 Okay, welcome to the October 27 2021 Amherst Conservation Commission meeting. First agenda item is comments from the chair me. My only comments are that while our agenda looks short we have three hearings. They're all pretty complicated projects with a lot of interested parties. So we're going to have to, if you guys can help me, stay on task. I'm going to, as we open the hearing setups and pretty clear guidelines on like time allotments and topics and how we behave discourse during the meeting. So, yeah, so I appreciate everyone's support sticking to that kind of walking the line between making sure everyone feels like they're included and heard, and has the information they need, but then also maintaining forward momentum. Yeah, Anna. The Roy is in the attendees list. Oh, getting them right now. Sorry, thank you. No problem. Do we have him. I just appointed him. He should be popping in. Okay. I've got a check and so on with that. So yeah, hello Roy, sorry. I was just saying you have what seems like a short agenda with three hearings but they're pretty dense hearings with lots of interested parties so as we open the hearings I'm going to set some pretty clear guidelines about kind of a timeline and time limit for each part of each hearing and each hearing. And so I was just saying, I appreciate everyone's help kind of finding that balance between making sure that everyone involved is included heard has the information they need, but then also keeping forward momentum and efficiency and a kind of avoiding redundancy and moving off topic too far. So, help me keep track of who needs to talk when and, and let's stay on this on the schedule as much as possible. I appreciate that. Because as you guys know, I'm bad at zoom. So any help is good. That's all I had to say on that. So director report Dave. Hi Dave. Did you have anything to share? Good evening. I actually don't. I know I want to support Anna during her discussion of the CPA proposals so I would, I would defer to to Aaron if she has significant updates for the commission. I'm happy to take some time if you have it later but I would give my time over to Aaron. Thanks Dave. Yeah Aaron. Yeah, I mean I, I envision that we move right into the open space or land use application and the CPA updates and whichever we do first is really kind of at your discretion I see my gauge in the panelists. If we want to start with CPA. That would be fine with me. Okay. Okay, then. Meg, I'm going to promote you to a panelist so you can join us. All right, so this is a CPA on mute. All right. So, how are we structuring this on I know you're a liaison to the CPA do you want to kind of run this talk from this. I guess I'll defer to Meg so Meg I put together a little quick presentation with the three proposals that apply to concom. So if you think it'd be helpful for us to have an overview first and then you go I'm happy to do that. But if you are ready to go now and want to start with yours and then let me. Why don't you do the overview so people have a context. And I'm curious to see what the other two are ours is quite straightforward and I know how busy or I just heard what Jen said about the meeting so ours. Why don't you give the overview and then maybe what I have to say I'll be briefer because of what you said. Okay. So second question, Aaron I had sent you some slides do you want to drive or do you want me to drive. I don't. Well it's, it's entirely up to you if you prefer, but I can also I've got it queued up so I can. I would love you to so that I can look at my notes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right, so just while she, you're so fast. Okay, so there are three proposals that are particularly relevant to Conservation Commission, the mill river historic trail general trail improvements and then Hickory Ridge trail So just to give you a quick picture. One of the things that is interesting about CPA this year is that is different from last year is we have more projects than funding. So we will have to be making some choices this year which we did not have to do. Last year we got, we got lucky, or I don't know if I'd call it lucky but that was the situation last year. So the first one the applicant for the mill river historic trail McGage is with us representing the district one neighborhood association, and they're applying for an amount of $12,900. The trail improvements and Hickory Ridge are both coming from town of Amherst Dave can speak to those as well once I finish the overview of this. The trail improvements is for 50,000 the Hickory Ridge application is for 150,000. Next one. So this is an overview here. Yeah, thanks. So I know this is a lot of text, all of my presentation design instincts were screaming at me but bear with me. So the overview of the mill river historic walking trail. This is really, you know they they came before us last year and I guess speaking personally for myself, it's a really exciting project. And so we, I'm glad it was not accepted last year under the kind of qualifications of CPA which are very specific. And so I was really excited to see them come back this year and frame it and change the project enough to fit those CPA guidelines. So the overview is that they're trying to conduct research on the historic infrastructure and historic sites along the mill river. The history and the present conditions this is something where you know historic artifacts have been found we know that that some of these historic sites exist, but they've never been preserved, or recorded on site necessarily. So they are applying for funding to conduct that research there are four sites along the mill river. And the project includes the river and the adjacent like the bank area, right. So the, the reason why we are included is obviously it's the mill river, as well as it's on the entire project is on conservation land. The things I want to pull your attention to are actually more of the implications for phase two of this project, which is actions to preserve the site so wanting to make sure that we are very clear on the conservation conditions and the needs, as we think about preservation there, as well as signage that they're hoping to create along the trail so again we want to just make sure we've talked about signage a lot but we haven't necessarily had the time to sit down up with a comprehensive plan and so I think we want to make sure that we are being very clear in in what we need for what our expectations are for signage and not disturbing the environment with it. So my lightning fast overview of the first project. Quick questions now knowing that Meg is here ready to answer your questions better than I can, after I'm done. Okay, next one Aaron. So, oh sorry I have pictures I took your pictures Meg. So, these are some of the pictures I'm, I'm going to just rush through these because, Meg we can pull this back up and you can explain what these are better than I can buy. These are unless you want to know. I think showing them I know how busy you are but the one. These are examples of dams and the structure on the right side isn't there anymore but we hope to describe what it was. Yeah, you're doing an awesome job. Very fast. I looked at this agenda and like got my cup of tea ready so next one Aaron so this is the next ones are the next pictures are the current status of the sites and so you can see where you know some of this historic. These historic sites are quite literally crumbling and so you know thinking about trying to balance that historic preservation and recognition with conservation. As we think about these sites going forward, I think there might be one more. Nope. So then, it's okay you can keep. I'm going to, I'm going to blaze right through people know they can interrupt me, I hope. Town of Amherst trail improvements this is something that we've seen in other contexts but this is this request is specifically going to, to CPA. The trails saw increased use during the pandemic, the, the scope of this, you can see what they're trying to purchase right materials and equipment rental to improve the trails it's pretty, this one's pretty cut and dry. As well as replacing Bob bridges to to make sure that we're protecting the wetlands that bridging needs to go over. And again, similar why we are involved all of these are on conservation land, because it's to improve trails on conservation land. So really it's just that we've seen more wear and tear. These trails need, need improve maintenance, as well as some ADA improvements when required. And then we got no pictures on this one I don't think so next one. Last one big one Hickory Ridge so we know Hickory Ridge is a big undertaking the town is is going for we're able to use as a reminder, you can't use CPA funds on conservation projects that were not purchased. We were able to use CPA funds and so Hickory Ridge because we were able to support that with CPA funding we're able to use CPA funding to maintain it so this is to construct new walking trails as well as improve the existing cart paths and make those into accessible trails. So this includes the existing bridges, I don't know if anyone else was able to get out there for the, the tour sessions with Dave, but some of the bridges, they, you know, they put up the snow fencing just to make sure nobody fell in the bridges need some some support there. And really, you know this is one of the things that is amazing about Hickory Ridge is that it's going to provide access to conservation land to a few different apartment complexes that have not had easily accessible land before. So this is creating trails that are that folks can access Hickory from a couple different points. The other part, which we're getting back to signs again is kiosks and benches so the benches are for real relaxation the kiosks might include maps rules and environmental education. So, you know something to consider, you know this is a town project so obviously Dave already knows what we're dealing with in terms of signs but it's worth considering kind of what we what we want to see in terms of kiosks there. And you know our implications not only will part of Hickory be conserved but also maintenance will be will be a consideration because that's something that Brad and Brandon, I'm so used to saying Brad and Tyler that it's so hard to switch over. We'll have to conservation staff will have to maintain and so we want to make sure we're setting them setting them up for success and whatever trails go in there. Crush stone dust permeable solid as well. And that means that they're walkable but they're also rollable for for wheelchair access. This also funding will be used for a geotextile fabric and gravel borough and crush crush stone for the top course so the edges of the trail will be will be grassy and we do have pictures in this one, and this is also a believe in your packet. If you didn't get a chance to check it out so I know this is tiny but this is the overall map with the the proposed trails. So you can kind of see how those link up to the different apartment buildings and then you can also see the solar sites on there that we permitted a while back I can't remember when that was but a while back. And next. So these are, I included Dave's captions but this, these are where trails will go that are current fairways so they're not. There is no existing cart path and the proposed trails run through areas like this where it's grassy go to the next one Aaron. And then you can see what the existing cart trails look like it is pretty amazing how quickly. We have nature's reclaimed hickory ridge and so it's it's pretty amazing, pretty incredible to watch that happen. But that includes the cart paths and we want to keep those as trail as much as possible so we want to try to improve the condition there. And then you can see the Fort River, you know so much of this work is in service of restoring the quality of the Fort River. And you can see the bridge there which will need a little bit of a little bit of attention as well. I think that's yeah. So what I'm hoping you will do is ask me lots of questions but we have not started the hearings for these projects yet so if you have questions that you want me to bring forward to the to the town of Amherst. Meg is here so you can ask your questions right now but if something comes up, know that I will have another chance to to be hearing from the folks proposing these projects. And then you know if we support them or not we can we can kind of voice that support in, I will voice that support on our behalf in those hearings, or lack there of. Should we be interested that middle step invite groups to present, we have both groups here so we are lucky to be able to hear from both of them. Tonight and in the future, if we would like to. I think that's that wraps it up for me any questions for me before we turn it over to Meg. One question what what is the amount of funding that's available. It's a really good question Larry and I should have looked it up right beforehand and I will pull that up for you and have it by the end of Meg's talk. Because I as soon as I said that I was like, I should be able to I should have been prepared with that amount, unless Dave knows it off the top of his head but I'll get it for you. Next question. I think it's about 1.5 million but you're on just definitely looking out. Yeah, I will. Michelle. I was just wondering what the priority levels were for the maintenance of the existing trails like specifically throughout Amherst just before funding any new projects. Just like what what is actually high priority for fixing bog bridges and maybe wetlands at risk and maybe that's something you have to come back with but that would be helpful and making a decision I think. That's a really good question I'm going to see if Dave has an answer to that now if not I will give him a week and then I will ask, I will get back to you. Yeah, no, I think I can answer that right now. But I don't, it's not a database to answer what I can say is this is that there are no capital virtually no capital funds to maintain trails in the town of Amherst. So, we have an operating budget every year that funds to staff members to FTEs to work on trails. But there's no capital money, virtually no capital money to go with that. And for years have kind of beg pleaded and borrowed from different sources to try to find money to replace bridges to do ADA trails and predating me working for the town Pete Westover who was the conservation director for 30 years. You know, did private fundraising go for grants, etc, etc. Right now as an example we're, we're trying to finish up as much of the rubber frost trail as we possibly can we got about a $30,000 grant for the rubber frost trail through the DCR rec trails program. So the bottom line is there's way more need there's way more demand out there than even $50,000 will fund. They're working on a couple of bridge replacements. And I will be honest, one of those bridges might be $35,000. So $50,000 seems like a lot, but it's really not. And then the related question is, do we fix what we have or or or or start something new. And I wish there was a clear kind of answer that the bottom line is, if we buy it, they will come so if we proceed with Hickory Ridge, which I think is the full intention of the town. We've got to be ready to do something at least minimally out there to make it accessible and inviting and safe for people to use it they're already using it now and we don't even own it. So hundreds of people are using it monthly, even though Barry Roberts still owns it. So what we've done is twofold we've applied for community development block grant funding. And I think I mentioned this at the last meeting but I think the number was $180,000 to create a core trail north south at Hickory Ridge. And we see this $150,000 as a supplement