he's been waiting. Um, and you'll just have to unmute yourself, Mike. Hopefully you can. Is that all right? Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. So, so Mike, at the beginning of the meeting, um, we had a bunch of time and I'm so sorry that you've been sitting here because we. Oh no. Oh. We handled a couple. Um, so. Common school got their certificate of compliance and, um, the Pomeray lane, um, single family home lot was given a two year extension. Two year. Okay. Yeah. Um, with a, um, three year extension. Um, I think that was a strong encouragement to move the project forward because of those. Right. Wetland, those wetland, um, fact wet plants that are, are. Creeping. Creeping up that hillside. So. I've already given, um, the property owner of that information. Obviously he's trying to sell the lot, but. You know, anyway, we'll see how it goes. But I appreciate it. Um, you know, I've been in the field earlier this evening. So I. Couldn't check in earlier, but, um, I enjoyed my time listening to the discussion. You all had. Nice. Um, is there anything else that you need to relay to me? Um, otherwise it'd be happy to report this to, um, common school and, um, Rolling Hills properties for the Pomeroy lane parcel. I think that that. I think that's the only two items I had for you, Mike, on the agenda tonight. So I think so. Yeah. Yeah. All right. You weren't associated with Avenue at all. I think that was bucky. No. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Um, hey, I appreciate it. And have a good night. You guys. It's your man. The next time. Take care. Good night. Okay. So are we ready to go on to Canton Avenue? Or are you saving that one for the end for us? I think we should jump to Canton Avenue because I see Bob Stover on the call and I believe that I just got a message very late this afternoon, um, which I didn't have a chance to respond to, but, um, From, um, Peter Wilson. Um, I believe Bob is his consultant and I. Um, just promoted him to a panelist so he can speak. I'm not sure if the person on the phone that might be, um, Pete. Um, so if whomever is listening is able to raise your hand. I don't think you can do that on the phone. Okay. Um, We can allow them to hear. We can allow them to speak for a minute. Okay. So whoever is on the phone, you're allowed to talk right now. So if you wouldn't mind. You can identify yourself if you want, you can stay anonymous, but, um, If you are associated particularly with Canton Avenue now be the. Yep. Can you hear me? This is Harold Wilson. Excellent. Okay. Good. So yep, we can hear you. Okay. Okay. So Aaron, do you want to, uh, Refresh everybody on what's happening with can. Yeah. So, um, at the last meeting we, um, Had received a request for a continuation for, um, The Canton Avenue permit, which was DEP number eight, nine, six, two, nine. I went out to do a site visit and check flagging. And when I was out looking at the flagging, um, I documented that clearing work had started on lot two. Uh, which is the lot that. Is in the picture, um, On the screen right now, hopefully picture on the screen. Okay. Thank you. Let me. Make sure I should properly share that. Okay. Or we can see your screen at least. Okay. So this is a picture of the lot, lot two that, um, was cleared and, and maybe even filled. It's, it's. The wetland is, uh, the site is pretty unrecognizable and, and where there was once a wetland there. Does not appear to be one anymore. There's no flagging anyway. Um, so. Um, Basically it was documented that, um, You know, the order of conditions was violated. That the town was not notified of the start of work. There was no pre-construction meeting, no erosion controls, no DEP file number. Flagging was missing or removed. The site was cleared. The wetland. Appears to have been compromised. Um, I spoke with both. Um, I was, um, I was, um, Come up with a path forward because it was kind of a shock right before the last meeting. And I wasn't sure how, you know, um, Folks wanted to proceed. So based on, um, conversations, um, The, the determination was to issue an enforcement order. And basically, um, Request that the owner attend the hearing tonight to discuss it. Um, there was no other. Um, So, um, basically, I think what we should discuss. Well, first of all, um, When and if the commission chooses to, um, ratify the enforcement order. And then determine kind of what the next step forward is. And by next step, you know, we have a request for continuation for this project. Are we going to issue a continuation? Are we going to require. Um, Um, I don't know what, what does the commission feels the correct path forward. And just to give you a visual. Um, The little blue arrow is where I was standing when I took the photo and I highlighted where the wetland was. Located, um, where the flag wetland was located. The yellow hatching kind of indicates where the clearing was. And you can see that in the photo here. Um, And Aaron, can you just remind me this is Bob Stover? I'm sorry. One second, Bob. Um, so Aaron, can you also just remind us if this is just for. The continuation is just for lot one or if this is for a lot one and two, cause two, it looks like there's no activity on so far when I was out there. Yeah. So there's actually three lots in the subdivision. Um, one of them, there was already a house on to my knowledge. Um, and then there was lots, two and three. So the, the, the, the location of the land. But the work associated with the order of conditions was for lots. Two and three, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah. So