All right, we are rolling. Andre. >> Okay. Well, welcome everyone to uh tonight's conser Amoris Conservation Commission uh meeting. Uh today is December 17th, 2025 and it's uh around 7 p.m. Um we have uh
seven uh we have uh six of our seven uh commissioners present uh as well as uh Aaron Jack and uh Dave Zomeck uh for the town. Um I think we'll start we'll start with a uh quick
chair's report. There's not a lot to uh talk about other than the fact that we are still in a mild drought and it's been uh running for almost a couple months, I think. Um so, uh yeah, we're running we're coming
off of a fairly long uh long drought here. Um I think that's it for uh for right now. We've got more on the drought later on. Uh, with that, I'll uh turn it over to Dave Zomech for uh Dave's
director's report. >> Sure. Thanks, Andre. I'll be pretty brief um just because I know you've got a full agenda. Um just a couple of quick updates for the commission, you know, kind of as we as we end uh 2025. It's it's still a busy busy time of year for us. We're trying to wrap up a number of
things and then get ready to kick things off in 26. But um you know, the CPAC process is well underway. Uh as as you know uh Jason is is your representative to the CPAC and there's 16 projects and the CPAC is working their way through
presentations. Um tomorrow night will be the last night of presentations and then they'll kick off January uh deliberating ranking the proposals asking any last minute questions of of um applicants. Um as you know we have uh the town has a
number of projects u applications before them but two of them uh through conservation. One is uh for trails and bridges and ADA work on our trails. The other is for additional money for signs. Uh the town is also kicking off in the in the theme of budgets. The town is
also kicking off the budget season. Uh, I'll be working with staff and other department heads on uh, capital budgets and then operating budgets for FY27. This is a long process that starts now and goes all the way through June when the town council uh, approves the budget
for the town. So, we'll keep you posted on that. We're actually doing quite a bit of late season mowing right now. the conditions have been excellent uh up until, you know, the next 48 hours when they will not be excellent any longer when we get rain and and uh thawing
temperatures. But Brad and and Anthony have been out and and and mowing down some early early successional uh fields at Mount Pollock, Wentworth Farm, Westover Meadow, uh etc. Uh so they're continuing to work out there now that uh
some of those terrestrial turtles and other species have either migrated or are hunkered down for the uh for the winter months during um you know closer to wetlands or in wetlands and and rivers and streams. We're also working pretty pretty hard with PVPC on the MVP
grant for culvert assessment. Uh Aaron and and Bruce is playing a role as as you know in this process. So excited to be moving that forward and and certainly Aaron will keep you all apprised of of next steps in that process. We're also
meeting with the MVP staff. We're we're always trying to think about what what is the next step? What is the next round of funding? So, DPW staff and Aaron and myself will be meeting with the MVP team to talk about the next round of what what do we want to tee up for the next
round of applications that the town can get into the state for MVP grants. And these typically fall in the in the category of of um covert replacements and stream crossings and things of that nature. So, uh buffer spawn may be in
that mix as well. Um, I don't want to take too much more time. There's lots more things happening, but um, I think I'll stop. We're certainly during January going to be refocusing on kind of water quality issues in Puffer Pond. We're also talking to the Conway School
of Design about a possible project uh, utilizing the wonderful students from Conway. Uh and right now our our focus is is talking with them about Lawrence Swamp and and really uh kind of getting a better handle again a collaborative
project with DPW getting a better handle on conservation land and water supply protection land in Lawrence Swamp. So we'll have more on that in in January. So I think I'll stop. Lots more happening, but uh we're hopefully going to dial it back a little bit for the
holidays, give staff a muchdeserved rest, and come back uh strong in January. >> Can you um for the public uh on the line say what MVP is? >> That's the MA the mass vulnerability
program. Um so municipal vulnerability program. So, it is a state program that all cities and towns are are if they meet certain criteria eligible to apply for funding to help match capital funds and other funds. But it looks at, you
know, how the municipality is vulnerable to flooding. Do you have does Ammerst or, you know, other towns we're working with have coverts that are undized or crushed or or uh underperforming, collapsed, etc.? Uh that's one one uh
use of those funds. And then there are other programs looking at um you know um um buildings and and energy and things of that sort. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you Dave. Um, does sound
like the uh like the staff really did earn their uh their relaxing uh time now at the end of the year >> until Yeah, it's it's nice. It's Aaron, it's Stephanie Cherello and Beth Wilson. A lot of the names that you hear and our
planning staff. I would also just announce real quickly that we do have a new planning and economic development director. Uh his name is Jeff Bag. He used to be a planner, a senior planner with the town and he just joined us two weeks ago. You've probably seen some of
the press and he's making the rounds and meeting some people he hasn't met and and reacquainting himself with projects. But Jeff is going to be a wonderful staff person for all of us to work with. And you'll be hearing uh more about Jeff in the weeks and months ahead.
>> Wonderful. Thank you. With that, uh, we will, uh, have a brief discussion of the, uh, drought status, which I've mentioned before. Erin, um, was there anything that you'd like to add, uh, to
the status of the draft >> um, relative to the, um, uh, wetland delineations. Um, no. I uh I was gonna I am going to mention uh that we may as well just get into that. Um,
right now the way that um the way that uh uh we have uh right now a drought um as well as the fact that uh we're in the middle of the winter and we have snow cover. Um
uh it's extremely difficult to make any um to make uh uh delineations of wetlands and um I would like to throw out the uh to put
put out for uh discussion uh brief discussion uh that we should hold off on any further wetland delineations. uh until because of the seasonal uh dry conditions and the snow cover and the
lack of uh indicator plants uh available right now that we should um leave uh any wetland delineations, further wetlandations uh until uh the growing season in the
spring when we're out of the out of the drought according to the state. Um Erin or what are your thoughts on that? Uh >> yeah, I mean I think that it's been extremely challenging. Um
I think from my perspective to well as we come into the winter uh applicants sort of asking what is how are we dealing with these situations and um if we don't have hydraologic indicators as a result of not having enough uh
precipitation and uh we have had hard frost at this point, frozen conditions and snow cover. um we're basically relying on um on soils and you know it becomes really difficult to conduct
delineation solely based on soil. Um, so I think I think it would be prudent from this point forward until we have um the the drought declaration lifted andor until we're sort of back into the
growing season that it might be a good idea to hold off um on for future applications until um until we have conditions that are a little bit better for review.
>> All right. Well, thank you. Um, now for the uh commissioners, is there any comments on this? Um, any uh anyone who may disagree or other thoughts? Uh, Rachel, please. >> Um, I had a procedural question. Um if
so say we say we're not um reviewing delineations um and someone applies with say an RDA which may not be the best way to confirm a delination that has to be approved within 21 days. Could they appeal and go to D instead of going through our town
process? >> Um we have a the state and in our bylaw we have provisions for um for wintertime delineation. So the commission does have the ability or the regulatory ability to not um move forward with confirmation of
resource area boundaries. Um I mean I think we have to handle it to some degree on a case- by case basis when applications come in. >> Um but in general I think uh there are policies and guidance outlined for this exact scenario. So
>> Okay, great. >> Yeah. And I'll I'll add uh I'll I'll reemphasize what you just said, Erin. Uh in general, um what we're looking to do is in general not uh put those off until the uh time that we can make that determination ourselves as well. But
yeah, we need to view every if there's uh if there are some cases that uh must be seen, then we can we can deal with them individually. Carol. >> Well, I was going to ask if that was
something that could be handled when there's revisiting the the bylaws and regulations in the spring, but you say it's really already in there, Erin. Is that correct? >> Yeah. I mean, we have some provisions for for winter delineation. I think the
issue with the drought is another matter which I think would not be a bad idea to incorporate some provision for under our bylaw um to have an actual policy um outlined of how we deal with delineations in that case because it it
there is a lot of gray area um with the regulations for drought. >> I think that's a great idea. It does seem to come up. >> Yeah. >> So, there's something to make a note of,
Carol. And when we do start to discuss the uh bylaws, um you can bring that put that in there. I made a little note, too, but I forget things. It's not a bad um it's actually a pretty
good uh segue into uh land management updates. Um as you all know uh uh last you know over the last um I would say 3 years four years um uh the
town's bylaws have been uh have been updated and to the point where last uh uh last year was I believe about a one year the end of a one year one one and a
half your uh stint that we had a um subcommittee uh working uh diligently on uh re uh on updating uh all these bylaws. Um oh well I'm so we have these uh these
bylaws um that were then uh voted on um partially last year. What we're needing to do now is do a final review of them. uh and uh go ahead and and approve them.