to that to create branches on that core tree that core trail to enhance some of the existing car pass that are already there. So I hope that kind of answers it but there's there's need in both places. And I wish we could I wish we could buy Hickory Ridge. Tell everyone to pause and not use it for a year or two until we we get a master plan done but the reality is we've got to hit the ground running and get some of those at least the basics done directional trails and some of the the connecting trails done as soon as possible. So there's, there's need out there, greater than than what we've put on on CPA. I hope that helps Michelle. Larry to answer your question, it's a little under 1.4 million that we have available for us this year and we have for just over 4 million in applications and debt service that we're paying. So that's that's the whole state I assume. No, what? No, no, that's just amused. Just that just amuse. Okay, is it is it possible with some of these that are here now to to write them as phased. So it's phase one of the golf course or phase one of the of the town trails and set it up that way so that it can be hit in multiple years. I think I'm going to look to Dave to correct me on this I think typically when projects are are submitted that are significant so last year we had an application for the, for the Jones library, special collection, right, that was, we bonded it and so we're still paying this on those projects and actually I'll look to Fletcher to to correct me on this too but I'm not my question though would be I don't know if the projects need to apply. In that, with that assumption or not, we can always ask that question, but it's not I think with these particular these projects they're not necessarily big enough that we would phase them. I don't know if they are possible to be phased that would be a question for Dave. Now that's a good question Larry just to follow up on what Anna said. So I'm staring at the proposals on my desktop there are 18 total which is a lot as Anna indicated, and there's way there's far more asks than there, there is money. So typically the purview of the CPA see to. If they if they so choose they can, they can reduce the amount of the award essentially they can say well, you've asked for 150. So, you know, they could say the same thing you did Larry. Oh, you know, we'd be willing to entertain $75,000 and come back to us next year. For the rest or something like that. Again, for a proposal as small as modest I would say as megs and the North Amherst folks I would say, you know, let's my hope is they would support that and we're, this ours is now step one of what we proposed last year, which was for 160,000 for this wonderful community project that was too much and we kind of talked past the sale. And now we're just proposing step one, which is exactly what Larry said is what we're doing for 12,900. I'm just agreeing with you it's the CPA has really. You could say arcane or specific or narrow or things they can, you know, very prescribed, lots of neutral word. Yeah, it is very prescribed. And so the proposal was too much so what we're now looking for I don't want to change the subject from general discussion of conservation projects but that's exactly what Larry proposed is what we did. Yeah. But Larry I'm sorry. No I was just gonna say I will I will ask that question of the Hickory Ridge. Hickory Ridge proposal I think that you know it's one of the things that's helpful to think about is what needs to be done all at once versus kind of what can feasibly be phased in and to Dave's point. So I think we should stop using the using the resource right and so, is it better to spend that money so we have the trails versus people making their own trails, which is not what we want. So, right, I mean there's consideration to, to both of us, Jen did you have a question. Well, yeah, or just maybe a point of clarification. The other thing is that CPA can't commit future dollars. When you said phased Larry I was also, it made me think like, Oh, could you say okay I'm proposing a three year project and it's X amount of money of $50,000 over three years but that's not how CPA works right like they can only commit money for the coming year. For the most for the most part that's true Jen in Amherst and many other towns. When you bond something you are actually making a multi year commitment so when we, when we bond a open space acquisition or we bond an affordable housing project over 10 years sometimes you're making a 10 year commitment and you, you can only really say we're going to give you, you know if it's a $500,000 bond will give you $100,000 this year but we're going to cover the $400,000 in year 234 or five, and then, and then the interest. But yeah they typically would not. They do not say hey 150,000 for trails will give you half this year and half next year they typically would not do that. And the commitment is for bonding over multiple years. Okay, thanks. The other thing I just want to say about trails and and I've been thinking about this. As I sit in this chair longer is is I'd love to have I mean I'd love to be able to say that Amherst has the best trails in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the most accessible miles of trails. The best, most well maintained trails and bridges and bog bridges and all of that. I would be lying to you if I said that's where we are, we're not there. And I can't tell you how many times people have said, you know they talked to me about where they've been hiking and they say, oh the Conti the Conti trail in Hadley. And you know sometimes I get a little defend defensive I guess is the right word because I go wow, you know why does everybody love that trail and part of the reason is, it's easy to use it's accessible. It's granted it's all, it's all pressure treated and and whatnot I don't think we're going to get there, but I'd like us to be I'd like to be more proud of the condition of our trail the condition of our bridges. I'd like consistent parking I'd like consistent kiosk signage and and branding that people when you get to an Amherst trail you know that's what it is and unfortunately we're not there yet, but I do think we need some funding to get there. I think you should look at it not as a failing Dave but as a huge potential. I mean the land. No but to the to your point like you know the amount of conservation land that we have is amazing it's just that our marketing is lagging like the preservation of the land you know so yeah. And if you if you live here you probably can find it and, but if you're not from here you're just visiting for the weekend or a week or, or your family or whatever. You know, are the maps, well, well, well, publicized and and up to date are the, are the kiosk is everything blazed well, all of those things. I think we need to step up our game. Oh, sorry. I really I had full intentions of keeping myself to 10 minutes and then I forgot about the questions part but sorry Jen. Am I allowed to air and am I allowed to say if folks have other questions they want me to ask the applicants that they can email. Is that missable. Yeah, so to you and you can you if it's from board members concom members if you email me I'll consolidate them and then we can go through me so that it's not any. That would be great. I was I was trying to remember my packet in my head. So yeah, any other questions, email them to Aaron and then we'll have we have Meg here now. I will I have to consult my CPA agenda just to confirm when each hearing is but they're the next few weeks. So get those questions to Aaron hopefully soon the proposals are in your packet in the SharePoint file. And then Meg take. Okay, I'll be really brief because I know you did such an awesome job describing our project. And Dave I just want to say I love that you sit in that chair. I appreciate Aaron's leadership over and over and all so many ways so thank you, Aaron. I don't need to say too much last year we applied for $160,000 for a really spectacular big project that would involve the community and make this conservation area a magnet for people who want to come and learn about our history. North Amherst along the Mill River was an industrial center of Western Massachusetts through much of the 19th century. In fact in 1775 when the revolution started, there were already six mills on the Mill River and North Amherst. And we see our project is a conservation project basically. It's a miracle that it's all on conservation land and so that it's protected. Many of the sites actually we're on the summer street side of Mill River and they've all been totally demolished but there are a number that are right along the river right along the trail I mean you don't even have to make a new trail to get to them. We know that people are out treasure hunting digging down for Civil War coins and buttons and we have a picture I didn't have it here but we our hope is to conserve what's left of these sites and with minimal signage everybody's really worried about signage. So I want to say something about that in a minute. We would help people who walk along the trail to be able to understand the history and thanks to qr codes. People can, you know, get their phone and boom boom be have access to a website and photographs and extensive information that you wouldn't want to put on a sign. So just to be clear, whatever signage there is will be determined through a process that we all participate in. We don't want to disrupt the, the natural beauty of this already I know because I don't have an opinion on it but I know there's different opinions about the story trail story book thing. 18 signs, I doubt we'll have 18 signs all the way to kushman but there are some places where you'd want to sign to say, there was a Puffers pond for example the ice business was a really big deal, harvesting ice in the winter and saving it so we don't have ice. This is before electricity during the summer and the clam club, which is right off the trail, and there's still a mitten of clamshells, which was a men's club, a drinking club. Just, just a little bit west of kushman common. The history that's really can be illuminated with just with, with very, very little intrusion into the conservation elements of the, of the trail. The committee we're forming that'll do that'll monitor. So I think there'll actually be more surveillance and protection than there. There is now people we have a committee identified of about 15 people in the district who will sort of take responsibility for making sure that people aren't treasure hunting and and demolishing the stones minutes people innocently take these stones apart. For example, last summer when the beach was limited because of COVID some people would go upstream and take stones from wherever they could find them and make dams in order to create deeper water. You know it's not intentional piracy but it's slowly destroying some of these historic treasures. I mean really it was quite the industrial center until things moved to Holyoke with the greater Connecticut River that had so much more potential. And most people don't know about it. When I actually got first interested in this when I was teaching history at Amherst High School decades ago many, many in the 70s. My students had to write research papers and I get these cool papers about the Hat Factory on Summer Street or the paper mill. And there's a lot of information but it's got to be pulled together. Someone said that a lot of stuff is in Pete Westover's basement. So I called him and he said yeah there's some boxes I've got a lot of notes and there's research that's been done I don't know if I can find it well we need to get those boxes and put them in the historical system read through them and put them in the historical society. So I, I could go on and on so excited about this project but I'll stop and just say in one sentence, the scope of this particular proposal for $12,900 is only to hire to work with an archaeology team, wonderful team that we've been working with, you mass we're so lucky to be next door you mass it has all this amazing talent that will do the preliminary research on four sites, the canal, and the, in the Mill River in the dam at the recreation area, the clam club and the to Robert Smills that have the most significant foundations left. And then we'll go from there. Thank you. I want to shirt the clam club on it because that's amazing. The club was was a men's club except for wedding perceptions for the, I think back then they were heterosexual weddings. All right, so any questions for Meg now, or if you come up with them again, please email them to Erin and she can compile them. Okay. Well, we're going to keep going Meg much. Thank you. I'm going to hang in because I'm interested in the rest of the agenda so but I'll be in the background. We'll beat you I think general. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Anna. Thank you for doing that. And good luck with the coming meetings. All right, so it's 735 I have so we can start our first hearing which is TRC for ASD shoots great. I'm a solar LLC for the construction of a solar photovo tail it will take energy generation facility and access road and buffer zone to be VW at shoots very road. And I believe, let's see. Great, Aaron. Yes. I'm going to promote you to a panelist. Was there anyone else do you think or I guess I'll wait for Maria to join. Oh, I have another hand up. So this is, we're just looking for people who are presenters right now for the applicant. I put the wrong Maria public comment. Public comment I think we'll probably be doing in a little while so. Yep. Yeah, so if you're part of the public joining for public comment, give us a second. Maria are you there. I am here and welcome. I'm also presenting if you could, he should have raised his hand. Who is sorry Andrew. Yeah. Okay, we should have Andrew. Okay, so first before we kick off this hearing. I'm going to create some structure for a timing for these hearings tonight. Just because we have very dense hearings and we're going to have a lot of people to hear from so in order for everyone to be able to participate we're going to do a five minute presentation by the applicant. Five minute comment from staff, five minute Q&A from commission. And then, I mean, we would love to keep public comment to 10 minutes but what we'll do is for now is say two minutes per member of the public. And I would just ask if we're, say we're glad you're here we're glad you're engaging with us on this. We're looking for hearing what people have to say, but I will also say that our job is to protect the water resources and the wetlands and Amherst so please share your comments and input germane to like what we have the ability to do here. So while I know that a solar array at the on this property could have impacts and a lot of far reaching ways in the ecosystem I 100% appreciate that I 100% appreciate our reaching implications go to and bad of this kind of development. So what we can do here is protect the water resources and wetlands involved. So, so please help me focus our conversation on things that this board is kind of in charge of. And the last thing I'll say is just that we really need to maintain a healthy respectful discourse here and if people are going off the rails and I feel like we're not having a productive conversation listening to each other and being respectful of everyone's opinions I will ask you to stop talking and I will mute you if I have to. And so please be respectful, the fact that there's a lot of varied interests for you some these lands and in protecting our water resources and be respectful of other people in the meeting. So with that, Maria Andrew welcome. As you heard we're going to give you about five minutes to give an overview of the project. I understand