Bob, if you want to give us an update on. What's going on out there. If any sort of clarifications. Yes. Aaron, could you put the, uh, Lot plan back on that you showed us? Sure. Yeah. So I have spent some time out there, especially yesterday and about a week ago. And I did mark all the flagging that I could find. Refresh it. There are flags missing. There has been the clearing of some brush and some trees that were dead have been cut. No grading has taken place. All of the clearing of brush has happened in the buffer zone. I mean, most of the lot is in the buffer zone. The area shown in red, those flags are missing, but the area seems to be intact. I didn't measure that flag that is the leftmost. So the work, so I don't think that any wetland has been impacted yet. I'm sorry, Bob, can you just introduce yourself so we know your background and your affiliation with the project? Okay. Peter has hired me to help him move forward on this project. I've been out there a couple of times since the spring. Peter tells me that most of the work that we're talking about was done last fall. I've got, oh, 30 years in wetland's work and wetland replications, wetland delineation. I'm very good, especially trained in soils and wetland soils. So does that answer your question? Yeah, that's great. It just provides a little bit more context. So thank you. Yeah, I mean, just to respond to what Bob said, I mean, just looking at the image, this area here that's been cleared and grubbed directly in front of me was basically standing right in front of that wetland area. So I'm not sure how, I mean, it wasn't like brush clearing. There was significant clearing and grubbing and probably stump pulling that occurred in this area. To say there was no grading. There was definitely some earth work that occurred there. It was open bare ground. There was no flagging that I could see on this lot at all. And the access on the plan shows, if you look at the plan, where that blue arrow is, you see how it shows the driveway cutting very far left and skirting around that wetland, right against the property line versus looking straight into the property right where that wetland would have been is basically like a patch of sand so I'm not sure. I mean, I think a site visit would be a good idea to go out and take a look at the refreshed flagging to see because it seems like it's not squaring up with what I saw in the field. This is the owner, Harold Wilson. Hello, Aaron. Hello. Hello, Aaron. I just was going to jump in real quick. So that area that you're talking about on the right hand side as you're looking at the lot, that had nothing there, nothing growing there on that thing. There was no trees, no scrub. It was just like it was. I stayed on the left hand side going in, far away from that wetland area and like Bob was saying, we just went in and cleaned up dead scrub. There were several tall dead trees that were, we thought were hazardous and with the kids in the area there, there's small kids across the street that like to play. We wanted to knock those down and get the hazard dealt with. So that's, you know, I understand what you're saying, but it's a violation of your order of conditions and the town was never contacted prior to the start of work, which is a requirement of your permit. And it just seems very, you know, to have a violation like that, no DEP file number, no pre-construction meeting. It's when you have a permit like this that's, you know, a state permit and there are jurisdictional wetland areas, we have to be notified. So we didn't realize that. We didn't have any paperwork showing us that we had to have these things done just to go in there and do any, like I said, clearing up this dead material. So you guys didn't have the order of conditions? Yeah, we have a plan for that a lot that requires us to do all the things you're talking about. But for this lot that we're talking about now, there was no conditions at all for this lot. And we were told that we wouldn't have to cross any wetlands. We got 30 feet from the proper line over to where the wetlands starts. So we didn't realize that we had to do any of this that you're talking about for that lot. Okay. Well, the order of conditions covers both these lots. The plans cover both these lots. So there is no plan for this lot that we were not receiving. We only have the plan for that a lot because they're separate. They're separate. They're not together. They're not, you know, they're separate lots. They're two separate building lots, correct. But the order of conditions that the plan that was prepared by Buddy Sparkle shows both lots and the work that was approved was on both of the lots. And there's wetlands on both the lots. I realize that there is a wetland on that lot. But we weren't anywhere near that. But go ahead. And the other thing to remember about this one, and obviously this predates you, but it is part of the history of these lots. These were fairly contentious lots when they got put in. There was a lot of input from local neighbors from a butters. There's a lot of discussion from the conservation commission. There's only I think two of us on here now who are there then. But so this is a fairly sensitive area, which again, that predates you, but just let you know the history. Yeah, you're not familiar with that. Okay. But particularly the one that is, this plan always gets me a little confused because it's not oriented how I think it should be. I could be wrong on that. But going to the right, that other lot, that was the one that we definitely spent a lot more time on. And