Um we have had uh one of our uh so most of us those of us who've been here for a while have already made uh comments and reviewed these but uh for the uh our newer commissioners um we'd like uh
whatever input you can uh give us and we already have uh some input from uh from one of you. Um, please take the time if you haven't had the time yet to uh uh review those uh uh those bylaws um which happen to be in our um uh in
with our documents. Is there any um anything else that I'm missing on the bylaws? So, we did receive uh com comments on the um uh the policy land use policy regulation um from from Tina, which I
put in our our packets this week. I think one of the big questions from staff are um because we had we had discussed having a hearing in January and um you know I I guess I'd like a little bit of uh guidance in terms of scheduling that
because we're fast approaching our first meeting in January and um just these these additional comments which have come in how we'd like to handle those. Do we want to handle those in a regular session um prior to going to
hearing or do we want to schedule the hearing and discuss additional changes in the in the hearing process? >> So, I've had uh I have made some notes on this and I have a couple of suggestions um that I'll throw out and
then I'll uh we'll go to Bruce uh real quick. I was thinking that uh we could uh probably for the second meeting in January uh have that as a uh final date for people to submit their uh for uh
commissioners to uh submit their comments. give it another uh two weeks or uh until the next meeting after that and then we uh I think at that point what we should probably do my suggestion
would be to have a meeting specific to uh uh to the regulations. Um so I'll throw that out and uh pass it over to Bruce. Uh just to be clear, we're we're looking at the land use policy and regulations.
We're not intending to change the bylaw at this time. >> Uh >> I heard the word bylaw go by and I just want to make sure it's it's the policy and regulations. >> Sure. Yep.
>> Frankly, yeah. Got it. Um, Jason. >> Yeah. So, I think Andre partially answered my questions just how we're supposed to get how do we want to get
comments to you um or to everybody. And I I don't I don't know if we necessarily should have a full meeting dedicated to this, but certainly it should be an agenda item on a meeting, I would think, kind of later January
or maybe even February. What if um what what is your thought? What are your thoughts, Jason, on perhaps having the comments uh put on to um you know, having the comments uploaded by the second January meeting?
I mean, I think that's reasonable. I've made a few. I have like via the document in there like track changes. Um and I don't I'm working on a Mac. I don't know if they're produced on a on a
PC and how that is gonna actually uh come across in each version, but do we want to just do one track changes or is someone have all this? >> My suggestion would be that each one of
us have our own document. We get them all to uh to Aaron and Aaron puts them all together uh uh into the packet. Um because what I don't want to see is a document
that's changed and changed and changed uh and we don't have copies of the interim documents. So, we need to be able to uh to show um kind of the paper trail or the uh the
evolution of our uh documents um because they are part of our discussions. Erin, >> so I would just I guess putting this contextually that we've been reviewing this for four and a half years and we're this is like our final final version.
Um, so I don't want to go back into a fullscale review. I think what I would ask commissioners to do is look at this with an eye for really critical changes that need to be made that could be impactful um to
correcting a problem that exists. Um, the other thing I I I would like to so I think it's it's great that we have iterations with people's comments on them. My suggestion would be that we come into a meeting with this on an agenda item with a significant amount of time dedicated to it. If we're going to
go through the document, it's not super long. Um, and go sort of page by page and anybody who has a comment on that page submits their comment, the commission discusses it and we move to the next rather than working off a track change document with 15 people's
comments on it. Um I think just in terms of staff time trying to coalate those and also um tracking everybody's comments. I think we just need to come to the table with our markups and go through it and and sort of come to consensus. Are we going to change this? Are we not going to change this? And
then move on and try to be really expeditious about how we wrap this up because we're we're sort of at the at the end with it. And I think it's awesome to have some additional >> um expert perspective from our new members on it. Absolutely. I just want
to make sure that we're cautious about not reopening the whole document again. >> Uh I'm in full agreement and I that's I was kind of thinking of putting of each one of us having our own document. If we all bring them to a meeting, I think
that's great, too. And we just uh live, you know, we do it live and we go page by page. I think that's a great idea, Aaron. Um, >> so should we >> Okay, Rachel. >> Um, yeah, I was doing another read
through and noticing that there are many pieces that are um like truncated references or you know when it says in the document add this or um find this definition. So there's there there may
be um more than us providing comments and responding to what's there, there may be some need to generate information. And I don't know if that's something that the town can help us with or if that's something that we need to be tasked with and help to clarify that
and as we review this. >> Yeah, there's definitely some administrative um sort of last minute administrative things that need to happen with the document. And I think the main thing is getting it so it's it's in its finished draft form and then we can sort of finalize it and get it so
that we can post it for for public review before a hearing. Um, so do you think that commissioners could be ready by the second meeting in January with their markups and we could dedicate maybe an hour or two of a meeting to
going through it as a work session type um item and then uh once that's completed and we have sort of some additional adjustments made I could take another pass to make sure
all of the reference document all the reference references that Rachel is referring to as far as definitions and appendices and stuff like that are all in line and in sort of a finished document ready to go for a public hearing and we can schedule
that once that's completed. >> I think that sounds good. >> Okay. >> So, so by uh what's the date of our um second meeting in January? That is a great question. Let's see. Um, it' be the 14th or I'm sorry, the
28th. >> Okay. So, January 28th, we will all have our um revisions uh ready to go and we'll and we will be discussing them January 28th. Right.
>> Okay. Um, Carol, >> if if we have any additions to make or suggestions, that has to be in by when? >> Uh, you have to have them uh with you >> when we have our when we have our January 28th meeting.
>> Uh, you just bring that uh not we won't be doing what I had suggested earlier of uh submitting them to Aaron for Aaron to give to us. We'll just bring our own things and discuss them openly. uh in in the January 28th meeting.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, uh agreed. Um land use applications unless there's anything else on land use land management updates. >> Um we do not have any land use applications tonight. >> All right. Very good.
Um all right. So uh we are on now for an informal uh discussion uh Aaron with Aaron Trio. >> Yes. So I'm going to pull um Aaron in as a panelist.
So hello. Um well, I'm Aaron Treehub and uh thank you for making time uh for this issue uh at this meeting. Um I'm going to be talking about a Farview Way neighborhood and an erosion problem that we've had in that neighborhood for a
number of years. I do have a slideshow um but I I know we're limited to 15 minutes, so I'm going to try to get through it very very quickly and I'm going to skip a lot of things. Erin, um, should I share my screen at this point? >> Yes.
>> Hang on just a moment. Okay, I'm sharing. All right. Um, let me go to There we go. Okay. So, um I know you all you should have
received a background document about this. So, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the background. I'm just going to introduce myself briefly. I'm an Ammeris native. Um grew up in town, went to public schools. Uh my parents moved to Ammerst in 1954. So, uh there have been
tree hubs in Ammerst since well then 71 years. uh worked as an academic librarian at the University of Illinois and Auburn University in Alabama. Retired from Auburn last year. Uh I'm still currently living in Alabama, but I'm fixing up the Ammerst House and as you can see, getting more involved in
Ammersttown affairs. So, uh how we got here this evening. Um, in October 2024, some UMass planning representatives had an open meeting with residents of the of the Farview Way neighborhood to discuss UMass
development projects, construction, and how those were going to impact the neighborhood. Uh, at that time, I was asked by some of my fellow residents to raise the issue of the brook uh, and the erosion. I did at that meeting. Uh, had some follow-up correspondence with UMass
representatives. They directed me to town of Ammeris DPW. Uh DPW uh referred me to the conservation department and eventually to the conservation agent Aaron. Um so we we had a number of conversations with Aaron Jacques uh at
the end of last year, beginning of this year uh culminating in this invitation to present to the concom um with an on-site visit uh by Erin in July of this year. So, I assume uh I don't have to really
explain where the Farview Way neighborhood is. It's it's immediately to the north of the UMass campus. It's bounded on the north sort of by the presidential apartments, to the south by Governor's Drive, East North Pleasant Street, and to the west by um some
Meadowland and uh what is that? North Village Drive and and Route 116. Uh something about the history of the development of the neighborhood. uh basically took off after World War II in terms of housing construction. Um sort of paralleled the expansion of the
university after the war. Um and here's here's a list of some of the uh UMass construction that that took place is still taking place in the form of the school of public health uh right next to our neighborhood. The main point
here is that as UMass, you know, built, uh, areas that were previously meadow land or fields, um, forested areas were replaced by obviously buildings, uh, and other imperous surfaces like parking lots and walkways and more recently
solar arrays. So, um, that has been the main, uh, I think factor uh, behind some of the problems we're seeing. Um anyway, uh brief information about wetlands and streams in the neighborhood. Uh I'm
going to be focusing on one particular stream brook. I call it the south northbrook. As far as I know, it does not have a formal name. Um so this is it. And this is uh an aerial photograph from
1956. I' I've circled the uh the area of the brook. Um, Mark's Meadow School is not there. Tottman gym is not there. Silven is not there. None of the, you know, none of the buildings that that uh came along in the late 50s uh and later
are there. It's all Meadowland. And I think you can see the brook originating in what is what used to be Tottman Meadow uh where Tottman Fizzed uh is now and actually where the school of public health will be. And it flows northn
northwest crosses under north pleasant street sort of where Marks Meadow School FKO is now and then flows northwest through the farview way neighborhood which at that time uh was relatively undeveloped. Um the important thing the
interesting thing here is if you look in the upper left hand uh area of the circled uh portion you can see that there are actually some pools or looks like small ponds where the the stream um actually you know was able to collect
and uh had some watershed areas. So that's 1956. Um, so in the late 1950s, uh, with the construction of Tottman and with the construction of Mark's Meadow and with increased housing construction in the
neighborhood, the brook was covered over and, um, it was channelized. And this, of course, all took place before the Wetlands Protection Act, so it wasn't really discussed or or um, you know, it wasn't an issue as far as I know.