that we're still waiting on responses to comments from Aaron or questions from Aaron and questions from the DEP so I think in the long run will be continuing this hearing again. But maybe you could give us a brief overview now. Yes, Andrew started. Great. Thanks everybody for your time I appreciate it I will try to be very brief. Everyone's time is very valuable. My name is Andrew Shabo I am a senior manager at AMP Energy, leading our Massachusetts projects and amp energy is a solar developer seeking to develop solar and often coupled with energy storage projects on their projects. I'm here by Maria first and Berg from TRC the engineering firm, working with us to make sure that we're complying leading all the environmental efforts on site. This project in particular is located off shoot sprayer road. It's across three parcels that comprise about 100 acres or so, for which the disturbed acreage for the project would be about 45 acres, give or take. And the system size is roughly expected to be about 11 megawatts DC, as it's currently planned as proposed. But with that, TRC has done a lot of work assessing the environmental footprint impact here so I will couch it there and I will turn over to Maria to get into the nitty gritty. Thanks. So, we have been involved with this for a while we've actually been in front of you before for an Android for this site. So, all of the resources present at the site have already been reviewed, and the limits have been agreed to. And this project is is really looking at the design of the project at this point. We are very sure about where everything actually is with respect to the questions that we received from Aaron, we were under the impression that we'd be able to go through those with you tonight. We also received DEP's comments earlier today. So, with. If I could just address that so those initial questions I was sort of hoping to get just written responses from those so that I could prepare a report with recommendations to the board. I mean, do you want to like show a plan of the property or a map of the property or anything like that just as a part of like sort of the initial introduction. That would be really helpful just for my own purposes I read through all the documentation but any sort of map you have site plan would be extremely helpful. Just an overview. Really. I might be able to pull something up if you have something I'm just finding the right screen. Can everyone see that. Yes, we see yep. So this is the overall site plan. Access proposed off of shoots very road. This is actually an existing access onto this property that we are proposing to use and extend as needed to about here for this project. As you can see, we have avoided wetlands in our placement and in most places we have only used a limited amount of the buffer zone because of shading. So do you have specific questions about the site layout at all we. So, thank you for that. I think that really here. You know Aaron has taken a first look at this and in order to kind of issue her full report or a full review of the project she needs answers to several detailed questions which I know she emailed to you. So, I guess, Aaron, do you want to say anything further as part of your report. I would, I would sort of yield for public comment at this point I what I would like to do is get the responses from trc to my questions the responses to the dp comments and then if there are any pertinent comments that come up tonight that they they my understanding of their intention was to sort of collect all questions and then issue a written response that was holistic and addressed all questions and then once I have a chance to have a look at that then I feel like I'll be more prepared to have a report as far as how the project complies with the regs from my perspective. Yep. And commissioners Maria would you mind if stopped to stop sharing your screen. I just asked one question Jen before she does where's the point of interconnect where's the interconnection point here is it. Where is it Maria. Andrew, would you mind answering that I believe that it comes in along the access room but that is correct it does come in along. Commissioners any other clarifying questions here. While we have the drawing up. I have a question for Aaron which is, I didn't see the dp comments in our file do you have those and are we able to see them. Yeah, they just came in about 11 o'clock today so that's why they haven't been shared yet. Yeah, and I guess I should zoom out on that point of clarification there for all of the hearings tonight materials came in literally today during business hours, partially during business hours and then after Aaron's working day so unfortunately if we don't have materials 48 hours before the meeting it's impossible for us to do it like a full thorough technical review not to mention, even getting it to the commissioners in order for us to see it. Yeah, so that is not Aaron's fault. We need a little bit more time with these materials to work through it. As I know you know on. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it that's all. Yeah, of course. Thank you. Yep. And also commissioners I'll put you to the packet. There's a long list of Aaron's clarifying questions for me one of the big ones is understanding the stormwater modeling on that's been done on the site, where we just need a lot more technical information as to understanding the resulting changes to stormwater runoff to the resources on the site in order to fully review this project. Any other comments or questions. I have one that was just really simple and I apologize if it was addressed I did read all 369 pages of this thing. But Maria, I know I see you I probably every single one. I got posted on them and everything. But you know I think my question is I'd love to see sort of the cost benefit analysis of why the road needs to be in the buffer, and what the impact would be just to scooch it out of the buffer for y'all in terms of the process and what that the loss of panels would be on that I know I mean it's like, it's, it's so close. Yeah, just, just so that everyone can see we're talking about this piece of the access right here and the reason that it was placed there is because that's where the existing access already is. You're not gaining anything really by moving the road out of there it's it's already a clear cut area. So and then the next one down though the next little bump out where the wetlands kind of look like bite marks and plan that also goes within the, the buffer as well doesn't it. The access road is not within the buffer there is a small amount of tree clearing in that area because of shading. It says proposed 15 foot compacted and vegetated maintenance access path is not is that not on my map I'm on page 81 right now but I know it's on a couple other ones. Right next to the outlet proposed outlet pond. Are you just reading this. No it is however outside of your 75 foot, no structures on. But to Anna's point it is proposed to be honest. Sorry. I guess I'd still love kind of the thoughts on what the cost would be if it were moved out of that buffer, as well. Sorry just give me a second to make sure I've got questions as Aaron noted we were trying to compile everything, especially because there's an overlap between what Aaron asked about and what the EP asked about so we wanted to make it easier for everyone to actually see everything. Looking for my other post it's Jen. Sorry. No no problem. So to summarize on I you would say the question is, can we get the access road out of the buffer. It's an accurate summary. Yeah. And then my other thing my other question, Maria is on page and again, I want to just make sure I'm reading these correctly on page 67. The, I feel like these are all the same map but for some reason in my head I was like no this page is the specific one I want to talk about the clearing. Is that noting that the clearing up at the hand let me zoom out, kind of a smack dab in the middle there. Is the clearing going right up to that 50 foot or line that I think it's a 30 foot 30 foot thank you yeah so clear is in with it far within that buffer is that correct. It is up to that line that is per year regulations, how far we're allowed to clear in in that particular area. We are clearing up to that line. In a lot of other areas we are staying further away. And that is again dictated by shading direction so that's why some areas have more buffer zone depth of impact than others. Yep. And then I've been a question Aaron for you sorry Jen I, I only I think I only have like seven posts. Aaron my question is, if Maria if you don't mind going up to page 65. And what's the impact of having a vernal pool that's isolated right in the middle like that. What are the, is that I mean. Yeah I mean well vernal pools are all the species that rely on them are migratory species so they can travel up to 400 feet around a vernal pool so if you. I mean, we have 100 foot no disturb and I believe their proposal is to stay within those bounds. But it would, it would pretty much isolate the pool. Would the pool last, in your opinion. I don't think it would do anything good for the pool. Or the species in the pool. Yeah, but so that so they're, they're meeting our 100 foot no touch for vernal pools and there's nothing we really we can do to change the delineate resource elimination at this point. That does come back to some stormwater questions that Aaron had detailed. So I get again I would just draw your attention to the the detailed technical questions about stormwater modeling approach and results. Maria from Aaron. And a couple of my questions were about connectivity, like how we could create connectivity, so that there might be a passageway created in some cases like right under where it says sheet 305 there's a wetland that would essentially be. It would have solar panels all around it and so like that ice creating that isolated pocket of wetlands there. Like is there any way to provide some way for species to migrate in between those those pockets of wetlands there. Yeah, that was one of my questions. So that's yeah. Thank you. That was the better way of articulating my, my question of like, what does this mean. And right, kind of lessen any impact of that being isolated. Right. Yeah, what can we do to help. Yeah, I totally understand they are within the buffer, not disagreeing on that at all but just again like about the resource. Yeah. Okay, I think that's all I had for now. So, no need to apologize thanks Anna commissioners other questions. Can, can I please have an opportunity to address the question. Sure. So, the, as has been stated we are maintaining the full hundred foot buffer around the vernal pool areas, which was something that was discussed back when we did the and rad work. So, this is her master EP's guidance, a wildlife gap around the entire facility, which allows the movement of small and midsize animals throughout this entire area. So, all of these species that are dependent on vernal pools will have full access to this area without changing anything as it's currently presented. I'll latch on a little there as well. What that looks like is it's typically a six inch gap on the fence on the ground floor, so that there's enough egress for small animals and wildlife to be able to move around at some dimensions. What is the surfacing underneath the panels look like that might be useful for the commission to know. It's vegetated. So it. I believe it's detailed on the plans what the seed mix is, but the outside of the access drive itself and the equipment pads. Everything is going to be vegetated with a wildlife. So it is designed to provide value for wildlife. So it's a lot of vegetation controlled. It's periodically mode. There's a maximum height where it would start to shape the panel so it gets moved a couple of times a year to make sure that it doesn't exceed that. So mowing other chemical controls as well. No. Sorry, just one other thing to add. So we will be seeking to pursue certification or UMass Amherst. So PV friendly pollinator certification, which does mandate that you have to use native vegetation, no chemical applications. And that is maintained only on a limited basis. It's typically once maybe twice a year. I believe the certification says you can't mow past was it April, so that you're allowing species time during the late spring and summer to propagate. Yeah, fully flower so that the pollinators can take into account stuff. So my next question is on point 4.2. So this talks about this being a limited project and and again, this isn't this may just be me kind of clarifying language here. So I hear you saying that you can't move that road because there's an existing road there. And so you want to keep it where it is, which is within the buffer, but a limited project qualifies as that's a new access roadway. So I'm curious about how those two things are aligned like is it a new access roadway, or are you stuck where you are because there's an existing road. So the project was designed to essentially use an area that was already degraded, if there was not an existing degradation of the buffer zone there then we would have stayed further away in that spot. So this was a limited project to limited projects. This was provided in the report as information just to remind everyone that the Welles Protection Act has provisions for encouraging renewable energy projects. Finally, you have to be impacting a resource area for a limited project to comply and the buffer zone under the Welles Protection Act state level is not a resource area. The other reason that we pointed it out is because you know technically we are within your no disturb zone of the buffer zone locally. So in that sense, we are within your resource area. There's a bit of a fuzzy line whether or not that technically applies, but it's good information to have everyone understand that, you know, there is a big push to have renewable energy for the long term environmental health of our communities. Let's ask a few other questions. So I noticed that the area is on a bit of a slope and I may have missed this because I read it but I didn't read it in great excruciating detail. When you're clearing the land are you clearing it all at once, are you going to clear it in like stages. So sheet 118. Find it for you is the phasing plan. The phasing plan is locating that it will be cleared in five phases. Thank you, Maria. So the phasing plan is essentially the these areas as outlined are the areas that we would do and the order that we would clear them in. So we're not clearing everything at once and we would be stabilizing an area before moving on to start clearing another area. So these areas are less than 10 acres. And then I didn't see on the other retention basins. Are you guys planning on using retention basins anywhere. Yes. Let me jump down to that. I can't stop talking whenever you want to. No, no, I, this is great. I encourage these questions. I, you know, a lot of this to Aaron and picked up on in her review as particularly the BMP is like, like basins to mention basins so I'm nodding along. Yes. So, starting on sheet 308 of the plans which is, if anyone has the full PDF open it's page 73. We have details for the detention basin, and they are, I believe just along the access road in a couple of spots, because those areas are steeper and that's what our modeling has shown is needed. What BMP are those detention basins what state in the stormwater BMP handbook which one do they are you guys qualifying that as as far as I understand it's a dry basin. Okay, because I thought that dry basins were pre treatment BMPs. So is there second some kind of secondary treatment for those at once the water settles and discharges. The calculations are in the stormwater report for how they decided what they