so when this first got brought to my attention, I was a little confused as well, Mr. Wilson, because I was thinking of that one and not this lot. And so I had to verify that with Erin as well about if the conditions covered both. Okay. So probably a site visit is probably the next step. I think so. I mean, I just the commission, this is just an important consideration for the board tonight. So this came to us as a request for an extension to the original order of conditions, which expires. Well, it expired yesterday, but I mean, I could predate an extension if the board felt that they wanted to issue an extension on it. You know, I'm not recommending, I'm not making a recommendation in any, in any direction, I'm just letting you know that that's how this issue came to our attention and that originally when it was submitted, it was like a day before our very busy first meeting in October. And so I put it to the second meeting in October to give myself some time to get out there, but letting it expire has consequences. So just to put that out there. So just so we're, we understand what the ramifications are. If we do not move to continue it today, we cannot continue it on the ninth. And I'm not saying that we'd want to, but just so we know what our options are, it creates some gray area because, you know, it will have expired. It will have expired. I mean, the commission could certainly, you know, backdate it, but I do think that that gets, I mean, 24 hours, I think is one thing, but three or four weeks is another. So I, it's the timing is not great, but it's, it's an important consideration. I mean, the other thing we can do, I mean, we don't have to continue for, we can set how long it continues for. So I guess in theory, we could say that we could do, we can continue this for three weeks with the current enforcement order in place, which is cease and desist. So nothing else would happen, but that would give us the opportunity to continue it at that point if we so desired. Does that seem logic or possible, Erin? Anything you wish to do as far as a continuation is I can make happen. So just to put in perspective, you know, that it's a legal document, I've got to send it to DEP and it also has to be recorded at the order or at the registry of deeds. So I just think we should, depending on how much time that the board decides to give on the extension, I just think the board should be really strategic about how much time we allow in consideration that, you know, that that whole process has to be gone through in order to make sure it's legal. Yep. And it's no fun. And yeah, it's not good. And then the other piece would be if we let it expire, then for additional work to happen on this property, they would have to refile. For the construction of the homes, they would have to refile a new notice of intent application. Correct. Yep. Okay. I'm confused about one thing. Was Mr. Wilson not associated with the initial request? Correct. So the original application came through as a separate owner and from what I understand Wilson Construction or it's under, I think, listed as Wilson Construction LLC or Wilson Properties LLC as the owner acquired the property, I believe, last year. And did not receive any of the documentation from the previous owner? Well, to be perfectly honest, any real estate transaction that takes place, an order of conditions is recorded on a deed. And when there's a title search that's completed for a real estate transaction, an attorney will find the order of conditions, which lists every condition that is listed on the project as well as a reference to the approved plan. I'm associated with the project. So could somebody buy a property and not be aware of it? Not likely. I mean, they requested a continuance. So I'm assuming they knew about it. You know, they requested a continuance a year later. So I'm assuming they knew about it. They knew there was an order of conditions on it. I'm sure they knew about it in a general sense. They might not have ever seen the order of conditions, although they were aware that this was required permitting due to conservation wetland issues. Yeah, they may not have seen them. They were available. They're definitely on the deed. So yeah. So we don't need to speculate on that. They should have seen them. Well, either way, so the situation we're in now is, if we let this thing expire, so we have to figure out if we're gonna let this thing expire or not, because obviously the consequences of expiring. So we have to figure out how we're going to do this enforcement order and continue. Well, there's an enforcement order in place tonight that we should ratify. We ratify a separate issue. So that's an initial enforcement order. But then, yeah, what we want to do for additional actions, if anything. So we can just ratify the existing order and let the other conditions, let everything else expire. And there's no other action I don't think we would have to take. At that point, the owners would be back on the owner to refile. I also just want to bring up one point of clarification. That's sort of it sounds very administrative. But so we are short to people tonight on the commission. So I don't know how people are going to vote if we're going to vote in unison. But if we don't, we need at least four people to to approve a motion tonight. So not to put any pressure on anyone. So your votes all count, but they count even more tonight. I mean, the ideal thing, I mean, I'd love to get out there. I've been out there. But I'd love for, you know, to get out there with, you know, I didn't