And uh around this time, the brook was also routed through a second culvert right under Birkshire and emerging uh on the north side of Berkshire Terrace and then flowing uncovered through the neighborhood out
into a marsh land just south of um the presidential apartments. At this time we also saw that it was receiving more uh runoff uh from the university um and the you know the volume and velocity of the stream
increased over the years. So when I was growing up uh on farview way the brook was a relatively narrow stream fairly shallow uh with sloping banks that allowed children to approach it because we played in it. It was it
was a playground. But that started to change, I'd say, in the 1980s, 1990s. Um, it it really uh the flow increased. We saw more problems with erosion, undercutting large trees along the banks
of the brook. Um I think I provided in the background documents some some correspondence or um a concom meeting minutes uh dealing with one of the issues caused by the Brooks uh erosion that is large trees being
undercut and falling over. Um that happened uh to my parents in 2001. A large tree fell across the brook into their backyard. And uh that that incident was addressed by Concom uh in 2002 early 2002 but no
action at that time was taken. So uh pictures are are better than words in a way. So here um and I apologize in the first version of this I I misdated these photographs. Um
this is a DO family photograph. There are neighbors on far view way. And I originally said this was from the 70s. It's it's from the late 1990s. Uh a member of the family informed me, but this is a stretch of the brook uh at that time. Um you can see it's it's the
banks are fairly gradual. They slope down to the stream such that children could play. Um that's one view. I think that's looking south. Here's another view looking north. Basically the same point of view. Um, the house in the
background in the upper leftand corner is 159 Farvey Way. That's the house that's next to 145, which is my property. So, this is all from the 1990s. Um, so here are some photos from the same
location, uh, looking south. Uh, you can see it's it's now a ravine. And this is typical of the of the course of the brook through the neighborhood. Um it's it's become a steep ravine with
abrupt banks. Um there's another view of it and this is when the brook is relatively quiet. Uh so here's from the same point of view looking north. You can see it's a it's a
big sort of trench now. a lot of exposed tree roots and also um some outuildings that are are being threatened by it. So, here's a video of So, that's an example of the Brooks flow
after a rainstorm, you know, not a not a torrential rain, but rain. And um after heavier rainstorms, residents have actually spoke of have spoken of seeing the brook crest over its banks.
So some recent developments uh you were talking earlier about covert work. Well, um the outflow end of the culvert under Berkshire Terrace is cracked. A resident showed me that a few weeks ago. Um we suspect there may be other covert
problems upstream. Um there were some sink holes that appeared uh in properties on the western side of Farview Way just across from FKolo. Um and uh recently when we were sort of
walking the course of the brook, we could see that that erosion is now threatening a detached garage at one of the North Pleasant properties. it sort of set in from the road and also uh the foundations of houses at 13 Berkshire Terrace and 159 Farie Way.
So to sum up um 70 years ago it was a naturally free flowing stream um had overflow capacity gradually sloping banks. Over time it appears to have become part of the storm water drainage system for the northeastern part of the
UMass campus. We've seen the volume and velocity of its flow increase um sort of in in pace with the university's northward development and the replacement of watershed areas with imperous surfaces. It's washed away
property. It's undermined large trees. Um it's altering property lines and it's now threatening out buildings and foundations. Um the steep banks which I mentioned earlier uh are are a safety hazard. Um the neighborhood has a number
of rental properties occupied by students. Those students invite their friends over. They have parties. Um you know I'm concerned that somebody's going to wander into the backyard and and and fall. So some of us uh have put up uh
security barriers to to try to prevent that. So, these are just some suggested action items. Um, I I you know, I don't know if I'm out of line on any of them, but um they seem to be sort of
uh rational uh first steps in trying to address this issue. Uh perhaps commission a formal study. I I don't think that's ever been done uh in reference to this particular stream. Uh what I'm particularly interested in is exploring practical options for
mitigation or remediation within the framework of the wetlands protection act act with cost estimates um and possibly even form a small working group to look at wetlands issues more more generally in North Ammerst. You know, I know there are a lot of
conversations going on about development in North Ammerst and um I think this is an important part of that. Uh that is basically my spiel. Um I've got my contact information there and I'll make
sure that that uh Erin Jacques has a copy of this uh slideshow so you can all um consult it at your convenience. Um, the only other things are some appendencies with topographical maps
showing the brook over time. Um, there's one there's one photograph I'd like to dwell on again. That's the 1956 aerial photograph. And this is a uh a Kodakchrome slide that was actually taken by my father in October 1954 of
the stream at what I think was probably uh just north of Berkshire Terrace looking northn northwest, you know, judging by the the sunset. Um so that shows you what the stream looked like in 1954 before it was covered over and channelized. And then there are some
other aerial photographs over the years uh up to 2023. you can see the, you know, the growth in construction at that end of the UMass campus. And then finally, more recent photographs, uh,
from just this time last year and then from this summer and the video. So, um, I'm going to end it there, Erin. Um, I hope I've I've stayed within the 15 minute limit. Um,
and I can stop sharing or you can stop sharing for me. >> Well, thank you, Aaron. Um, I'm sure that uh there could be some questions here. I do have one question.
I'm kind of curious. Uh, have you figured a uh a pathway to fund um work on the stream? I know you you you made a suggestion in there, but I'm I'm curious what other
>> Okay. Well, um I've spoken with Aaron Jacques about this. um the residents themselves have been prevented or advised not to take you
know not to explore remediation on their own since it's a protected area. It's a wetland. So there's really nothing that that we could do individually. My my if you would like to hear my ideal solution, it would be >> sort of a a combined collaborative
practical approach by the town, the university, and the residents to come up with a mitigation plan. Um, and I've told Aaron, uh, you know, if that involves cost to the residents,
that's certainly something that I personally would be willing to entertain. Um but I you know my hope is that we can actually start addressing the problem in a practical uh collaborative way. It's been going on for a long time. Um you
know I shared with you the minutes of the the Concom meeting from 2002. Um you know based on my own family's files uh I think that uh you know my parents alerted the town to the problem as early as the mid 1990s.
Um, so I I just like to see a practical solution. I'm not interested in pointing fingers. I I just would like to get the problem fixed. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you, Erin. Um, Bruce, >> I can think of two a short-term and a
medium-term um idea, two of them. One is, and both of them got mentioned earlier in the meeting. So um one is the uh MVP covert assessment. So at a minimum we could try
to get the covert assessors to look at the culverts and just know what the assessment is. And the reason m Mr. Tri that's important is because then that assessment information would go into a a regional database that influences how
the states actually prioritize their spending. And so making sure that the culverts are in this database is a pretty important relatively you know within a year maybe could could that could get done. Um and
I'm the uh Amoris leaison to this project. So I can encourage the managers uh to to try to at least put that on their list and make sure that it's as high a priority as they can make it. That's part one. Part two is this is
like the almost a perfect example of the kind of project Conway School of Landscape Design graduate students would do. And I could I having being the former executive of the school um I have
some way to talk to the school about would they be interested in in at least considering this as a project. I could get the project organizer to talk to you and we could see whether it it met the criteria of the school and the needs of the of the neighborhood. So, I'm willing
to do both of those things. >> That would be both of those would be great. I I think, you know, a culvert assessment is long overdue based on what I saw of of what I could see of the culvert on the north side of Birkshire Terrace. Uh I don't know exactly how long it's been there, but it's not in good shape. Right.
>> And then uh involving the the the Conway school would be wonderful. Um Okay. >> I think would be >> I'll take those up. We'll work offline to to let you know what progress I've made. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> That's a great great suggestions, Bruce.