needed. Right, I'm just wondering if there's a secondary BMP associated with the detention basin, because they're a pre treatment BMP so they're supposed to be. There's supposed to be a secondary treatment with dry detention basins. The stormwater report to find more details for you on that. I didn't see the TSS removal worksheet so I wasn't sure, because I don't believe dry detention basins meet the 80% TSS removal guideline. And Maria, I know you wanted to take time to answer some of these detailed questions from Erin and also from I know there's a list from the DEP as well so you know you don't feel like you can go through this 100 page. Yeah, I mean, I'm not a lot. The stormwater report for you right now. But I did want to show you the sheets in the plan set that had the visual details for you on the basins that you were asking about. Yeah. Thank you. She 308 through 310 has those. And they have a lot of different views of them for you so that you can see exactly what's being proposed. Yeah, I think, you know, I know there's, we're going to have more time to discuss this and subsequent meetings but I'm just going to be really interesting, you know, like the erosion and sediment control plans. That's something that I'll be really wanting to dig in more deeply into. And I'll be wanting to understand the classification of the soils on the site with respect to infiltration and runoff. And what is the data on how you characterized the soils and the capacity of the soils on site. That is again in the stormwater report. Great. Yeah, so if we can just be prepared to talk about that for the next meeting that would be great. Thank you to the plan sheets of the 400 number series is where you'd see the erosion and sediment control details. So Jen I'm a little worried that we're hitting the half hour mark and we haven't taken public comment yet. I'm just was just transitioning but trying to get a chance to respond to some of these questions. So I think we've moved through the, you know, presentation of the project staff comments, Commissioner questions, unless anyone else has anything burning, we are going to come back to a pretty technical discussion of this in the next meeting. So unless there's anything else commissioners, not seeing anything. I just wanted to put a plug in and I apologize. I have not read the materials as thoroughly as some of you but Laura had asked about the phasing and I think that's something that I'd like to really hear more about at the next meeting. You know, what is that phasing clear, you know, clearing the site in phases over what period of time. And as that relates to stormwater control and runoff and erosion control. Thanks. Great. Thanks, Steve. All right. So I want to move to public comments and I'll repeat that. I want to make sure we hear from as many people as possible but we're going to limit each person's comments to two minutes as long as a new point is being made. How long is that point is germane to the purview of this commission which is protecting the wetland and water resources on the site. So with that reminder, I'm just, if you are in attendance, raise your hand and I will work my way down the list, allow you to talk. Thanks. Thanks. I have Sharon. Sharon, you should be able to speak. Okay, hi. First, I just really appreciate you guys at the conservation commission for being so careful about this. So I have two questions. One is about the access road and Maria, you described it as degraded and I'm actually very familiar with those with this area and those. That area it's just trails fairly narrow trails through the woods and I don't understand them being classified as degraded already and that being a reason why we can go into the buffer zone and I worry that that's just a way to increase the area that's being clear cut. It's not being degraded to me at all it just seems like a little path going through the woods. So, that's a question I have and I'll just ask my second question, which is, when you're talking I keep hearing you talk as if this is a done deal like we are going to do this and this is what's going to happen and I don't understand that because this is just an application and so it's not necessarily for sure going to happen it depends on how things go so it's more like, if this is approved and if everything goes well this is what would happen. This is what's going to happen and so I just object to that language, as if it's a done deal it feels like it's sort of pushing something forward that is, is not yet a done deal. So, that's it. I appreciate that Sharon thanks for sticking to two minutes, and I'm going to ask that we kind of discourse through me on this so I'll first say that you're absolutely right Sharon this is an application and you are witnessing our technical review and our best efforts to protect their resources on this on this site, as much as we possibly can. In terms of Maria's, and I think we're as well aware of that so we'll continue doing the best possible review of this project this application as we can. I also appreciate your, your observation about the current status on the on the access road on the site. As you can, you've probably heard commissioners are asking if there's any way to get the access road out of the BBW kind of regardless of what the current status of the site is there. At that point, and thank you for being here. I should say that this hearing will be continued to the next Conservation Commission meeting which I think is on November 10th. Yeah, and so keep an eye on our website and please follow along and come come back. We appreciate you being here so thank you, Sharon. I stress the question about the status of the road. Sure. I'm using the term degraded because it is an old logging road. It is compacted. So there is not much actually growing in it, and it has been previously cleared. So with respect to the other buffer zone areas on the site. It is degraded because it does not support wildlife the way that these other areas do. It is absolutely nice place to walk around I have been all over this site myself. Great. Thank you Maria. Thank you. The next person I have is Lenore. I'm going to allow you to talk. I think you're muted. Am I unmuted now. Yep, we got you. And so I should have said if you could just quickly introduce yourself. Okay. Okay. Well, as you said, my name is Lenore, Rick and I live in Amherst. I don't know what other. I could, I could say that I, I work with an organization connected to climate action now which focuses on regenerative farming forests and food systems and that connection to climate. So I guess that is waves introduction. So if we're just going to talk about water and wetlands which I don't know how we can only talk about one thing because it's connected to everything but I don't know and maybe some people don't know that forests are intimately connected with water regulation with wetland protection. They drive the biotic the biotic pumps and some system they drive rainfall, they mitigate floods. They mitigate droughts they protect rivers. And so even though this is just a small part of the forested land. The way that you talk about protecting resources on this site. We think to like chop up land in our minds as humans and you can't do that you can protect sources on resources on one site without protecting resources in the greater area doesn't work like that just the way water, you know, up there is connected to water all the way from snow down the mountain down the river to the ocean and so nothing is is separated the way we look at it and even if we talk about this little vernal pool and that you know part of the ecosystem. There's, there's a, there's a hubris and an ignorance that that we do and I understand you're just one commission and just one area but but I'm asking us to have the responsibility to think of ourselves in as as the greater ecosystem to protect the ecosystem. And, and when, when we disturb one part, we're disturbing the whole ecosystem because we're, because forests are not just trees there, their networks between plants and animal species their communication networks and we're disturbing that no matter what we think we're protecting every time we we cut and clear, and even though this is not well and and, and we have to think about soil structure, even though you're only talking about water and wetlands, because the soil structure prevents flooding and droughts prevents erosion into the waters helps retain and protect the water retention that protects the water quality helps the microbes to protect from past and disease infestation helps by a diversity we can't separate any of that. And what's happening in our, in our, and I know this is not about your job is not to think about the purpose of this project but the purpose of this project is supposedly to provide solar as an alternative energy source, because of the climate impacts that we're in, but to sacrifice the health of a forest ecosystem to do that is actually sabotaging the most critical allies we have in healing from climate destabilization destabilization so I'm Thank you and our wisdom of the whole project. Yep, with that. That's your two minutes and we appreciate your your holistic input. Thank you. And our next participant with our hand up is Eric. Eric, I'm allowing you to talk if you could quickly introduce yourself, you have two minutes. Thank you Jen yes I'm Eric background I live on Shootsbury Road in Amherst. And I'd like to thank the conservation Commission for its hard work and commitment to protecting the environment for all of us. Most projects south of Shootsbury Road encompasses many significant water and wildlife issues and would be the largest solar project in Amherst to date. It's the first one that calls for the clear cutting of a huge swath 45 acres in a contiguous forest system. The environmental impact consequences of this project are enormous and irreversible. We are also not experts in the issues that this project raises, but we've seen during the very first concom and rad discussion about this project in 2019 that work done by developers must be validated by outside and independent consultants. Every aspect of this project should be scrutinized from a total environmental impact perspective. We saw how thoroughly you reviewed the initial TRC and rad report, and we commend you for having recognized the need for a rigorous and careful review of the work completed by TRC and for having the wisdom to engage independent and expert reviewers. The enterprise wetlands report subsequently prepared by Emily Stockman and associates cited several inaccuracies in TRC's initial wetlands assessment. The amended and rad was eventually accepted by the concom. This project encompasses an area near the Adams Brook, which flows into the Fort River is not far from the Atkins Reservoir and a bunch of neighborhood that relies on its wells. And it threatens the area's groundwater recharge system. This project is being proposed with an enlarge and interconnected ecological system at a time when precipitation in the northeast has increased by 53% since 1996 and the loss of topsoil from stormwater runoff due to deforestation is a serious concern. And now this application is before you again. We're asking that you impose the same rigorous due diligence in evaluating the project's operating assumptions, associated data and technical specific specifications, which directly relate to the project's impact on the environment. On the areas hydrology on the short and long term damage to water resource areas, local aquifers and wells on issues of stormwater runoff control on soil analysis and a loss of habitat and damage to wildlife. When I look at the aerial view of this project. It doesn't seem possible that the water resources that are here today could possibly exist after deforesting 45 acres around them. I'm not an expert. The common sense tells me we have some major issues here. And I hope you will insist upon independent, extensive and in depth environmental impact studies of this project. Thank you. Thank you for that. Well, perfectly two minutes. All right, we're going to move to Jenny. Jenny, you should be able to talk if you unmute yourself. A quick introduction and then you can you hear me now. Yes. Hey, I'm Jenny Callick I also live on shoots very road. Of course, very grateful to the commission for all the work you're doing. I'd like to address the state's attitude towards renewable energy. Seven months ago, Governor Baker signed a landmark bill entitled and act creating a next generation roadmap for Massachusetts climate policy. A central feature of the new law is the resilient lands initiative, which states that going forward, there should be quote, no net losses of farms and forest. Because science has shown that preserving farms and forest and reducing fossil fuel emissions are equally vital to reaching greenhouse gas targets. This has been the law for seven months. I understand that tonight the conservation commission begins to consider a proposal to deforest 45 acres. And the commission will have to find a way to protect the water source, and somehow to prevent a storm water disaster, both during and after construction. PRC notice of intent raises significant concerns as to whether this site is suitable for an in ground solar installation and particularly when the state no longer wants forest cut. In addition, consulting the natural resources inventory that amp submitted to the zoning board. They also found, and this is LEC's environmental consultants, that this particular site requires a series of serious mitigation measures to protect the site's natural resources, its water and wildlife. The site contains, as we know, wetlands and vernal pools, many species and is proximate to an endangered species, which is considered to be important when the site is looked at for cutting. Additionally, it is, as we know, adjacent to Adams Brook, which is classified as cold water fish resource, tributary to Fort River, and the source of our community's water. I'd like to echo what's been said, we definitely ask the conservation commission to look to other resources require a peer reviewed engineering report. And in addition to the services of a wildlife biologist to oversee construction as recommended by the LEC environmental consultants. Thank you for the time. Thank you very much, Jenny. Appreciate it. And I, again, if you are joining us for this hearing and you have a comment. If you can raise your hand, I see Jerry next Jerry. Hello, you should be hello. Can you hear me. Yep. I'm Jerry Weiss from South Amherst. And I actually just have a question I hope somebody can answer, because I understand that you are concerned with water and all of its aspects. And I am very impressed with the preparation that you've all done in having these hearings. The question is, is there any governmental body that will be looking at the entire ecological effects of such a project, the destruction of the forest and all that will entail loss of oxygen production, loss of habitat, etc. Is there anybody who's going to be looking at that before a decision is made. That's all I have to say. That's a great question. Commissioner, I might need you to chime in on this. I mean, so as you heard, it's in front of zoning as well. But aside from review of relevant town commissions, and for which, you know, have per view over the specific regulations involved in this project. I don't know of a holistic kind of ecosystem scale review that happens. Laura, I know you might have some more perspective on this. And Aaron, please chime in if I'm incorrect on that. I actually say that I think we're pretty fortunate numerous to have a, to have a commission that has, you know, to have a town that has a conservation commission such as this to focus on protecting wetland and so forth. There are plenty