have permission to be on the property. So I didn't go there. I just stood on the road and you could see what Aaron saw. Well, I would like to meet you out there. That'd be great. The problem is that we have to make some sort of decision tonight the problem. So yeah, you know, I served on the Belcher town conservation commission. And it's a matter of some trepidation to quote their policies to the Amherst conservation commission. But they we always felt that if there was an enforcement order, that that kind of suspended the the process of renewing and continuing a notice of intent. I'm working on a subdivision in Belcher town. And it's my understanding that it's been functioning on an enforcement order for since the three or four years I've been involved in it. So anyway, I mean, I think the ideal solution from my point of view is that that the we ultimately get an extension of the order and that we resolve all the issues that are out there, get the wetland flags back up. As I say, anytime I found a remnant of an old flag, I reflagged it. I would like to get out there and reestablish all the other flags. The flags are missing in this area that was outlined in red. But we measured it off from there's two property pins right there. So we had some good ties to identify where that that south most I guess flag is. And I think you'll see that the wetland itself has not been damaged, but it work was done right next to it. And I think you'll see that most of the clearing that we've been talking about happened in the buffer or even a little bit beyond the buffer. Yeah, but I mean, just altering the vegetation, the buffer, that's problematic as well, obviously. Oh, certainly, certainly. So are we are you, would you be able to, well, at least we can agree on one thing, we want to see a site visit. Would you be able to reflag that wetland before the site visit? If it's all right with my clients, I would love to do it. Because then we could get a better idea of what we're looking at if those wetlands that are on the original plan are flagged again. And so now we could really get to identify the extent of what we're talking about. Yes, I think other than that area that was outlined in red, flags, I think I found most of the remnant flags for the rest of the delineation on that lot. So, yeah, so I mean, Aaron, I mean, there was a survey, those those flags were surveyed, located. And I think what we're talking about is re identifying the survey locations of the original flagging. I just want to be very clear about that, as opposed to reflagging where we think the wetland is now. Right. No, I'm not talking about re delineating it. I'm talking about re establishing the original flags. I just find it curious that flags exist on the entire project footprint, with the exception of this one area that appears to have been cleared and altered. And so just it's just very, yeah. And Bob, are those being re established via survey methods? So using survey equipment or some other methodology? I think to do it in time for a site visit, I would I would simply go out there and re establish them myself using take measures, etc. But they could be replaced by surveyors, eventually. Okay. I mean, that would be the preferred methodology, obviously, survey. Yes. Yeah. And so, yeah, I mean, I kind of know where I'm leaning at this point. I mean, I think it would make sense to do some sort of continuation, probably, you know, as Aaron was suggesting, being strategic about it. So making not a three week, but you know, I'm not sure what would be a reasonable time. So few months type of thing with the current conditions on there. So there's still a full cease and desist and nothing else is happening out there. But that would give us time. That would give the applicant time to reflag do everything else that's necessary out there, give us time to go out and do a full site visit, and then reassess. And at that point, yeah, we can move forward, I would think. I think that's very prudent, Brett. And quite frankly, any extension on an order of conditions requires that the flagging be in place at the time that the extension is requested. Even a request for certificate of compliance requires that the original flagging be in place. So for the flagging to be gone, it's impossible for us to render any type of judgment on the site. However, I do think that a condition of the extension should be that they're placed based on survey points. Yeah, I mean, particularly given how much disturbance is out there. Yeah. By the way, can you see me? No, no, it's all I see is my name in a black square. Turn your video on. Yeah. Yeah, I have some experience with zoom, but not a whole lot. The lower left corner. Okay. So that sounds good to me. Yeah, I agree. So, Aaron, would you have a general recommendation on what sort of length would make sense? I mean, you know, somewhere probably like three months sounds about right to me, but you would know better than I. That's a great question. Bob, how long would it take for flags to be replaced based on survey? I don't know. I don't know. Probably I would think a month would be a safe yes. So let's just say a month that would put us right before Christmas. So two months, let's just say would put us end of January. If they could be placed within a month, then that would give an additional four weeks in January for the commission to get out there and look at the survey placed flags. And then at the January 27th meeting, there could be consideration, but I think Brett makes an excellent point, which is, you know, will we have a quorum? Will we, I