You're the man with the connections. And uh Rachel has some more >> um related to that. I'm wondering if the University of Massachusetts civil engineering department might be a good partner with the Conway School on the study. Um, this type of project would
benefit from some hydraological modeling. um some pipe side, you know, pipe flow analysis also to see um it obviously it looks like we we're having erosion in in in the stream course bed, but to
quantify that to know uh how significant of intervention is needed and and and what our options are there with the Conway school could be really a beneficial thing if they were up for it. I don't know. We there are a few examples of joint
ventures between Conway and UMass departments. So there is a precedent for it. >> Dave, >> yeah. No, I think these are all great ideas. Um, possible project ideas. I do
just want to point out that this is representative of a larger problem that we're seeing in Ammerstston throughout, you know, New England, which is, you know, climate change affecting runoff, development affecting runoff, you know,
as as this uh as the PowerPoint went on, I I thought of all the images in my head and many of these uh site visits I've done with Aaron that we have this same issue along the Fearing Brook, the Tan Brook, the Plum Brook. So, this is kind
of representative of issues we have all over town and um you know, a developing town with with a big university and and um and and more frequent and intense storms. So, I think it'd be interesting to to do this study and and perhaps get
Conway involved. But I also wanted to point out that from a staff standpoint, we have heard very similar stories and concerns about, you know, I can think of a few few places along the tan and the fearing where the exact same thing is happening. So, uh, we may want to look
farther field too and look at some of these other water courses that are really urban urban streams now. They were once rural, but they are urban rivers now. So, thanks. goes to show the importance of what
we're doing. Thanks, Dave. Um, Jason, >> thanks, Andre. Yeah, the I was just gonna say that it shows the importance of this post construction storm water management, especially when you put in all this impervious surface. Um, really would love to see Ammerst become a
sponge city similar to much larger cities, you know, but not, you know, I say city in the informal colloquial way. uh sponge small western New England town. Um but
is this something Dave and and this is more just kind of a question because the the the the topic of funding has come up. Um this particular stretch of Pleasant Street there is it uh North Pleasant Street seems like it would be a great
stretch for a complete streets uh overhaul. And I know there's some grant funding available. Um, and but I'm not I'm not sure necessarily how some of this potential storm water would play into it, but is this something that are
you aware of? Could a could a complete streets grant also help to address some of the storm water issues aside from safety and like bike travel and uh alternative modes of transportation?
>> It's a great question, Jason. I'm I'm just not sure. Certainly complete streets include um you know green buffers uh uh you know between and among sidewalks and bike lanes and and you know safe passage for
vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. But I'm not sure if if this kind of mitigation is part of that. But you know it's certainly something we can look into. Um, uh, there will be a new
>> with the increased >> with like the North Village apartments and Puffton Village and all that stuff. Um, and concerns about traffic. I would think that this this stretch of Pleasant Street is just certainly ripe for that
kind of overhaul. And if you're going to overhaul street, it really makes a whole lot of sense to overhaul the drainage under the street while you're doing it. >> Yeah. No, I think we can look at that. I think to Rachel's point earlier, you've really to address this problem, you also
have to do that analysis looking farther up in the watershed to see what's happening up there. And we know there has been as the as the uh as Erin has pointed out um you know there's been a lot of development upstream in this watershed in the last 20 to 30 years. So
um but yeah I I think that could be all part of the Conway project as well. But >> yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks. Um I think what we're going to do here is uh >> what is complete? >> Wait a minute. Um, we're going to wrap up this part of the uh uh of this
discussion and we can take the rest uh offline Bruce with uh Aaron or anyone who wants to talk to Bruce about it. But Carol, go ahead and um >> what complete streaks means >> I'm sorry.
>> Complete streaks. What's that? >> Program. Well, it's a it's a planning term that really refers to planning and constructing streets so that there is safe passage for vehicles, uh, pedestrians, and bicyclists. So, it it's
a combination of different elements of planning and construction that that allow for all of those to take place in a safe way. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Well, uh, thanks a lot, Erin. Um,
and I hope that uh this has been a start, a good start, and um and uh best of luck and we'll probably be talking in the future. >> Well, that's uh that's great. Thank you so much, Andre. Um this is exactly what
I was hoping might come out of this. Um so yes, I would be happy to follow up with any of the members uh on the ideas that have been presented. Um, as I said, you know, my goal is to to simply find a practical working solution to this. And if it fits in with other things that the
town is doing, that's great. So, >> hope so. Yeah. Well, thanks. And uh and Bruce uh Bruce will be in touch with you, I'm sure. There you go. He's got give the thumbs up. Thank you again. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Uh we are now um we're now moving into our uh public hearings. Um and let me find my uh slide here real quick. And so uh we have three hearings for
tonight. Uh if you don't mind uh Aaron uh putting up the slide on the um on hearings for general procedures. Uh we have uh 20 dedicated minutes to the uh to each uh hearing with uh five
minutes first for the applicant or the applicant's representative followed by five minutes uh for uh staff uh to comment, five minutes for the public uh to comment or two minutes per person.
and uh then five minutes per uh commissioner who would like to uh do that. Now um for anyone who's presenting uh please just uh clearly uh state your name uh where the project is and uh who you're
representative representative representing um if you have any uh preferred pronouns please uh request those or or say what what they are. Uh members of the public uh please uh give us your uh address and
your name uh and any uh preferred pronouns. Um when you do want to speak, if you wish to speak, please uh raise your hand and I'll be calling on you uh one by one as uh as I see the hands raised. And uh
with that, we're going to move into our very first uh uh hearing. Um, this is a uh this is not the first hearing on it, so we're not opening on it. Uh, this is a uh an ANRAD or abbreviated notice uh uh
of resource area delineation. uh Gddard Construction on behalf of Pure Sky Development for the confirmation of both Mass Wetland Protection Act resource area boundaries and wetland protection town of Ammer's general bylaw article 3.31
and regulations resource uh resource area boundaries within a designated study area on the Shootsbury road on Shootsbury road that's map 9 B Bravo lot 11 and 12 and map 9 delta 9D delta lot
27. Um uh quick uh uh quick background. Um actually I guess we won't need to start with the background. Erin, are the uh applicants
uh here to uh make the presentation? >> Yes. I thought I saw Steve Riberty. I'm gonna >> Okay. Now, as you uh bring him up, I'm going I would like to uh put out for uh knowledge that we were um
uh that back in um at the beginning or middle of uh uh November, we requested that um uh that the applicant um
provide some answers and uh and a and um to some of the questions we had and as well as a uh an answer to the um uh to a couple of uh surveys um
that were done on uh on the property and um so far we have not spurred back ha had any answers uh from the applicants. Uh we did mention in our uh we did take
a vote that day uh that we would be uh uh likely making a determination on this date today. So uh with that I'd like to uh uh hear from the applicants. >> Yeah. Well, good evening everybody. I'm Steve Rberty, a senior wetland scientist
over at Goddard Consulting working for um for the wetlands consultant for Pure Sky. So yeah, I'll just give you an update as to where we are. Um, the peer reviews came back. We had two different peer reviewers that this project was put out for peer review on and those came
back, you know, fairly recently. Um, we have to So there's two different peer reviews. One of the peer reviews is for the wetland line itself. The other one is an engineering peer review on the calculations to determine if there was any isolated land subject to flooding on the parcel. that's a more of an
engineering analysis. Um so both those peer reviews came back. We've presented them to Pure Sky that that would need to engage um the surveyor to redo some of the wetland lines. Um and I'll talk about that in a second. And
then we would have to use them to also re-engage the engineer to answer the engineering questions. So since you know we had we had the peer review, we went met with Emily Stockman, the town's hired peer reviewer in the field. You know, all this happened after the last hearing. You know, we went through every
wetland flag on the site. Uh we adjusted some, we made field revisions. You know, new flags are in place in the field. Um you know, we were in process of responding to her letter. You know, we essentially agreed to all her points. Um so our letter is just basically going to
be we agree with this, we agree with that. Um and different flags have moved. What needs to happen next is the the relocated flags need to get surveyed and put on a revised plan. Um that's outside of my personal control. I have to talk to Pure Sky about doing that. And the
same thing about the engineering review, but that came back, you know, a little bit after Thanksgiving. And then so we have to re-engage the engineer to answer the questions from that peer reviewer. Um, on Pure Sky end, I think I'm the
only representative on tonight, so there's nobody on from Pure Sky. There was a change in project management internally in their company. So then there's a new project manager that's getting up to speed on the project. So we just had a meeting with him the other week to kind of get him up to speed with everything that's happened and all the
things that have to happen on their end. Um, it's a little bit out of my control. I can't make the surveyor go out and survey the flags and I can't make the engineer respond to the questions, you know, immediately. So, they know that it's important. They know that that's
it's back on us now to respond to the two formal peer reviews that came back. So, we were going to need some time to do that. Um, and that's that's kind of where we're at with it. Um, like I said, for the wetlands, we went out with Emily, changed everything that we felt
needed changing to to Emily's satisfaction. That's what her letter represented. We just need to produce the plan that that kind of codifies those those changes in the field. >> Thanks, Steve. Um, I think I'll u I think I'm just going to
pass for now and let uh um let the uh town employee um Aaron uh what are your comments so far? Um
well uh the so at the um at the October 22nd meeting, the commission made a motion um that the materials uh at um all materials from the
conclusion of the peer review would need to be submitted by December 10th. uh those materials. So, we we finished the peer review up by about the end of November. Um and uh the materials, as as
Steve mentioned, weren't able to get to us by uh the 10th. Um we did receive a request to continue the public hearing until January. Um and so I think the question before the commission tonight is how you would like
to proceed. Um I think you know it the commission's in a bit of a precarious situation um because of the turnover on the board with the body being limited to four members out of the seven who can vote on this
which would require a um a you know an agreed vote of all four members on whatever decision is made. So, I think it's really important that the all four committee members be on the same page with um how to proceed. Um I
did prepare um a motion in the instance that you are moving to deny for lack of information. Um, I worked with the town attorney on that and certainly the town attorney
shares some of the concerns with um, uh, extending this, continuing to extend it for months at a time because it does put us at risk at this point. Um, with four only four members who can vote, two
members have already each missed one meeting each. So, um, as we move through this, if we lose a quorum, that could present a very serious issue. Um, so that's kind of the situation that we're
in tonight and I think the commission needs to come to a decision as to how they wish to proceed. >> We're at risk. I'm sorry, >> Steve. We are yeah we are at risk uh of losing that quorum and uh >> yeah I'm aware
>> and uh we did make that vote and u you know I it was fairly clear um that we needed uh you guys to we needed we needed uh proper responses um but we will need need to be hearing from the
public here uh and then the commissioners are going to be talking about it as well. Jason Sorry, if you want to go to the public first and then commissioner questions, I'm fine. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Steve, was there something else that you wanted to say? >> I was going to say one of the other options that we've been we've been
considering too is because that you know there has been turnover on the commission is withdrawing without pre prejudice and then resubmitting it. So we you know because the peer review has been completed we'll respond to the peer review and then you know it would be you know this basically resubmitting the exact same material with the peer review
already completed as a new application and then at that point the entire board can >> that's entirely up to you Steve I uh you know we're we can only do what what we can do um
you know if that's something that you wanted to do that's uh you you Uh you're you're probably right to consider it. >> Yeah. >> Um all right. So, we're going to move to the public. Um I uh unfortunately, Erin,
I really I can't really operate this uh system that I've got right now to uh >> Yeah. >> bring folks in from the public. So, if you can >> Thank you. >> Yes, absolutely. So, I'm not seeing any hands raised from the public, Andre.