of, plenty of counties and states that don't have boards such as this to review applications. So, you know, there are a lot of there's no like holistic review but of course there are a lot of permits that go into constructing a solar farm. Yeah, and yeah, as I'm Jerry you might know but as Laura is referring to, you know, we have like, I think 350 or 351 communities in Massachusetts and we all regulate the Well and Protection Act locally. So the fact that this commission is doing this thorough of a review is something that's unique to Massachusetts it doesn't really answer your question though, and that is that there's not a, you know, holistic ecosystem review that goes into this instead it's, you know, done from a regulatory perspective. Yeah, yeah. From Towns and the Commission. Yeah, I do appreciate what you're doing. But I am worried about the whole ecology of this project. Hard to, hard to separate it out, but that's our, that's our job is to do our best to protect the resource we can under the Well and Protection Act and our town bylaws. Yeah, and Jen, could I just just agreeing with you and Laura that there isn't a comprehensive as Jerry asked a comprehensive review environmental review within your purview of the Comcom, you know, you will cover certain aspects of the project. I just wanted to also clarify that the project is not before the zoning Board of Appeals yet an application has been submitted, but there is. There is not a hearing date for the for the project. I also wanted to say that, you know, Amherst at this time does not have a solar bylaw on the books many communities in Massachusetts do. It's something that some residents of Amherst are interested in seeing. They brought that to the planning department's attention, but communities like Belcher town and many communities central in Central Mass and Western Eastern Mass to have bylaws solar bylaws on the books. So that's an avenue of people are interested in pursuing. Thanks. Thanks Dave, very much for that. And did you have something you look like you have something to add. Um, I just wanted to say that we are about seven or eight minutes away from having spent an hour on this hearing and I would just say maybe we should take one or two more comments and then we should probably try to move on and take more comment at the next meeting. Okay, Maria, I see you hold on so I was just going to say Aaron. Yeah, we have two more people with their hands, hands up so we'll see. Is that two more comments and we'll keep it to two minutes Maria did you have a response to Jerry or Yes, everyone did a fantastic job covering what happens locally. Just in case it wasn't clear. These applications get submitted to DEP at the state level and are also reviewed there and while DEP doesn't actively issue the permit at this stage it's it is a local permit. DEP does provide comments and guidance to the commission to help with the review. So those are the comments that we referenced earlier in the discussion that came in a little earlier today that DEP has done their review and provided that for all of us to chew on as well. Great clarification Maria and yet, like I said and I said before Jerry, stay tuned I mean what will happen in our next meeting on October 10 is that Maria will come back with kind of responses to Aaron's technical review questions responses to Commissioner questions and responses DEP comments and questions. So there's a lot more, more to come on that. Thanks all. Yeah, thanks very much. Great. Michael. You should be able to talk if you unmute yourself. If you could give us a quick introduction and then limit your comments to two minutes, please. My name is Michael Lepinsky, a 30 year resident of Amherst and I live on Sheetsbury Road. And I have a great statement I've written but it sounds an awful lot like some of the other ones we've heard so I'm going to spare you that and I'll just submit that in writing, and you can add it to the record. I think what I would like to focus in on there were some specific issues that have been brought up already that as I look at the project and try to evaluate it and look for pros and cons. I'd like to bring to your attention some of the things you've, you've kind of taken a look at some of the things I don't think you have. One of the areas that I would hope that you look at is it seemed like in the project, they were using a pretty basic soil map that was, you know, just pretty generic. And it didn't look like there was any attempt by the developer to actually go out there and see what the soils really were. And I would urge you guys to put that as a requirement because I don't think those soil maps are that accurate. And I think that because erosion is such an issue with this and protection of the water is so such an issue I think it's really critical that we actually know what the soils are not just go by some generic map that I think has been proven not to be very accurate on other projects. And that slope is also a very important issue on this and some of you guys have brought that up already. One thing that I found valuable was at the Wheelock project up in Shootsbury, they had a they had a slope analysis map. And basically it's an overlay of the whole project that I'm sure you know you guys can read contour lines etc but it's not always easy to do it at a glance and basically it's just a colored map that overlays the project, which gives a person a good idea where things slope where is it steeply slope where is it flat. And I found that to be very useful and understanding the Wheelock project and I think it would be very useful if the developers did one of those for you I don't think it's much work, and it makes things clear. Along with that, obviously one of the biggest issues with this project is the Adam Brooke. Unfortunately, the contour maps that you're looking at in this development only show you the contours of the of the property. And that makes sense on one level, but on another level it doesn't make sense at all because if you go to the southeast corner of that of that project and you look at the contours there. It doesn't look that bad, but if you step off that map, another 50 hundred feet, you see that the slope down to the Adams Brooke is almost. It's almost a cliff. And it concerns me, after watching what happened in Williamsburg, and the kind of issues they had there with runoff from a site very similar to this. It concerns me that that once that water gets moving down that slope, it would have very easy access to Adams Brooke and I think that should be one of your, your main considerations and evaluating this project. Thank you. That's about two minutes. So I'm going to cut you off unfortunately. I think most of those we I appreciate those additional thoughts I think in terms of classifying the soils. We did, I think we brought that up a couple of times and I know Maria will be addressing that when we see her again on the 10th. I appreciate your, your thoughts on other ways to look at the, the slope on the product on the site. That's point taken. Okay, last participant bill. You should be able to talk. You can hear me. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Also in shoes. So first of all, thanks to the commission and really the expertise, you know, on the commission is, is it's good to see. So thank you very much. I'm really going to reiterate in some ways and maybe just add a little edge. What's been said about your potential, the larger ecology, you know, the effect on the groundwater the slope, the effect on the soils. I'm not sure is it within the commission's purview to be thinking about right the overall the impact of the land outside of those 45 acres up and down the road. And so I think that it's from my perspective it isn't just about the installation itself. And it's ecology. And as, as I think it was Jerry who talked about the much, much larger ecology, what we're somewhere in between as a part of. So I think that's, I hope the commission is also going to be looking at that. I think I'm particularly concerned about that, in addition to everything that's already been said, very well. So that's it for me. That's all I wanted to say. Phil, I think, you know, as you've deduced it, you know, we have to deal with the application in front of us, but there are ways that we control or can help mitigate impacts to water which is a flowing resource. So you've heard our focus on storm water and sediment management so there's a lot of concern about increased erosion and increased runoff and that is something that would certainly flow downstream. So focused on that aspects of the resource that we can help protect is the way that we help protect that and spoke for example downstream of the site. So it's not a perfect system but we're doing the best I can we can with the levers we have here. Okay, appreciate it. Yep. All right. I think that was our last hand. Okay, so unless anyone else has any final questions or issues to flag for Maria. Then I think what we're looking for is a motion to continue. I see Maria as a hand. There are a bunch of things that have been brought up this evening. And in terms of having a clear process forward. I was hoping that we could have a couple minutes just to clarify what's happening next. The verification of soil map accuracy has not been done. So based on the conversation, I believe the commission wants that done. So if I can get confirmation on that so that we can get it scheduled. Yes, actual soil pets. Sorry, Erin, go ahead. So no, so. Okay. We need soil. Right. Okay, I just want to ask one more question has, has depth to groundwater been confirmed on the site for the design of the storm water systems. Has there been exploratory borings to determine the surface to groundwater elevation for the design of the storm water on the site. My understanding is that test pits of any kind have not been done at this point. Okay, it is very common to use soil maps there are other counties where they are more relied upon. So yeah, so provide information for what is expected in the area. Yeah, so before like smaller soil profiles from when we did the delineation work but those are not what you need for the storm water design. I would say we need, we need to confirm soils and we need to determine depth to groundwater. Immediately, because there's no way to determine if the storm water systems are going to function are going to function as intended without knowing where the groundwater is on the site. We have a decent idea of where it is we know where it comes out in the wetlands because there are very steep slopes there, but your point is taken. I'm, I'm just trying to put together a list so that we know what we're going to be talking about at the next meeting and that's so we know what to be expecting. I'm wondering Maria, are you going to need more than two weeks to do that work because if so I mean I would almost recommend that we continue to the second meeting in November to give you more time, because I think that that's going to take some time. Frankly, the way this has been done we've been told we can't tell you a whole lot about the project this evening is a little atypical. I understand you have a lot on your schedule and that this is already run longer than you were hoping because you have a lot on your schedule. But with, with respect to what others have already brought up. I'm trying to know the commission's intent around a peer reviewer if the commission wants a peer review, we're supportive of however the commission wants to review this. Yeah, and we'd like to know that that process can be kicked off. With all due respect, we can't start with a peer review until the data has been collected in the field, like it would be putting the cart before the horse to say we're going to hire a peer reviewer if there's no data for them to review that if they don't have confirmed soil, if they don't have confirmed confirmed. You know, great. With all respect. You have almost 400 pages for them to review and they may have different questions than you have that we would answer. This is a great use of time right now. Understand that you may not be able to hire someone right this second but we would like to know if it is your intent to hire someone. That's what we were asking. And I think that that's something that the commission should be able to talk about I mean it's a complex project the commission is either comfortable reviewing something of this complexity or they feel like they should have additional help. So I would just say there's a lot of missing information. From my perspective there's there is a lot of missing information and pieces of information that we need in order to even do a review of the 400 and some odd pages that were submitted to us. And to use that data to confirm if the regulations, you know if if there's compliance with the regulations based on the application so I also think that when we've been, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, just I was just, I was still speaking. So we've we've already been in the hearing for over 60 minutes and to bring this up when we've been in the hearing for an hour is this is another half an hour conversation so my recommendation to the board would be, let's get answers to the technical questions that we need answers to the answers to the DEP comments, revisit it at the meeting as planned on the 10th and then let them move forward with their data collection in the field that's currently missing from the application. If it's prepared by the 10th then we'll have it to move forward and render a decision if it's not then we'll continue to the 24th. That would be my recommendation. I wholeheartedly agree with that recommendation I think that there's just we need more data to even conduct a third party's review of even just the form water plan so Yeah, so I think Maria, the plan would be that we continue into the next meeting and if you can do the due diligence to answer DEP comments answer Aaron's review comments and collect any data in order to answer those comments. That would be the best way to move forward. So, commissioners, I think we're looking for a draft emotion. To move to continue the public hearing for shoots very road. Notice of intent in November 10 at 735 p.m. Second, I can. I'm going to go to Anna with that one. Alright, voice vote. Anna. Hi, Michelle. Michelle. Oh it's doing that weird thing again Michelle. Yeah. I, I, I, there we go. Hi. Laura. Hi. Watcher. Hi, Larry. Hi. And I'm an I as well. Thank you for being here Maria and Andrew. And we look forward to seeing you again on the 10th. Thank you all for your time. Really appreciate it. See you soon. Thank you. All right. Aaron, is there a way to set that agenda item for more, I think it was set for like five minutes today. Is there just thinking ahead for whatever hearings following them next time. Yeah, so the strategy with that is that because a lot of these hearings some require and sometimes in an unexpected manner, we have to have a lot of time and time to have individual questions and answers. And then there's a lot of situations. Continuations come in last minute. So if we set a half hour or an hour block of time, then we're sitting there waiting for the next hearing to start. And, and so I, what I usually tell applicants is. Five minute intro, five minutes for questions, five minutes for comments from staff, five minutes for public comment. And we aim for about 20 minutes. And obviously in a situation like this, it's kind of a bummer, but unfortunately, that's how I would recommend we do it, unless the board feels differently. That makes total sense. I thank you for explaining that. Sorry for taking a few minutes for it. Go ahead. That's why it's tricky to look at the agenda, because you never know how long it's going to actually be. All right, so we'll move. Now that it's eight, four day three, we'll move to our 735 hearing, and that is a continuation. It's the ANRAD SWCA for Confirmation of Resource Area Boundaries at 52 Fearing Street. And so I know I have Mickey. I'm going to promote you to a panelist. You should be joining any moment. Hi, Mickey. Was there anyone else? You're muted. Don't know if there's anybody else on, so I think it's me. I will make a quick, because I know you've just spent a long time in that last meeting. It was interesting listening to him. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you for being here. I just want to reiterate for everyone, because I know we also have a lot of interest in this hearing, that the format we are again going to attempt to follow is a brief introduction and five minute project overview and update from the applicant. In this case, that's SWCA and Mickey Marcus is here representing the applicant. And then we'll do five minute report out from the staff. And in this case, that's Erin. And for this hearing, that will be an overview of a finding of fact with respect to the perennial versus intermittent status of Tanbrook. And then we'll do five minutes of question and answer from the commission. And we've really kind of been back and forth through this one guys. So we'll really try to get five minutes on this one. And then again, we welcome comments from the public. But once again, please keep them germane to the jurisdiction of the commission. And also, please try to avoid repetition. We understand the difficulties involved in this prep, the complexities involved in this project, and we're doing the best we can, but we need to keep moving. So with that, Mickey, could you please introduce yourself and give us a brief overview and update on the project? Yeah, I'm Mickey Marcus. I'm a wetland scientist with SWCA. I live in Amherst. Jen, with your permission, may I share a screen of the map? Yes, please do. Okay. You know, I just submitted this plan to the commission this afternoon, so I'm not expecting any major decisions. I just wanted to point out that this is a revised wetland map. Emily Stockman reviewed it. I would say really all the changes that Emily had suggested are included in the map. The primary area is this area right in here. It's a, we added a little bit of VVW here. And then there's a funny, like a historic ditch or channel or swell. And it's about three to four feet wide. Emily suggested that it should be included as a town bylaw intermittent stream. I helped write the bylaw in Amherst, and it probably does meet that definition. It doesn't drain any upgrade in wetlands, but it's just a historic structure. And it does fill with water during rainstorms. It doesn't really have flow. So anyway, I included that. It's about almost 1300 square feet. So that's been included. I did not change the assessment of the perennial intermittentness of Tambrook. We're calling it intermittent. And that's because when I follow the DEP regulations on how to classify the stream, it comes out as intermittent. And I know that, you know, the commission had sent kind of an alternate definition. I think it's wrong. And I'm happy to go through that with you. But basically, there are two reasons why I think this section of Tambrook should be considered intermittent. And I sent you a letter. Again, we can discuss it now or or a subsequent meeting. But DEP regulations require a review of the current USGS map. And the current USGS map does not show the stream as perennial. So, you know, the commission, you know, had sent a map from 1901, 1941. They don't count. They're not the current map. And historic, you know, we know that wetlands get changed and altered and modified over time. And so we're looking at, you know, the existing conditions. And that's the current USGS map, not shown as perennial. And the second part of the equation is that DEP says, okay, well, use stream stats. It's a USGS tool for measuring watersheds and stream. We did that. And the watershed area comes out to be 0.46 square miles, about 294 acres, less than a threshold of a half a square mile. And again, you know, the commission, you know, in previous writing said they don't think stream stats is correct. I think you just have to follow the regulations. I'm not really sure why, you know, the commission is considering changing the rules. But in this application, you know, the same way we delineate BVW, 150% wetland plans, we just follow the rules that DEP gives us. If the town bylaw has alternate regulations, we will follow those. But in just following the procedures and the rules, this stream channel should be considered intermittent. And just to point out, I know every site is different. Every site is unique. But this same commission did issue an ORAD saying that the stream was, in fact, perennial after the headwall at UMass. That was a decision, a previous decision that this commission made. So I think it's very inconsistent to sort of modify decisions and consider it perennial. So that's what I submitted. I submitted some documentation. I submitted a watershed map, revised wetlands, incorporating Emily's suggestions. It's really, you know, at this point, I don't have anything new to say. It's up to the commission to either accept the map or issue your modified determination of wetland boundaries, and resource areas. Okay. Great. Thanks, Mickey. So I think, again, like, like Mickey said, everyone, this revised plan showing Emily's suggested revisions to the resource area boundaries was just received at the end of the day today. So we haven't had time to review this and make sure that it corresponds with Emily's edits. I know she had a lot of like detailed suggestions in there that we'd like time to review. I also think with respect to the discussion of the designation of Tanbrook as perennial versus intermittent, you know, we're following the guidance we've received from Town Council, which is that we can do a finding of fact. And given, you know, the DEP regulations on designation of perennial versus intermittent, there are other avenues you can follow to designate a stream. So Erin has done, actually, Mickey, I can ask you to stop sharing for a second. That would be great. So Town staff has gone to great effort to do a very reproducible, very scientifically strong finding a fact around the designation of Tanbrook. So Mickey, it sounds like you're all set for your project overview. Erin, do you want to take the, you know, five minutes or less of staff comment to walk us through the finding of fact here? Sure. So I have been learning about Tanbrook, like all of you, and my first effort was to look at historic topos, because they may not be 100% accurate, but they are very interesting in showing where resource areas were historically, since we know that humans have drastically altered the landscape. But anyway, so sort of the beginning is just to note, because I do understand where Mickey is coming from as far as the current USGS topo. And obviously, this is not the most current, this is 1901, but you can see that Tanbrook is identified as a solid blue line in 1901. And then again, in 1941, you can see on Faring Street that Faring is shown, or I'm sorry, Tanbrook is shown as a solid blue line coming into the campus pond. So it was historically mapped on the USGS topo. And then sometime between 1941 and 1971, significant portions of the Tanbrook were piped underground, starting from up at the Wildwood Cemetery, there's a pond at the base of Wildwood Cemetery. It's culverted underneath Wildwood School fields, underneath the junior high school fields, underneath the high school playing fields down. It may daylight, a portion of it daylight between the high school and the middle school, but then it also highlights behind Bertucci's parking lot for a short stint. There are a lot of inputs to Tanbrook and because of topography and because of the change and the development of the downtown landscape, once we reach 1971, it's no longer shown on the USGS topo. And then of course in 2021, it's not shown on the USGS topo, but you can see the contour lines where they follow the contour of the stream bed, where it is daylighted from I think McClellan down. And there was significant information shared with me initially when this permit was filed. To Mickey's point about wetlands changing all the time, wetlands do change all the time, development changes all the time. This watershed is unique in that it is a major stormwater basin, so a lot of the inputs to the stream are actually coming from stormwater infrastructure, like catch basins, culverts could be coming from people's septic systems, it could be coming from all kinds of places. And so in order to capture that, initially of course the applicant looked at the stream stats application and documented that the watershed was 0.44 square miles in size and provided this map to us. Erin, can I just back up one second? So to segue from the first part of the DEP regulation where it requires that the stream is shown as a solid blue line on a map, there's also acknowledging that if that's not the case there are other possible qualifying factors for intermittent versus perennial streams and the correct things that Erin has highlighted here. So first watershed size of at least a half a square mile and the second is involving the flow rate. So in the subsequent part of the analysis Erin went through and confirmed you know she did a very detailed finding of fact about what the actual drainage area of Ann Brook delineated from the bottom of the Ann Radin question. So just so people know where we're headed next is a detailed review of what that drainage area looks like. Correct. Yep, thank you for that. No, thank you. Thank you because it gets lost in translation sometimes. So in the stream stats report, this is what the applicant stream stats report look like and you can see if you look closely at the stream stats report, it doesn't even include the pond which is right where the little hand is sitting. Also the edge here so like this point right here where the hand of my cursor is, it doesn't extend all the way up the hill to the UMass water towers which there's a slope there so it would be capturing stormwater on that hillside as well and there is documented stormwater infrastructure up there as well. As well there's stormwater infrastructure in downtown that comes into this watershed which is documented through the town's utility data but the discrepancies with stream stats have been documented in published research bodies and that was a lot of the information that was initially sent to me that was like hold on a second something is wrong here and so I read that information and started this sort of independent project again through the town attorney to try to determine what is what is our best course forward with determining the correct watershed boundary. So the first thing that I did was look at the DEMs the digital elevation model and I ran some watershed analysis tools of the DEM to try to determine the extent of the watershed just based on topography and again based on that analysis the Tanbrook watershed does extend up to the past up to and past the Wildwood elementary school in the Wildwood cemetery. Surrounding topography the high point is at the UMass water tower and at the top of the hill at Wildwood cemetery which isn't captured in that initial report that was provided by SWCA and stream stats and again you know this entire upper portion is is missed by the stream stats report. Also again town drainage structures catch basins are located in that area and drain into this area so it's capturing that storm water as well and this is the results of the flow accumulation model from the digital elevation model which these little excuse me these little red lines here are coming down these show that the topography that it's capturing water from these areas and bringing it down into the watershed and then again oh go ahead clarify at this point what we're saying is the delineation conducted by the stream stats tool which is is essentially doing the same thing that Aaron's doing we're saying we disagree with the delineation so Aaron has done a finding of fact to show that if you delineate it with a digital elevation model in ArcGIS you can end up with a larger drainage area just to like catch everyone up. And then this is the the south end of the watershed and again the Tanbrook watershed extending down into Amherst center there are documented drainage structures draining westerly from Kellogg Ave from the parking lot in the at the bank center parking lot and drainage structures at the intersection of north pleasant street which drain drain down the hill and again the the flow accumulation model does show that there is water moving from that area downhill toward the Tanbrook watershed. So once I got the watershed pretty well delineated based on the tools that I ran on the digital elevation model I used the edit basin feature in stream stats to capture a more accurate boundary of the watershed in order to use the stream stats program to extract the information we were looking for regarding watershed size and flow rate. And in doing so I was able to document that the watershed is 0.5 square miles and that the 99 flow duration is 0.118 which exceeds the predicted flow rate less or greater than or equal to 0.01 cubic feet per second which is stated in the regulations as it has to be greater than that to be it has to be greater than the 0.01 cubic feet per second to be perennial stream. And just to clarify a flow duration is up as a likelihood of exceedance of that flow so what we're saying is there's a likelihood of exceedance higher than the regulated likelihood of exceedance of flow in the stream. Thank you for that. I'm writing paragraph breaks for you. No, this is great. So this is sort of the end result of my watershed analysis showing the contours the USGS contours defined below it and also you can't see that see it but there is also the flow data is also included in there. And then this is based this is just an explanation of what my analysis was based on. The data that it could be replicated by anybody who wants to have a look at it. Thanks Erin. Okay so Miki we kind of delayed this conversation from our last hearing because we wanted to have a chance to you know share with you the finding effect and the work that Erin's done and kind of be able to have a discourse about it. It seems like you can I don't know I guess I should give you a chance to respond if you would be willing to move forward with a designation of what we found is a perennial designation of Tanbrook. Yeah can I share a screen another screen Jen? Sure. Okay so I submitted this plan this was after one of the hearings where the commission asked for a more detailed assessment of the watershed area so it did get expanded by this is 0.46 square miles and I guess I just have to say I object to the commission changing the rules. You know you're saying that follow the wetland regulations but whereas DEP regulations say follow the stream stats you're saying stream stat doesn't work we're going to use an alternate method and I just think that's the wrong approach I think that in your decisions you should follow whatever the rules and regulations are and I think you're you're exceeding that so you vote any way you want on this but I think I'm laying down you know my argument that we follow certain rules and expect you know the commission to you know do your job and uphold the wetland regulations and I also think that if you don't like stream stats or don't like the way this is evaluated you know change your bylaw so you have a way to evaluate streams and watersheds differently in town so yeah noted thank you for that I think our um commission we should discuss whether we want to accept this designation of