mean, will we have had a chance to get out and do us, everybody do a site visit, all those things. And we may want to give ourselves a little extra time. I don't think three months is a exorbitant extension period. I think that's very reasonable for us to try to resolve the enforcement. So Bob and Mr. Wilson, does that sound like a reasonable timeframe for the two of you? Yeah, I think so. How about you, Bob? It sounds good to me. Okay. Okay, so why don't we first set the, can you tell us the date and time for that one, Erin? And then we, we have a couple of things we're going to need to do. We have to first ratify the current enforcement order. And then we're going to need to do a continuation. Yeah. So my recommendation would be that the, that the, that the permit be extended until February 24th, that the order of conditions be continued to February 24th. And we don't need to set a specific time because this is not a hearing. Yep. Okay. So looking for a motion for that, for extending the order of conditions. I got it. All right. I move to extend the order of conditions to February 24th. Second. Thanks. So Fletcher. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I as well. So, okay. So we are good on that one. So that, so the order stands until the 24th and we'll come up with some sort of resolution before that. And so at this point, we need to ratify the enforcement order, Erin. Yeah. And I would recommend that on the ratification of the enforcement order that the commission include conditions or requirements for a site visit with the board that prior to the site visit that flags be replaced based, that wetland flags be replaced based on survey. And do we need to reiterate cease and desist or is that already in there? That's already in there. All right. So I move to ratify the enforcement order with the conditions that the wetland flag would be replaced by the survey points. Second. Okay. So Larry. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. Anna. Hi. And I as well. Okay. So I think we have a path forward for this one. So once you have an idea of when those points will be in the field, if you can get in touch with Erin and then Erin can coordinate a time for us to actually get out on the property. That'd be great. Okay. Is this anything that have butters have to know about? I don't think technically. No. So there, butters would be interested in this stuff. That's what I meant. Yep. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks guys. Yep. Have a good Thanksgiving. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. You too. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Okay. Hope you guys had your coffee. I think I'm going to go get some. I'll try to go through this really quickly for you. My hands just keep getting bigger and bigger and more like consuming. It's fine. I know. I'm going to try to make this go. Trust me. Trust me. I'm tired too. I know. Okay. So let's start with Applebrook. So we received a request for certificate of compliance for lot seven on Applebrook. And I'm just going to give a little disclosure. I filed a notice of potential perceived conflict of interest disclosure with Dave Zomek and also Paul Backelman because my aunt and uncle are direct to butters to lot seven. And I wasn't aware of this until I pulled the plan on Friday afternoon and saw where it was actually located. So just for the sake of transparency, I'm not going to offer any recommendation. I'm just going to sort of present the application and the photographs for this. But just to provide a little bit of information by way of background, there's actually three orders of conditions that are recorded on this lot. There's three overall orders of conditions that are tied to this lot. And I don't know the entire history of the site or of the subdivision other than to say that I know that the first two orders of conditions were related to denial, superseding orders, work, never beginning. So basically two of the orders of conditions were basically if certificates of compliance were issued, it would say basically work never began associated with the given orders of conditions. The third order of conditions is the order of conditions where the subdivision was approved. And I think all but a handful of the lots that the homes have already been constructed, this being one of them. So this lot, there is no home on it. From what I understand, when the permit was originally filed, the area where the subdivision is located was cleared. Lot seven has come up with vegetation, but no home was built there. And just show you. So this is what the lot looks like right now. Like the one to the right is a better representation of what the overall lot looks like. It's kind of regrown with vegetation. The silt fence is still in place on it. The proposed single family home was located outside of jurisdiction. Outside of the 100 foot buffer zone to the wetland. The wetland is basically along that tree line in the photo. And what this would do is issuing a certificate of compliance would basically mean that anybody who wants to do anything on this lot that's within concom jurisdiction would have to refile to build a house. Because there's no house there. And this is basically it's saying we're closing out the order of conditions and anybody who wants to do anything there is going to have to refile the 100 foot buffer zone. Somebody could build a house here without encroaching on the 100 foot buffer zone. The lot is large enough. So just to kind of give a little background on it from reviewing the plans and such. There is a