>> Okay. We have had some uh some public comment uh in writing. Um and I'm hoping that everyone's had an opportunity to look at that. Um >> Andre, >> I do see a hand raised in the public. >> Sorry to interrupt.
>> Sorry, Jason. Um, so I'm going to uh bear with me one second. Okay. Uh, I've just added Phil Rich. Um, Phil, if you'd like to >> submit a comment. >> Welcome, Phil. Please. Uh, I think we
see your name, but if you can tell us your name and address and uh, >> can you hear me? Am I on? >> We can. >> Yes. Bill Rich, 187 Shootsbury Road in Neist. The only reason I put my hand up is partly because nobody else put their hand up, but I'm one of the people who co-signed a document that was sent in
just a couple of days ago uh expressing the concerns really of the community around here in particular, you know, neighbors, people who live on Shootsbury Road. So, I I'm only I only put my hand up to note that I'm not sure who else is out there at the moment because obviously I can't see who's participating. Um but there are people
who are concerned listening. So, we we even though there may not be any comments, we we're present for this. So, that's all I really wanted to say. Thank you. >> Well, thanks for keeping an eye on it. >> Thanks. >> Um I see a couple other hands popping up. Andre, um >> All right.
>> So, I'll add Renee uh Renee Moss. >> Welcome, Renee. Let us know when you're uh when >> can you hear me? >> Oh, here we go. >> Okay. Um yeah, I you know just as as an
oh Renee Moss 277 Shootsberry Road and um well first of all one of the things I wanted to know is I was just curious as to how many people from the public are listening. Do you have >> uh we have 24 people in attendance from
the public tonight right now. >> Great. Um yeah, I I I think that you know just to sort of express the concerns clearly there are a lot of you know people in the community who are concerned about
the issues around this parcel of land and it has been a very long time. It has taken a lot of time from the you know that the conservation commission conservation commissioners have put into this. I think it's been about 5 years back and forth um with you know
withdrawing without prejudice and coming back and missing deadlines and um so it and you know as an abuter um you know the there's just been a lot of concern about um
the way the way in which this whole process has has gone on. And it just feels like too many people too involved for too long, you know, with a lot of um community concern around it. And I I thank the commissioners so much for for
being so vigilant about this whole thing and for hanging in there. But it just feels like a long time. That's all I want to say. And uh again, thank you for your for the work you've all put into it. And I know you've all put a lot of work into this.
Thank you, Miss Moss. Anyone else? >> Can't quite hear you, Erin, but if you see someone else, uh, please let in. >> Sorry, I just added uh Lenor Brick. >> Hello, Lenor. Welcome. >> Hi, Andrew. Hi, everybody. Can you hear
me? >> We can. >> Yeah. Um, so first just thank you guys for your essential services. Um and um I I wanted to I mean this is I'm just going to again state the obvious. It's a general
comment about the wisdom of this project in general. Um and and also for the benefit of newer commissioners that um haven't really been involved or following this. Um some of the concern
the main concern from the community is um you know you were talking about this tonight. We're experiencing um more drought and flooding and woodlands are incomparable in their mitigation and restorative capacity. Um Aaron's story
and David's point about erosion um which is among many of the problems that arise from the lack of forested and wetland areas and and from overdevelopment. I mean we're we're seeing it in real time.
um the the need for our for what our lands do. Um solar we know of course is a very important renewable energy alternative but it doesn't provide the essential echoservices that forest and wetlands are undervalued for such as
regulating the water cycles. Even Jason pointed out like sponge cities, which is such a great idea, but they basically are mimicking what natural systems already do. So, wouldn't it be wiser to preserve and restore our existing natural systems and site solar where
solar belongs? Um, so it's, you know, I'm just like stating the obvious, looking at a project that is is um a lot of us think are is ill-founded even though we all have anxiety about the climate crisis, but this is not the
wisest way to address it. Um and and if newer commissioners or anyone is interested in more information, a group of us have been studying this for years in touch with climate scientists, uh ecologists, wildlife biologists, and other subject experts. And there's a lot
of material um and information at your disposal. So yeah, just saying it again. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Can you please give us your address and you'll ask? >> Yeah, I always forget. I'm sorry. Um, 255 Strong Street, not in a butter, but
on the planet. >> Thank you, >> Aaron. Are there any other uh members of the public who are looking to speak? >> I don't see any more hand hands raised. Oh, hold on a second. I do see a hand
raised. Uh, Judy Eisman. >> Welcome, Judy. Please uh tell us your uh if your name isn't Judy Eisman, please tell us your name, your real name and your address. >> My name is in fact Judy Eisman. I am the
chair of the planning board in Pelum and I've been following this process for all the years that you've been dealing with it. I used to serve on the conservation commission in Pelum and I was president of MACC at one point. So I have some
background in these things. Um, I only decided to speak because as Lenora is pointing out, this is probably the worst sort of area to develop and damage wetlands and
forests resources that are in short supply. I am happy to have solar in the right places. I'm happy to have development in the right places. But as our neighbor, we think as we've been watching this, we think this is just the
wrong place. And I would hope that you would let them start over and and uh call a halt to this process at this point. Um you I have written comments in the past and I don't want to go on forever but in short that's what the
town of Pelum feels and I'm speaking in general for a a variety of boards and individuals in Pelum who've been watching it. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Judy. Anyone else in out of the public?
>> I don't see anyone else at this time. Andre. >> All right. So, there was our public comment and now we're going to turn it over to uh to the commissioners and we'll start with Jason who's raised his hand several times. >> Thanks.
>> Thank you uh everybody in the public who commented. Um Erin, I want to I want to just clarify our vote here. If we vote to deny the ANRAD, then what are
the next steps? and and as several people have mentioned, this has been going on and on. We've had multiple continuences. >> Um, I want to make sure that we all understand what it is that the next
steps will be. If they withdraw the project without prejudice, do they just then reapply for it? >> I don't think this >> process again. And >> so, yeah, if you could just clarify all that. Sure. Um, so I don't think
the whether the the applicant withdraws or the commission denies, I don't think it really changes the process at all. They can still resubmit and um address the peer reviewer's comments. Um, I think the only difference with where
we're at is it's almost like we're at an impass. um you know, it puts the commission in a potential um liability situation and so you know whether the commission decides to do that is really up to the
the four remaining members who can vote tonight. Um so it it's kind of like an eitheror situation. We sort of create this potential liability or deny. um if the only difference that a denial does is it gives the applicant an opportunity
to appeal. Um and so there's really no difference in terms of whether we deny or whether the applicant withdraws. they could still resubmit, you know, 3 weeks from now with all of the peerreview comments um addressed and, you know,
revisions per the peer reviewers um comments >> and that would put us that would open us to liability because of the number of commissioners or if we deny then can all of the
current commissioners then >> right so >> vote on this you review and vote on project. >> Right? So if if the applicant comes back with a new application at that time, anybody on the board can participate.
It's because this hearing opened and um there was this period of time since August when the application was submitted and the end of December that we've basically lost the ability to have multiple members vote. um which has
reduced our numbers to the point where um you know if if Rachel or Jason for example missed another meeting our we would no longer have a quorum on this. Um >> so can so if we deny they can come back
and just reapply but every commissioner then every current commissioner then will have a vote. >> If they withdraw without prejudice they can come back and reapply and every commissioner will have a vote. Mhm.