of tan brokos perennial for you know next but I just would say I don't think it's a question of whether it's not that we're not following the regulations we are following the regulations we found an error with stream stats which is a tool for this delineation so it's not a question of liking it or not liking it it's that the fact is that the contributing area to this point in tan brok would mean that tan brok would be designated as a perennial stream and that's kind of the result of this analysis um so I guess commission does anyone else have any questions particularly about Aaron's analysis and then Aaron it sounds like you have some input and guidance um Anna do you want to go ahead yeah it's a quick one so all right so we're saying we found an inaccuracy in stream stats have we reached out to usgs have we reached out to the folks who kind of are controlling the and I'm hoping Aaron you've got a quick and easy answer for me on that because if there is an error should do they want to fix it on their end as well so that everything is aligned I'll let you take that one Aaron so I just want to say two things quickly the first is that I spoke with the town attorney and the town attorney told me that according to my analysis we are following the regulations following them step by step is it shown on usgs no if it's not shown on the usgs but has a watershed size greater than this look in stream stats stream stats it doesn't specify in stream stats in the regulations if it's a stream stats um algorithm that's run or why does it contain an edit basin feature if that option is available to us when we know there's an inaccuracy so um that's what we our recommendation was from the town attorney and he said that that was our best um path forward as far as meeting the regulations on reviewing this so I just sort of wanted to counter what was said that we're not following the regs um and yes I have been in touch with usgs about the discrepancy in the algorithm that's the automatic algorithm that's that runs in stream stats when you place a point and they are aware of it and I I am doing everything in in the background that I possibly can to collect data on tanbrook um working with umass on potentially two independent separate studies um gauging the flow of tanbrook so that we can get a sense of the flow of the stream because anybody who's seen tanbrook if you just look at it it does not look like an intermittent stream I've seen many intermittent streams generally you can hop over this one's almost 20 feet wide the first time I saw it my jaw dropped and I'm like this is not intermittent but um you know it's it's um it's on the usgs radar it's on the depu radar we're going to push everything we can to collect information and try to apply some pressure so that something can be done to correct this error in the program um yeah so I guess the other thing I'd say about that is just that measuring flow in a stream is a really easy thing to say but it's actually a very hard thing to do um so when Erin says that she's working with a group at UMass to do it rating a stream means that you continually monitor stage and then you have to take volumetric flow measurements at different stages and then literally relate discharge to stage create a rating in order to measure the stream and that's something that requires catching a full range of the hydrologic conditions at the site and that can take anywhere from a year if you're super duper lucky to 10 years um so it's not something that is like go out there take a measurement and then it's done we have to understand the entire range of flow in the stream um so that's just not trivial which is why trying to understand the drainage area was the first approach um yeah so good question thank you Erin any other commissioners any other comments or questions at this point okay um Erin can I just add one one point just so the commission knows that there's a procedure in wetland tax act regulations for challenging whether a stream is intermittent when it's shown as perennial and there's a procedure that you go through and dp requires video and monitoring um and so there are many streams shown on usgs maps as perennial that have in fact been reversed uh and have determined to be intermittent there's no procedure the opposite way uh so uh the presumption is if it's not on a usgs map uh it's intermittent uh if it's shown as intermittent on a usgs map it's intermittent if it has a smaller watershed area a half a square mile or less it's intermittent so those are the presumptions and I guess I'm just asking the commission to follow the rules and follow what the dp regulations say not trying to force anything that doesn't make sense but I'm we're just following the regulations and our expectation is the commission's going to do the same right so I think it's down to a kind of we both think that we're following their regulations and expect the others to do the same and we disagree on how we follow the regulations so I think the first thing is that we have to make a decision as a commission that we um how we are if we're accepting Erin's finding a fact the town staff finding a fact um first so so I don't think we procedurally need to vote is that Erin do we need to vote on accepting the finding a fact with tanbrook as perennial versus intermittent or I would recommend whatever your finding be that you do make a motion to that effect as to for this for this specific site what you're considering the status of it to be that way it's clear it's on the record and um then the applicant will have some guidance moving forward and it's not a matter of arguing it again and again yep okay all right for that um well so it's not about the application it's a subtopic um that we need to make a decision on in order to move forward with reviewing the amrad um so I feel like the public comment isn't necessary the public comment should come about the application the resource area delineation this is a question of what the resources that we're delineating um so my instinct would be that we need to make this decision and then we can discuss with mickey what kind of our how we're going to move forward with this application um and then we can take public comment if the commission if the commission feels like it's at an impasse um and you need more time you can you can take more time to consider it but um well let's let's kind of get a feel for this yeah does anyone have concerns about accepting erin's finding a fact in designating tanbrook as perennial no I don't okay no concerns from larry I'm not seeing anything from anyone else so I think we might be close to a consensus that we would accept tanbrook as as designate tanbrook as perennial we're talking about designating tanbrook the whole thing or just only this tanbrook upstream of the downstream most point on this property on the property in the application right but the power that that yields is on this property in this property alone this would have to be done every individual property that has an application before the board right the other option just to be clear is that we would pause this entire like continue this project until we were able to fully see this through with stream stats fixing their data right or just accepting stream I understand that that's that's one it doesn't seem like that's the direction we're going but that that would be the third alternative is that we fully pause everything until everybody is on the same page stream stats and erin's data is that right I mean I from what I understand it would be an undertaking of an entire study by usgs to understand that yeah and and that we don't even have funding to um initiate so that could be years down the road um so I wouldn't want to hold up this problem um okay well so why don't we take a vote on the designation of tanbrook well why don't we take a vote on the finding of fact first and the net result is that of what it does right so it's a vote it's a motion to accept erin's finding in fact thereby desing and just yeah and to say that we therefore find tanbrook not to be intermittent okay so I need a motion to accept erin's finding a fact that would mean that we thereby designate tanbrook as perennial so I think Larry got that one hi we just got unsaid and so I didn't think it had to be repeated we need a second for the record yes we need a second okay Anna's got the second okay voice vote Anna hi fletcher hi michelle hi laroy hi laura oh sorry hi larry hi and I'm an I okay with that mickey um so I just asked you to close the hearing and issue your orad okay so we can't issue the orad unless we have a riverfront shown on the plan well okay so hold on one second if he's asking us to close the hearing then we would basically be saying that we were not confirming the resource area boundaries on the site um the end result would be that we were saying um that we are confirming that that the boundaries described in the reference plans and the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation were found to be inaccurate and cannot be confirmed and then list the resource areas specifically and I would suggest if the commission does close the public hearing that we would um actually issue the orad at the next meeting because um we I would have to do a more extensive finding a fact regarding the revision that was provided to us um at 2 p.m. this afternoon because Emily hasn't looked at that yet and we can't we can't confirm those boundaries without her final um approval of them okay so let me make sure I understand what you're saying Erin is that we close the hearing tonight you have to do a detailed list of the resource boundaries that are missing from the plan and in order to do that you need to be able to compare Mickey's plan to Emily's third party review exactly yeah okay and then and then cite that in a finding a fact in addition to the um the tanbrook finding a fact that you guys just voted on okay so that it's all whole it includes all resource areas not just riverfront yep okay yeah and that's just an artifact of not having time opportunity and time to review the plan submitted today just because we need materials you know at least 48 hours before these meetings so we have time to fully review them but I but I don't um I wouldn't if if if Mickey feels that that's the direction that he wants to go then I wouldn't dissuade the commission from going that direction because I think DEP may need to get involved in this case and voice an opinion on this situation and and and if we are wrong in our approach then DEP should should supersede our decision and give them their permit and if we are right then DEP should uphold our decision and either way we shouldn't be holding up their application further um with these with this lack of clarity that we're all trying to find the right path yep appreciated yeah okay um so we need to take public comment we have both Rolf and Maria here again um so let's do that um I'll repeat um if you're here for the hearing about this WCA application for an anradut 52 Fearing Street um please raise your hand we are limiting um public comment to two minutes per person and if you could please kind of avoid repetition and stick to um comments about the resource and the issues germane to this commission I'd really appreciate it so um Rolf I'm allowing you to talk thank you commissioners I realized in the last meetings I haven't introduced myself so thanks for being that into this meeting it's important Rolf Karlstrom 73 Fearing Street just across the street from the 52 Fearing Street property and I've lived on my property for 21 years now with Tanbrook running through the property and I've said this before but I want to reiterate that the stream has never been dry in 21 years including very severe drought periods in Amherst when we had water shortages and we were having water restrictions I wish I had taken pictures I wish I had done a video every year I'm not sure that would have held up I know it's anecdotal I'm very glad that we have a real flow rate analysis going on right now because this is a perennial stream so I applaud you on that Aaron in particular and the commission on actually doing the data to correct an error that comes from this tool that was used by the applicant to a couple comments on the applicant's presentation they had completely left out a large area of drainage in the original application which I find amazing for a wetlands consultant a full-on pond with the drainage that leads to that pond that feeds into the creek so I think that you know that's that's an egregious or mistaken identification of the wetlands and so I think this more careful analysis is really important it was done much much more accurately and I agree with it the water flow data yes indeed wetlands change over time the last 20 years in fact it's never gone dry so that USGS map needs to be revised and thank you for that effort to get it changed it is again it's not never dry and finally in terms of consistency yes indeed consistency would be to say this is perennial just as much as it would be to say it was intermittent for this property because as you've heard Gabor Lukacz across the stream on the very other side of this from the property had a ruling of perennial for this same stretch of stream so I think all of those points you've already addressed in in your vote my question now is what just happened I'm confused by this movement to not actually act on this very diligent and hard you know effort that led to this particular a lot of work by Aaron and the commission and we were here every week I know that that mr. Marcus was not here at the last meeting when we were first supposed to discuss this so what just happened and what's the consequences of the decision you're making right now to not I'm assuming act on this finding let me hear what I just want to stop there and hear what hear what the answer is thank you yeah thanks for those comments yeah so we are acting on it so I mean what what we just voted as a commission that we were accepting the finding of fact prepared by town staff we believe we're following the regulations as outlined and by the DEP and so we're figuring out how to move forward so we've said as a commission that we agree with the finding of fact we accept the finding of fact the tanbrook is perennial and so then the question becomes where do we go with this resource area delineation application because the plan submitted don't designate don't yeah if they don't delineate all the resources we believe are on this or we know are on the site so we're figuring out how to move move forward with that mr. Marcus now is is charged with reapplying the applicant has to reapply based on this new finding that's what it sounds like well so he can either read add the additional delineation necessary because we have said that we think tanbrook is perennial and we believe we're following state regulations in that designation or he as he said let's close the hearing in which case we would actually have to continue to the next meeting in order to detail exactly which resource delineations are missing from from the resource area delineation as presented but we would just close the hearing we would not be accepting the resource area delineation and they would have the opportunity to appeal to DEP and then DEP would review our finding our finding a fact in our decision and they would either uphold our decision or they and and typically when they uphold our decision they say then to the applicant you have to revise your plans and go back to the commission in which case they have to come back to us with the revised plans showing all of Emily's edits all with riverfront shown on the plan and and get get through the process again or DEP would supersede our decision if they think that procedurally something was incorrect about the way that