paved driveway which comes into the lot. Not all the way into the lot but just sort of like I would say maybe 30 feet of driveway comes into the lot. And then it's a patch. The one on the picture on the left kind of shows there's like a dirt patch in front of the driveway. And then it's like a stockpile area. They've been using it for stockpiling building materials. And from what I understand there's a closing on this lot taking place on Friday. And that the stockpiles are being removed on Friday at the closing time. I mean when the closing occurs on the lot and it's owned by a potential owner the stockpiles are being removed. So there's again there's three orders of conditions tied to this. So certificate of compliance would essentially clear it from all three of those outstanding certificates of compliance. And the final order of conditions does include a house footprint for this house. So they'd have to start from scratch if they were within the if they were within jurisdiction. And Erin so is this another one of those examples where the orders of conditions are really for the whole subdivision they are not really impacting this one as much directly. So the other the other the Hills subdivision is a different is a kind of a different animal all together because on that particular order of conditions the board required individual filings for homes that were located within jurisdiction. Whereas with this subdivision the subdivision itself included house footprints already. A lot of times the the former will be done on lots where people are doing a build to suit situation like like the owner is going to buy the house they're going to design the house themselves and decide the house footprint how large decks and etc versus a situation like this where it looks like they actually very carefully planned the house footprints and so they were already included in the order or in the application. Okay and again to clarify so issuing issuing this certificate of compliance basically means that it clears it for sale so there's no over there's no paperwork hanging on the deed but they cannot build at least within jurisdiction without coming in front of us again. That's correct. But why would we not give it? I don't see I'm not there there's I don't really see any reason to not issue it. Right. Yep. I'm just trying to be as neutral as possible on this one. Yeah so I'm going to the house. Yep. Okay so anybody else have any questions on this one? No. Okay so yeah so I think we're looking for a recommendation to issue the order of certificate of compliance for lot seven at Applebrook. Yeah and and I would recommend that any any motion to so it's actually to issue three certificates of compliance so I would just motion to to clear to clear the lot in its entirety with certificates of compliance for the three outstanding orders of conditions. Oh fine okay I motion to I'm going to try it and I'm not going to get it right I started to rate it and then I messed it up. I motion to clear all three lots of the certificates of compliance no that's all right no one lot three certificates three certificates in the one lot there we go um is that it with the orders of conditions yeah I'm sorry you're close um yeah so it's to to issue um to to clear lot seven of all outstanding orders of conditions by issuing three certificates of compliance. Okay so I motion to clear lot seven of all orders of conditions by issuing the certificate of compliance. Perfect. So LaRoy. Nice job. Hi. Anna. Hi. Fletcher. Hi. Larry. Hi. And hi from me as well. At least no one's watching at this point. You're doing good. It's not easy it's not easy to do especially in front of you know a bunch of people. I just said it I literally just had to pair it and it was apparently too much for my brain at this moment. You know this thing is recorded that's why I like to say so moved so moved it's so nice to you. It's the it's the principle of it Larry. Oh no I know. All right well that was the that was the other hard hard one um I think we're going to move on to some easy ones now um Hickory Ridge is a little funky yeah as well so it it is but it's I don't think it's too funky once you see the plans I think it'll all make sense um so Hickory Ridge there's two there's two outstanding items on Hickory Ridge um the first is request for an amendment to the origin or to the order of conditions um and the just to visualize what the the request that's being made is if you see these are the approved this is the approved solar the approved solar arrays on Hickory Ridge Golf Course there's already outstanding orders of conditions for these two approved solar array setups the um the amendments are for the two orange pads that you see so they're requesting to add those pads and it's for a battery storage system is what I understand there's a narrative associated with that which is um this was provided by Tom Reedy um they are uh the DC size of the array will increase from 5.24 megawatts to 6.2 megawatts less panels but larger panels um racking system will be changed from fixed tilt to single axis trackers so basically what they're doing is they're they're putting in they're changing it from these like fixed position solar panels to panels that will actually follow the sun um and um the the change in the system itself requires a change to the battery storage system which is what those orange footprint changes are to the solar array but it's still kind of within the footprint no original what's that like purple shading yep it's it's um it's all within the original footprint of the original orders