>> So, what you're saying is if we approve and this moves forward, only the four commissioners can vote on the on anything having to do with the project moving forward. >> Well, you you can't Well, I wouldn't recommend approving because we don't
have a a revised plan to approve, >> right? It it would be continuation and >> Yeah. If we continue >> if we continue sorry participate moving forward >> if we yeah approve the continuence
request for continuance. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks Jason. Um go ahead Bruce. >> I correct me if I'm wrong Steve. Um, I thought I heard you say that you are you
yourself are not in a position to withdraw the application tonight. >> No, I can withdraw the application. I filed it. I'm not in in the position to like direct the surveyors or the engineers. So, I can't comment on their timing. So, if you were and ask me like,
hey, will I have a response by next week or two weeks or five weeks? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that because I I they're not under my they're under my control, but I can withdraw the application. All right. Um, let's see. I had a couple things I
wanted to say. Um, you know, I I don't want to uh beat I don't really feel like beating a dead horse. Um, but the fact is that we have been through a lot of different steps in this process.
Um we've uh you know I mean we've we gave a pretty uh set um demand if you would uh for information. Let me just read that so that uh to put this back into the public uh
uh domain if you would or into the to the ears of the public. What we agreed on and voted on uh in the uh October 22nd meeting was that all quote
all materials from the conclusion of the peer review will need to be received by the commission no later than December 10th uh no late later than December 10th 2025 meeting for consideration at the
December 17th meeting. If materials are not received by that date, the commission may need to deny the project for lack of information on December 17th, 2025. That's today. I don't feel like we have enough to make
a vote. We are also in a precarious situation uh where we're losing our um or we have lost uh three of our uh members uh who could vote on this. And um barring any uh
huge revelation, I'm ready to uh I'm ready to uh take a vote on um uh based on the amount of information that we've received so far. I mean, we you know, I think it's been very clear what uh what we were asking for and then demanding
and it hasn't happened. Um, you know, we're uh I know Steve, you said that your hands are tied in certain senses. Uh, I'm feeling like our hands are getting pretty tied. >> Well, I I I don't disagree with that. And and to the defense of of the project
and and this is just a semantics thing. It's we didn't get the peerreview stuff to even respond to it until after Thanksgiving. So our our the amount of time we had to pull the information together to make the 1210 meeting was less than two weeks which required
survey to go back out and reservey the site. So you know it was almost an impossible task on our end too to properly respond to the two peer reviews in the window by the time we had the information to be able to make that response. >> Thanks Steve. I I think this is a time
for us to do some talking here among the uh uh among the commissioners, but I do appreciate your input there. >> Um >> yeah, uh I mean frankly uh we the written pre peer review comments uh were
completed by Fuss O'Neal on uh 11:26 and forwarded to the applicants. the written peer review uh from Stockman Associates, which would be the uh um the engineering uh review that was uh
forwarded to uh the applicants on um the 3rd of this month. Today is the 17th. Um so, uh anyway, uh Rachel, please um what I can't hear you. Okay.
>> Um D provided some comments about this also. Um citing two other ANRAD files filings on the project that are possibly currently open. I'm not clear on that. And suggesting that those be closed out
um prior to this getting formalized. And I I'm I'm curious about how that you know how that gets closed out. Is that just waiting time for that to expire or is there a formal process for
um removing that panrad? Because it seems like there's a lot of discrepancy. There are a lot of pieces that are just um not clear and I'm just curious like permitting wise how that gets cleaned up. >> Yeah. Erin, briefly if you can. >> The first ANRAD expired. uh the second
ANRAD um is is valid but it would be superseded by this one. Um and that's my understanding is that when a new one is issued it supersedes the previous one. Um the the previous ANRAD didn't include all of the
resource areas within the study area and so that was the challenge and also my understanding is the study area has changed. So, but I think the same question was posed to me today and I am unaware of a process for closing out a ORAD because it's not like you're
finishing work. It's a delineation. How do you close that out? Um, I can seek some additional um guidance on that, but my understanding is I'm not aware of any process. >> Okay. Thanks, Rachel. And uh Aaron and Bruce
>> like to make the motion, >> please. >> But I need Aaron to tell me, do I need to read this entire thing? >> Okay, then I'm going to start doing it. Hang in there. >> Um >> I move that the commission
>> Bruce, uh is there any more? I think I'd like to make sure that any discussion that's uh going to be taking place is is is is completed. Bruce, uh, does anyone else have any, uh, any of the voters, if you would, it's going to be Rachel, uh,
Bruce, Jason, and me, have um have any more questions or any doubts or anything that uh uh that's clouding their mind in terms of making a uh decision. Okay, Bruce, sorry to interrupt you.
>> No, it's fine. Um, I move the commission move to issue order of resource area delineation DP number 0890762 checking box BC12 and three under both the wetlands protection act and under wetlands protection town of Ammeris
general bylaws article 3.31 deeming resource area boundaries to be inaccurate and referencing the attached findings of facts. The determination of the boundaries to be inaccurate is based on the applicant's failure to submit necessary required specific information
which was required to be submitted no later than December 10, 2025 deadline. This information was needed by the commission in order to make an informed decision assessment and determination on the accuracy of the resource area delineation shown on the plans of
record. The following specific plan revisions were needed based on peer reviewer comments. One revised ILSF calculations addressing documented errors noted as number 1 through 4 in the Fuss and O'Neal peer review of engineering services letter dated
November 26, 2025. Two revised resource area delineation based on November 18th, 2025 site visit and written wetland consultant peerreview comments from Stockman Associates dated December 1st, 2025. uh as detailed
A general 1 through 7 B S and 2S intermittent stream bank boundary and B LSF 8-9 C Y series B VW boundary 10 D 3S intermittent stream bank boundary 11- 12
E 5S intermittent stream bank boundary 13 F D series BVW boundary 14- 16 G 6S intermittent stream B bank boundary 17- 21. H7S intermittent stream bank
boundary 22- 23. I M A H L H WL and riverfront area boundary 24, J VPI series vernal pool boundary 25 through 26 and K VP2 series vernal pool boundary
27. And with that the longest motion in the history of the conservation commission. Yeah, that's what it seems. So, we have a motion. Uh, do we have a second? >> I motion.
>> All right, there's Bruce on a motion. Jason on a second. Rachel, >> I >> Jason >> I. >> Bruce, >> I. >> And I'm an I. So, the motion uh is passed.