we've gone about doing it um okay so i guess the bottom line is neighborhood vigilance is called for we will continue to be tuning in um and keep looking at your agendas i think this one was supposed to be 7 30 i'm not sure what time it is now but i i heard your discussion about that last time this has been an inordinate amount of time mr marcus and i was not looked on favorably from my part that you just did not show up at the last meeting just so you know um the applicant has not won any favor by the process here but that's not for near the hearing or there we will stay vigilant and we will look forward to the next phase of this application okay yeah and i'd like to remind that you know we're going to have comments come through me um and we want to remain respectful of everyone's roles and you know we're all doing our best to interpret state regulations to the best of our ability and in this case we disagree so we're taking the next step to try to figure it out um so thank you rolf um i believe uh maria and then edwin and we're really going to try to keep this for two minutes um please maria hi thanks um just as as another um person in the consulting industry i was very interested to listen to what was happening um just as a learning experience and i have not been following this at other meetings so i apologize if this has been answered before but in the earlier discussion of the various avenues that have been looked into talking to the town attorney talking with usgs um i didn't see any mention or rather hear any mention of talking to dp about how to interpret the wetlands protection act and and we do have circuit riders that are extremely helpful so i was just curious you know what what had already been provided by dp on the matter just as a learning thing yeah so they won't comment on it um erin do you want to do any more detail on that they won't comment as if they end up in a situation where it the decision is appealed they are going to have to make a decision and they don't want to get involved before that point because it would be a conflict of interest exactly yeah we did receive some initial very general guidance but on this specific situation they would not comment yeah that that has been my experience that they won't comment on specific situations but if they were asked you know how do you go through this and is it appropriate to do this or that um they usually will say something um so i was just curious thank you yeah thank you all right last person edwin should be able to talk hi my name is edwin genseler i'm also i live on faring street across the street from the the several of the locks in question and i want to thank the commission for all the work that they're doing on this side visits erin your work were finding a fact was remarkable i too have lived in this neighborhood and walked the property and it's very clear that the wildwood pond and the hills that you mass drain into this form bro um i just have a couple of short notes here uh really uh some of it has to do with procedures and uh voices and i sort of feel like the neighborhood of butters uh have their have um well we're not visible we don't know who was there maybe the commission can see how many are there certainly um gen can see uh but that's been a problem of communication on our side that mickey is there and present and uh can even i'm not even sure what he said there he wants to close the hearing is he allowed to even make that motion or is that a motion what what i'm not sure what he's so somebody could clarify that for me and then what the repercussions of a closed hearing mean um we're also not getting many of these documents i realize you're not getting them until the day up but we're not getting them at all so we can't look at mickey's revisions we can't look at uh uh some of the new data that's being consulted or at least it comes out after the meeting after the discussion so if any of these things and then lastly uh erin mentioned that there were two groups from umass doing a study or consulting would it be possible to share that with the butters as well so i'll stop there thank you okay thanks edwin i think um erin has a comment or a response i cannot also take a crack at it erin do you want to explain what closing this hearing means again in this context and then also can you let edwin and other um participants know where they can find all this documentation yes so closing the hearing means that we're done taking public comment taking comments from the applicant taking comments from a butters what it means is that basically the hearing is closed and then all that's left to do is actually issue the order and issuance of the order would basically be the decision of the commission um just the commission members and the commission members alone and um staff would make recommendations and then they would issue based on that um again at this point because of where we are um i sorry isolate um i'll just stop there but the permit would be issued at the next meeting and it would it would basically be the commission's decision on the on the delineation um as far as the that word we would not be accepting the delineation because it's missing resource areas in our view correct correct and then documents are on the town website if you go to the conservation commission page and current applications and we i upload them almost instantaneously when i received them i didn't wasn't able to upload mickey's items from this afternoon because i was doing site visits before the end of the day but um but yes and i can send you a link to those as well um edwin i think i have your email address or edwin if you can just email erin tonight or in the morning she can follow up with a link to exactly where all these documents are um they're all publicly available um all right i think so we've now spent i over 45 minutes on this hearing i think unfortunately we're going to have to move on um i appreciate everyone tuning in repeatedly for this hearing um and basically we will be continuing it until the next meeting sorry go ahead erin because well are we continuing it because no work he has to order at the next meeting okay right i mean if that's what mickey wants us to do i i think at this point um the commissions made the decisions look at the plans evaluate the changes that were made we added additional wetlands based on emily's comments so i think it would be reasonable at this point to cite wetlands that you agree with if you you know choose to call this stream perennial then there are bank flags and they'd be a 200 foot buffer from that so i just want to be clear are you're asking us to close the public hearing just i want to make sure okay okay so we just need a motion to close the public hearing for 52 faring street i move we close the public hearing for 52 faring street so i can like it got loroy on that one all right voice vote onna hi fletcher hi michelle hi hi lora hi larry larry you're muted i forgot to unmute hi all right there we go and i'm an i'm an i okay thank you larry thank you mickey um so where are we what are we for our next hearing our next hearing we're moving on to our next hearing that's all i have to do 246 mod of you 246 i jump in really quickly uh one of the people had asked how many folks were in the attendance and it's just there were there are 28 attendees for that that component and like 78 prior to that just i don't know if people were interested but that was asked and i wanted to just note that's a good point i forgot to address that i don't know why it i mean this is just the platform that we're dealing with i don't know that there's anything purposeful about not allowing participants to see other i just tell the number when yeah i'll send a link to our to our meetings as well because it's in it's in the meeting record the attendees um and all they have to do is click on the youtube video that's uploaded but um i think there's been some difficulty locating that so i'll send him a link to it so that he okay thank you if they're if they're if they're on zoom can't they just look at the bottom and see the participants i don't think they can yeah just us they're not panelists yeah yeah all right um okay last one um this is also a continuation this is an anrad swca for barry roberts and stanley mitcher life estate for confirmation of resource area boundaries at 246 monagu road um i'm realizing now that this is mickey is mickey is also representing 246 um i would i would ask that the board request the applicant to do a continuation on this to the next meeting because we only got materials at 4 30 this afternoon and i have not even opened the email yet and it's not really fair for us to um comment on something that came in so late sorry mickey i like moved you to panelist and then back back apologies i am getting tired um so welcome back uh i i don't just agree with whatever and said if i have two minutes just to show you what i submitted if we can continue it sure great okay may i share my screen jam sure yeah go ahead um so um if you can see this plan there's actually two sheets and this is a complicated site and that there's a lot of farmed wetlands and floodplain uh and emily i think the biggest thing is and emily suggested that uh we include the entire hundred-year floodplain as pvw um and honestly i can't dispute that because it would just take a long time to figure out the hydrology and let the farm fields grow for one or more years i i don't know what the development plans are i haven't seen any plans for this property but they're not going to work in the floodplain anyway so the yellow line and the stippled yellow dots show the additional wetlands that were added so we basically are agreeing with emily we'll just call the the hundred-year floodplain bdw i added a note on farmed wetlands um only because there are three fields in the floodplain that are currently in agriculture they're either in hay or but are not squash or other production and the farming characteristics of the site are very important to the neighbors um the mitchells want to continue to farm the site um they want to see uh agricultural use so with whatever development goes on there the agricultural piece will continue whether or not it's in wetlands and i just wanted to make that clear that um those are existing site conditions um the um see the other plan uh we this very upper right hand corner we added uh an additional wetland that emily pointed out was mostly off site but it creeped onto the site uh we extended the wetlands a little bit here and you can see this lower area the steeline extended a couple of little flag changes uh and then on the southern part of the site there's uh eastland brook is was within 200 feet of the property boundary so we added the riverfront this southern part of the site so we made a couple of changes um to reflect those comments and i don't expect you to make any decisions on this tonight um but they do want to uh maintain the fields i was out there two days ago they didn't mow they didn't plow they left the flags in place so if you do want to look at it um the mitchells would appreciate if you looked at it sooner rather than later so just to comment on that we have a peer reviewer who who looked at the site and wants to go out because there was a bunch of reflagging that was supposed to be done after her site visit and she wanted to go out and confirm the boundaries and there's there's money in the budget for her to go out and confirm those boundaries so my recommendation would be that we line that site visit up with emily immediately so she can get out there and have a look at that flagging and get us a report back on it so that we um can move forward and that the mowing doesn't happen before that because that would really be a problem yeah and this plan was sent to emily as well okay great so sounds like we're we need to get out we need emily to get out there for a site visit and maybe we could be included in that error if necessary um but we need to get emily's final report before we can move forward um and reviewing this application so thank you mickey for that overview thank you erin for tracking this and keeping us all moving um i think we're looking for a motion to continue and i can read the motion if you guys want it's um we need a motion to continue the public hearing for 246 monagu road to november 10th 2021 at 745 i'll make that motion to uh continue sorry 246 monagu road mm-hmm yeah 246 monagu road you said november 10th yep at 745 745 all right i got a second from lana all right voice vote fletcher oh i loroy hi anna hi shell hi larry hi um lora did i do loroy yes i did sorry and i'm an i all right mickey thank you for your endurance thank you for time night everybody good night all right so so we use application right erin we do we do um it is for stargazing on mount pollocks and these are previously these events were previously approved by dav um there was a couple dates that came in before this meeting even um and i have no issues or objections to it um to the stargazing proposal um trying to get kicked out of my i got kicked out of my uh i was promoted into the town um so i'm getting back in there so bear with me just a moment um yes so it is for um stetson school um kathy buckby is the applicants they're proposing multiple events um several of them have already passed October 21st to 29th November 3rd November 11th December 21st and um 1117 was an additional date that they added in after um 12 participants two to three cars um start time is 5 p.m end time is 10 p.m i would recommend that we include the same um uh the same um i'm so sorry the same conditions as the last stargazing permit i'm sorry it's so late yeah i just saw kathy i think you had your hand raised um and this is your application so oh has she wait no is it is that has she been waiting through this entire project for this no no it's i'm not that it's a different kathy oh okay uh it's a different okay hold on hold on everybody yeah they take students uh students up there um and look with binoculars and telescopes one or two chairs is the only equipment that they use but we had we previously approved stargazing up there um with conditions and i would just say we apply the same conditions for the stargazing permit that the previous permit had okay since they're in i do think kathy is kathleen buckley is here with her hand raised okay kathleen sorry for the confusion hopefully do you have anything to add to that uh no i mean i just we we just bring kids um we would actually keep it to to um one adult for every two kids that we bring some telescopes and binoculars a couple of chairs and we're absolutely obsessive about sweeping to make sure we don't leave even a scrap of trash great thank you yeah so i think we are just looking for a motion to approve this land use application with our boiler plate kind of guidance and conditions i will move to improve the land use application for mount polis is there a date oh all the dates there's multiple dates all the other boiler plate conditions and the conditions we've previously used for stargazing second all right voice vote fletcher hi loroy hi anna hi michelle hi larry hi lora hi and i'm an i thank you kathleen for sitting through all that i'm so sorry sorry we can get you in in the beginning of the meeting oh that's okay i i typed the whole time so i got a lot of paperwork done oh good somebody got something done thank you have a good night good luck out there all right that's our agenda right yes yes okay that is it i think we need to move to adjourn yes i think we need to move to adjourn i second that okay you got beat all right voice vote fletcher hi loroy hi anna hi michelle hi larry hi lora hi and i'm an i good job jan and erin another good job you guys killing it yeah good job trying to keep in people in there right are you uh