of conditions okay and do we know anything about the batteries are there any potential issues associated with those but like are they adding yeah what's those battery storage already there they no no so these are total battery storage yeah I'm not I'm not sure why they're keeping storage there because normally they just want to put it straight into the grid but um is this for the trackers pardon is it for the trackers yeah the batteries are for the trackers man yeah the town I used to live in got these and they broke within like three months and now they're stuck facing the wrong way oh sweet I got clear some more forest lamp or solar okay that's a good question though is there issues with storage yeah yeah but I mean they're I mean I'm interested in that but I mean it's not relevant for us really make a big difference right yeah it's not it's not pertinent for what we're talking about yeah okay so we moved accept the amendment yes yeah I moved to accept the amendments for Hickory Ridge second oh you got me Larry hi so Fletcher hi Leroy hi Anna hi and I for me as well okay let's go on to some contamination Erin oh yeah so and this is more of a verbal update but they're on the remediation side of things they did some drilling to look at the soil contamination just this past just this earlier this week and what they found was that the area of contamination is much smaller than what they had originally thought and so they're looking at different options in terms of the in situ treatments which would be basically injecting ozone into the area of contamination to cause it to you know it basically breaks it down faster the area of contamination versus doing a excavation of the contaminated soils so they're they're right now they're doing the exploratory part to determine the best process to clean the site and that's kind of where things stand that was my last update which was today so it's a quick one okay good yeah there's a lot of technical stuff that they sent over so I got lost in it somewhere yeah there was a lot um so just while we're still on Hickory Ridge uh if Dave is still with us do we have any updates on sort of the overall project at this point I am here um yeah actually conservation staff we took a tour of Hickory today as a matter of fact this afternoon for an hour um we are moving toward closing I mean these are all great steps the 21E cleanup is progressing nicely at no cost to the town and our hope is to close I think late in December is a little optimistic but as soon after the first of the year as possible that's exciting I don't think I remember hearing a potential closing date yet so yeah right yeah I'll be big okay thank you Dave sure okay Erin next yeah so um this is a this is this is another request for a minor amendment to the order of conditions this is associated with 200 Levert Road which at the time it came through it was zero Levert Road because it didn't yet have a um address associated with it construction um I did go out and do an uh pre-construction meeting with the um with the folks who are doing work out here they're building you may recall it's um on Levert Road if you're if you're headed towards Levert it's on the left hand side prior to going over Eastman Brook um it is a single family home and they're also putting in some pasture land for horses a little dog kennel area etc that was all approved by the commission and they're also putting in a leech field um the the original application did not include installing a well because um they were operating based on the assumption that um town waterline the town waterline extended um far enough that they could tie into it but what they discovered is that it is um about let me see uh did they say how long it was like 200 feet or something I think it was 200 sorry yeah um I had the exact length of it but yeah I think it's it's like 100 or 200 feet too short so basically what they're trying to do is just extend the waterline it's it's on the opposite side of the road from the property and um they're working with DPW to they're paying and working with DPW to extend it um so that these folks can tie into the waterline um but there is a so if you look at this little hand drawn sketch which I know is difficult to see and I apologize um it it's um right on the other side of that there's kind of a little pond that's down lower from the road and so um they had recommend doing like a toad in silt fence along the road which I don't really like the idea of because it requires um actually digging out to put the silt fence in I would much rather see something like a straw wattle installed there um during construction and um I mean I think it's they're right along the road shoulder with the work and um yeah so they're just requesting permission to extend the water line up so they can tie into it sure if you think this straw wattle is good good yeah I mean I would I would definitely include conditions that there's no stock piling um and that they stabilize upon completion and so this is open trench that they're doing yeah yes yep they're they're just digging a trench placing the pipe and then closing it back over I don't they need to revegetate I mean it's going to be a small trench I assume it's on the shoulder isn't it yeah I mean I think that they should reseed and they should stabilize with uh with mulch probably preferably um like straw and seed okay that all sounds reasonable to me okay anybody else okay um so I would just request a motion for minor amendment to the order of conditions to allow this to be installed okay I'll make that a motion for