Um, Steve, uh, I'm sure we'll be seeing you or, uh, or your brethren, uh, fairly soon. Um, good luck to the team and we will >> I didn't hear you, sir. >> We will be back at some point. >> All right. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Byebye. >> Okay. Um, with that we move on to our next uh notice uh which is an NOI notice of intent uh Stonefield Engineering and
Design on behalf of Air um MCI of Fort River LLC for the proposed construction of a mixeduse structure housing and commercial with proposed parking, storm water and associated site and landscaping at 126 140 and 148 Southeast
Street and 483 three Belchuretown Road map 15 C Charlie lots 7 8 9 and 48. Um this uh this has been open for uh for a couple of months, two and two and a half
months so far. And uh let's see who we have uh here to uh present for the applicants. And in the meantime, while uh Erin brings them up, uh Bruce, do you have a question or is that your hand
raised for before? Okay, so Aaron, if you can bring bring in the Okay, here we go. Josh Klein. Hello, Josh. Uh, good evening. Josh Klein, Stonefield. Is Ward is Ward Smith in the crowd? Aaron,
he was going to be kind of presenting this evening. >> Yes, I've added Ward to the >> Perfect. Um, so I I'm going to be I'll be very quick and kind of turn it over to Ward. So, it's been, you know, I think um it's been about two and a half
months. We have only presented one time before the before the commission. So, um Mr. Smith or Ward, who is the wetland scientist, wasn't available at the first meeting. Um, since the last meeting, just a couple of of notes of what happened. We did do a another field
walkthrough. We were out there in the morning and then met up with Tina, Carol, and Rachel in the afternoon. Uh, we did submit an isolated land subject to flooding memo kind of um showing that the the features on site um are not subject to isolated land subject to
flooding. Uh we also provided the commission with a waiver justification memo um kind of speaking to the the bylaws and the justifications for the waiverss we're seeking u as part of the application. Um I'm happy to I'll share my screen but I I will turn it over to
Mr. Smith just to kind of have him go through the existing features a little bit more in depth kind of explain explain the wetlands and then we can talk a little bit about next steps. >> Okay. Uh Ward Smith, Wendle Wetland Services. I did the wetland delineation
on the property and uh and the site visit. Um the applicant's asking for a variance from the um buffer zone requirements of the Amoris wetlands protection bylaw. I just would like to
um point out to the commission that if this were an undisturbed situation where these were natural wetlands um with an undisturbed buffer zone, this would not this project would not be before the commission. Uh but we're
dealing with with wetlands that are um they're isolated from other wetlands and they're isolated geographically by uh State Highway Route 9, Southeast Street and um the Colonial
Village uh development. So they have no connectivity with other resource areas. The two wetlands that are offsite are um moaned. Uh the portion of the wetland that's on this site is a shrub swamp
which is a somewhat of a natural area but the buffer zone is lawn and there are houses and developed areas. Um the commission's has a regulations of the bylaw and I'm just going to read what it says. Exceptions can be made on
a case-bycase basis in redevelopment projects, urban locations, and areas where resource area values are documented as severely degraded. So the wetlands are degraded, the buffer zone is degraded. Um, in the
calculations, they they used previously degraded areas as being those that have lack of top soil paved or buildings, but they considered areas that are moan lawn as non-degraded. And I'm not saying that they're they meet the definition of degraded, but it's not a natural
condition. It's not a normal um undisturbed wetland buffer zone situation. So, what the applicant is proposing is to do on-site mitigation,
providing uh planting of of trees and shrubs, which will provide um wildlife habitat values, including um food and cover for for birds and and small mammals, which I think are what your wildlife species of interest on this
particular property would be. And I the applicant doesn't control the off-site wetlands. So that we can't do anything about that. But we can improve the buffer zone to those wetlands. Um assuming Colonial Village in the in the future does some work on their site,
they may propose some mitigation of those areas. So it would make it a uh it would improve the overall uh values of the two wetlands. So I I do want to point out I've looked at the planting plan. I think the density and everything is good, but I need to I need to make
some suggestions to change some of the species because some of the species that are listed are native to the United States, but they're not native to this area, this county. So, I think we really I'm sure the commission wants things that are only native um to to this
particular area. Thank you. Um, >> thanks. >> Thanks, Ward. Um, yeah, I'll just kind of um, you know, kind of close out, you know, and just highlighting on this screen. I think what Ward's talking
about is creating that perpetual or kind of protected buffer. Um, so you kind of have this area along the kind of to the north of the page and kind of continues along kind of the rest of the the right hand side property line. So that'll be
that kind of permanent you know native buffering um zone and um we did provide detailed responses to kind of all the requirements when seeking relief. Um, you know, we did want to note any any redevelopment application, you know, to
redevelop this used car dealership, you know, when we look at alteration would trigger the need for a waiver. So, you know, we understand that we are, you know, we kind of have you two isolated features that are driving kind of the communive, you know, effort here when we talk about the total amount of
alteration. Um, but we do have a um an existing condition, you know, with this used car dealership historically, you know, being here with parked cars, you know, any any redevelopment, any improvement of this lot, you know, would trigger the waiver. Um, so that was kind
of another highlight that we wanted to make, but we're we're happy to go through kind of the status of the memo. Um, answer any questions about both the isolated land subject to flooding memo uh as well as the waiver justification memo submitted. >> Well, thank you Josh. Um, if you're uh
if you're you and um award are done, uh we'll turn the word over to uh to the town uh conservation agent um for her update. Aaron.
>> So, I've drafted a I've drafted kind of a finding a fact um that uh outlines the questions that the commission is going to need to answer uh in order to consider the waiver. And I would like for the commission to try to
complete this task this evening so that number one, the applicant has guidance on how to proceed and I have guidance on how to proceed with the with the um ongoing review. Um I generally am fine with the um
delineation as it's been submitted. Uh the applicant submitted some revisions to my memo. So in or excuse me, submitted revisions to their memo. In my report, I noted that there was um a couple adjustments that I would like to see made and that they've made those
adjustments um submitted it to it to us um last night. I haven't had a chance to read it, but I understand they've addressed my comments. Um and so yeah, I'd just like to really address the waiver tonight if we
can. Thanks Erin. Um and uh in terms of uh I mean one of the things in the waiver that is uh is that the proposed work must have no significant adverse impact on the resource area. What kind of uh adverse impact have you
seen nor do you think it's going to have? >> You ask. >> Yes. >> Or you're asking me. >> Yes I am. Um, well, I mean, you're you're So, just to just
to back up and take a a grander look at this. Um, in the last 5 years, I've seen this property the property the Colonial Village property sort of transform. It was a significantly forested property. And if you look at the aerial imagery um
which is in your packet, you'll see that the site was significantly forested several years ago. It's all been cut down and turned to lawn. So I don't disagree that it is been degraded, but I
think it's been degraded without permits um and it's been degraded um because of the work that's been done on the site. So, I mean, I think I guess I take a different stance with with wetlands protection, which is, you know,
sometimes the wetlands which are most severely degraded need more protection. Um, I mean, if we've allowed them to become degraded, then to me that's a a symptom that things have been happening around them
that have have not been good. Um, so I'm I'm I think that there there are a lot of nice elements with this plan with the plantings. Um, I noted Ward's comments about um some of the the plants not
being native to Massachusetts or to, you know, our immediate area. I think some additional attention could be put towards that. I have not dug into the storm water management plan at all. I haven't even opened it to look at this yet. Um, and so for me to comment relative to to that, um, I I would
really need to dig into the storm water management plan to have a better sense of of things. But if it meets the state standards, then um, you know, it's it's something that would be easily permittable. Um,
I I think I'm I'm doing my best to answer on the fly. >> Thanks for your answers. I appreciate it. Um, uh, Ward has something to say. Word, why don't you make it make it quick and I
will second that, uh, uh, that, um, >> I just want to I just want to clarify just just to make it clear that the the the the vi the I I don't want to say violation, the potential clearing that happened was not on this property. It
was on the adjacent property that I just it was not this. >> Thanks. Thanks, Ward. >> Yep. Uh I can vouch for that. I lived in Colonial Village uh in
85. So, it's been a it Yeah, I can vouch for that. All right. Well, now um now we have uh members of the public. Uh, I'd like to hear from anyone in the public if you don't mind raising your hand. Um,
and Aaron will uh bring you in for your comments or questions. Going once for public comment. Going twice and going three times. Okay. Um, with
that, uh, Bruce for commissioners. >> So, I I want to emphasize that our purpose here is to focus on the request for a waiver. In the finding of fact, there are some questions we should try to answer and I'm relying on the chair
to guide us to answer them. Um, and I think if we do that, then we can we can go ahead and we can create a motion that uh addresses our need to decide about the waiver. >> Well, that sounds good. Let's start with this exercise then and then any
questions uh as they arise we can um we can ask them. Um so this is a this uh if you've had an opportunity uh to look at these that's that's great. Uh we're looking at the uh draft uh
finding of fact um and under uh for the uh under wetlands protection town of Ammerst and the draft finding of fact as well on um uh yeah so that's the one. Um,
I'm going to go ahead and read this um out loud. Uh, unless you think it's a bad idea. >> These are straw votes, are they not? >> They are. >> Okay.
>> So, um, so the first waiver uh request um is an exception to uh the buffer zone. um
uh allowance of 20 up to 20% uh of the area within the 50 foot to 100 ft buffer zone. Um in this case uh we've got uh a proposed alteration of 53% of the uh buffer zone between 50 and 100
ft. uh as well as uh 10.5% of the uh actual buffer within 50 ft. So the commission should consider this regulation after hearing the applicant's case for a waiver which we heard and
take a vote to determine uh if we're willing to grant or consider this. Now the questions are one has the commission or this is a question for each uh one of our um
commissioners individually. So has have you determined the proposed work will have quote no significant adverse impact on the resource area based on the evidence provided.
So, Bruce, have you determined that there? >> Andre, may I suggest a different approach? >> Yeah, sure. You want to do hands? >> I think we should just ask for yes votes and no votes by hand and just see what we get. >> Okay. Has the commission determined the
proposed work will have no significant adverse impact on the resource area based on the evidence provided? If you say no, raise your hand. I say no. Sorry, could you restate?
>> So, yep. The question is, um, Josh, uh, unless it's something that, uh, has to do with exactly what we're talking about here. Um, why don't you go ahead and and make it short. Okay. >> Yeah, it does. I I mean, I would like to, I guess, confirm that the commission had a chance to read the waiver
justification summary. We did provide >> we've done that. We don't need to confirm that, Josh. This is our job. >> We would like to I mean, we would like the opportunity to speak to these these points in depth. >> Yeah. Well, we we that's our job. I mean, we've we've looked through uh
we've looked through everything. I don't think you get a chance to confirm that with each one of us, though. >> Mike, I guess we're more looking for an opportunity to kind of go through and answer these questions. I don't you know our first presentation we weren't able to do that.
>> Yeah. Well, we're going to answer those ourselves right now, Josh. >> And I would stating we would like the opportunity to speak to them. >> We can give you that chance later. But you I mean you've had you you >> did you not have these uh this these
materials? >> This I believe this was uploaded maybe last night. Um, right. >> And at the last meeting, we we didn't have the waiver justification and our pre we weren't allowed to kind of go in depth. Our presentation was cut short at our first meeting.