the minor uh minor requirements for the amendment second I catch you on it's all right I'm so excited so Fletcher your boat hi Anna hi Larry hi LaRoy hi and I for me as well we are getting close um ah how do I get out of here here we go um yeah so complaints um monitoring reports there's really nothing major to report um I'll just this is this is very quick I'll make it super fast for you guys um there were I've been following up on a couple complaints here and there um and I just wanted to make you aware of two of them um one of them was a um a driveway which is on West Palm Roy Lane um and basically what happened was it was observed that they were installing the driveway putting down a base to pave and um there was pretty clearly a um Fragmite wetland um in the back of the property and so I contacted them went out there took some measurements um with them and um basically what what we ended up negotiating was that they remove a portion of the driveway and move it back a little bit so that they were outside of 100 feet and the landowner was totally fine with that um they put in erosion controls they pulled out the section that was it was literally like 20 feet within the 100 foot buffer they pulled out that section and then receded it as long so that they're um over 100 feet away so that was one resolution um and then okay so the other one was a complaint about some properties along Pulpett Hill Road um there's a gentleman who owns a property I believe on Mill Street and um he owns like a large piece of um well his his residential home and then there's like a large piece of conservation land that he owns as well that's um immediately adjacent abutting his property and then um there's a row of homes along Pulpett Hill Road where the the back acreage abuts his little piece of conservation land and his conservation land is his wetlands um and he contacted me because he noticed that a couple trees had been cut up back there um it was really relatively minor from where I from my perspective it looked like there was three dead dead trees that had fallen that somebody had cut up with a chainsaw into um you know log size pieces that they would use for cordwood and then there was one tree that appeared to be um a fresh cut um so it was maybe a total of four or five trees that had been cut and that was spread out amongst I would say an area maybe 200 feet wide so it wasn't like a clear cut or somebody was out there doing any major damage it was it was it was pretty minor um nonetheless the guy was concerned that Dia Butters were coming down there and cutting land on his you know this area that he was keeping in conservation so I reached out to the three landowners and um I believe that I determined who who the person who was doing the cutting was and I've been in touch with them to try to encourage them to go about this the right way if basically letting them know hey if you do any future cutting you need to file a permit you need to do a wetland delineation and um so anyways I'm working that out but I just wanted to make sure that you guys I kept you guys in the loop about it um 99 Pulpit Hill Road was one of the properties that was in in this row of homes and you may recall last year there was an enforcement order on their property because they were doing some clearing out in the back on this guy's property which is part of the reason why he's keeping an eye on things and he was upset um and so I requested a follow-up um on their enforcement order because they were supposed to be doing a restoration plan in the back so that's it uh just wanted to give you a quick update on the complaints and how I was following up on them but I don't think it rises to the occasion of enforcement does this happen to be the same person the same landowner who was encroaching last time or is it a different person it's a different neighbor um yeah the guy who committed the violation wasn't the one responsible for this um I think it was a different individual and he thought he was on his property and he was he said just cutting dead dead trees that were down and he didn't know that there was anything wrong with that which really cutting dead tree cutting up a dead tree that falls over is okay um it's just a question of where the property boundary is and um whether the tree is live or dead you know just to make sure that I'm giving you know clear guidance to folks so okay thank you Erin you're welcome I think that's everything so we're good I believe that's everything I think we covered everything Dave um since we missed your update at the beginning granted you know it's about 9 9 30 now but I'll give you a chance if you you know any quick updates that you wanted to provide Dave or given the late hour I think I won't I will just share this one observation Brad and Tyler were out on station road doing some brush hogging today and they encountered a female moose with a calf uh right near the hop brook uh oh my god yeah so kind of a cool sighting uh down a trail I think they were off uh they're gonna send some videos so if I get it I'll send it to Erin and she can distribute it to you all but kind of a cool sighting I mean moose are more common but seeing a a female with a calf is kind of cool on station road that's great awesome amazing yeah okay thank you Dave so with that unless I hear anything else looking for a motion to adjourn go Larry so moved second let's hear hi LaRoy hi Larry hi Anna hi and I for me as well thank you everyone we're good good job everyone enjoy have a safe Thanksgiving thank you guys happy Thanksgiving everyone see you guys