>> All right. Well, we'll uh we'll we'll we'll deal with that uh afterward, but right now we're taking a vote on uh on these things and uh we we need to take this uh straw poll. Okay, Josh. So, um, why don't you put your hand back
down, J, if you could. All right. So, what we're going to do is we're going to ask the questions and then uh raise our hands. uh this question this first question Jason uh
that you had asked uh it is it's whether we have determined that the work is going to have no significant adverse impact on the resource area based on what they've given us >> and so
>> if we answer yes that means there's no the question it's just the way it was stated the question >> let me explain how I see it Um, real quick, uh, I don't feel like I've been able to like I don't feel like I have
been able to determine that there's no significant adverse impact on the resource area yet. Therefore, when I asked for the nos, I raised my hand. >> So, if you think that it's not going to have any adverse impact, then it would
be a yes. >> Okay, that's what I was looking for. >> Okay. >> No adverse impact. Yes, >> it's >> no determination or you think there will be adverse impact. No, >> correct. >> So, all right.
>> So, the first question is a no. If you if you wait the actual just to correct that if there's enough information in there for you to determine that there's no significant
impact, then you vote yes. But if you don't have enough information to determine that there's no significant impact, then you vote no. or if you think there's significant impact then you both know I'll solve it.
Make sense now. Is that accurate? Uh Erin, just to make sure that >> Yeah, I think we're I think it's clear now. Yes. >> Okay. So, um a no vote is uh that that uh you don't have enough information or that you think it's going to be impact.
a yes vote is that you're uh you have enough information and you don't think it's going to have an impact. So, uh if you vote no, uh raise your hand. Okay. I don't see Carol. I can't see your hand. I all All I see is your face
if you're raising your hand. Okay. Carol raises her hand. So, there's three nos and two uh two yays, right? On question number one,
>> you didn't see that. >> What's that? >> What I saw is what I saw was Well, I couldn't see Rachel. So, Rachel, were you a no? >> I was a no. >> Rachel's a no. Carol was a no. And I
didn't see I I cannot see. Um >> I guess Andre, what I what I was asking is did you call for the yes hands or no? >> No, I called for the no hands so far. >> Okay, >> Tina, I'm sorry if you raised your hand on the no. I didn't see you because
you're not in my screen. >> I'm in the yes cam. >> Okay, so now for the yay. Uh we have one two and three. So
three and three. Two. Has the applicant provided sufficient evidence to the commission that the area being disturbed will not harm the resource area values protected by the
law. So if you um has the applicant provided sufficient evidence to the commission that the area being disturbed will not harm the resource area values protected by the law. Um
let's just go with the yays now. Uh yes we have who votes yes. There's one for Bruce and one for Tina. >> Yes. That >> and >> it will not harm. >> Correct.
Yep. So, we have three and uh nays raise your hand. And we have three. Does the commission determine that this is a redevelopment project? If you uh believe yes, raise your hand.
That's Jason, Rachel, and Tina. >> Okay, Tina, your hands up, too. Yep. Yep. Yes. >> Okay. and the nays. One,
two. >> I was gonna abstain. I was gonna abstain, but I'm gonna go with the yeses. >> Okay. Four and two. And does the commission determine that the resource area values on the site are documented as severely degraded?
Raise your hand if you say yes. That's one, two. Uh, raise your hand if you say no. One, two, three, four. All right. So on question
so on question uh one we have uh no quorum. Question two we have no quorum. Question three we have a quorum. Uh for the no I mean uh actually question three is is
uh for the yes, right? Uh the only one we agreed on, the commission agreed on was the confirmation that it is indeed a redevelopment project. >> Uh well, we had a four to one, a four to two on uh question three. Does the
commission determine this is Yeah. Okay. And then the last one uh we had uh uh does the commission determine that the resource area values on the site are documented as severely degraded? We said yes. Right.
>> Uh the the yeses were Tina and Bruce and the nos were Andre, Carol, Jason, and Rachel. So that so it was not determined to be severely degraded. >> Oh, right. Correct. So it was not degraded. Right. Okay. So where do we go with this, Eron?
>> Yeah. So basically what this means is that right now we don't have support to grant the waiver. Um there's a couple sort of tiebreaking votes with regard to to Sarah um not being here tonight. So like where there was three and three. Um
but I think this gives the applicant sort of good contextual information um on the on the waiver request that for the exceedence of the 20% that at this point it's not it's not passable as a
waiver. Um I think we should look at the second waiver request as well which um would be for the encroachment on the uh buffer zone of the isolated vegetated wetland um where which has a 100 foot no
work zone and and this would be potentially a precedent setting um decision if the commission allows encroachment on isolated vegetated wetlands. we since the new bylaw came into effect there has not been any um
work permitted in that area. So uh if if there is a decision by the commission with as far as a uh a quorum of members in support of granting that I would recommend that there be a um a a
rationale like a regulatory rationale provided uh so that we can issue a finding of fact with the order of conditions that basically supports that. >> Okay Erin, thanks. Um, let's give Josh
an opportunity to speak here. Uh, it's little at a turn and so on, but uh, I know you've been chomping at the bit there, Josh. Go ahead. >> Yeah. No, we we appreciate the the feedback a little bit, um, of a different approach than we probably have seen. I mean, we we do feel I mean,
given the votes that we received, again, split decisions on multiple items. I mean to us it would feel appropriate, you know, to give us an opportunity to come back to the commission and be able to explain and provide further docu documentation why we, you know, do in
fact meet those questions that were answered tonight. Um, you know, again, it it there was multiple split boats. It was tough because there was a little bit of back and forth um on some of them, but that would just be my my comment. I feel, you know, this is the kind of at the first meeting the conversation, you
know, unfortunately didn't get to this point. I mean, it would be helpful as, you know, for the applicant, you know, now to be able to kind of take this feedback and be able to come back to the commission in ways that we feel like we do address or maybe provide additional documentation to help get this
commission, you know, a little bit more comfortable with the decisions being made. I mean the reality is we have a used car dealership that you know no matter what is done on that lot it would be over 20%. You can't you couldn't do any redevelopment the used car dealership you couldn't you couldn't
change that use without relief from this board. So our our hope would be is we can come up with ways you know to make this board comfortable that permanent solutions can be put in place because it is a buffer zone application. We are not touching any of the isolated wetlands. We can't control what the neighbor did
on the on their property. So, that is all I'd really ask. I I hope the commission would be open to allowing us to continue forward. I mean, this is a mixeduse project. It has an affordable housing component. We'd love the opportunity to try to work with the commission to get to a solution that everybody's happy with. I mean, at the
end of the day, redevelopment projects like this, and the commission did confirm this is a redevelopment, it requires us to work together. requires this commission to work with us, the planning board to work with us, the applicant to work together to come up with something successful. I mean, housing, you know, is needed. This area
has been flagged in the master plan in the town of AERS for redevelopment for this type of use. It's an opportunity to get rid of a used car dealership that is less than one foot away from an isolated wetland. So, that's all I would say. I hope we would get the opportunity to come kind of come back to the commission
with some additional responses. Uh you're you're talking about responses. Uh you're talking about coming back to us to uh to give the waiver another shot. >> Agreed. I mean with the waiver >> I'm asking it's not I'm not >> correct. >> Okay.
>> You can't you can't redevelop this site without a waiver. So maybe we need to break that down a little bit more to kind of make it a little bit digestible for the commission. you know, that used car dealership, just touching that lot alone would require a waiver for alteration and
would require a waiver for work. I mean, you have structures in parking, you know, less than 5t away from an isolated wetland. >> Thanks for your input, Josh. I appreciate it. Aaron, >> I just wanted to say that the purpose of
this exercise is not to deny tonight. Uh, I just want to make that clear to Josh. Once the sort of temperature is taken of the board on this, the idea is it the ball is in your court to come back. Um, this is the the purpose of
this is because I I can't move forward with anything and you can't move forward with anything until we know where the commission stands on this. So, I just want to say that because I I I can sense that you're very apprehensive about our the commission's taking the commission's
opinions of where things are from a regulatory standpoint. But from my perspective, we need to do this in order to determine are we continuing for for the next meeting? Are we continuing for a month? Are we do you guys need time to make revisions? Do you need time to prepare
responses and collect more information? This is that's why we're doing this. So, I just want to make that clear. Well, I think that's helpful because the I guess the again, we just got the finding of fact. We didn't have a chance really to, you know, a few days to look at it and have our attorney look at it.
It is written as a a motion to deny. >> No, no, no. It's not it's not written as a motion to deny. It's not even written as a finding of fact. It's it's it is it's the bare bones to collect information so that we
can determine where the commission stands is all it is. So, I'm just trying to understand where the commission falls on this so I know, hey, we're going to have a bunch of revisions. Don't review the storm water management plan till we get those or whatever the case is going to be here. So, could we take a look at
the second waiver request and try to get the commission's feedback on that so the applicant can have guidance and I can have guidance before the next hearing? >> Yes, Aaron. Uh, we'll we'll get on to that now. Um, quick question uh from Jason. I'm curious if we're going to have a
chance to actually discuss our rationale for why we made the decisions we made. >> I would sure hope uh so in in future iterations of uh future presentations uh by uh for this
project. Um >> how sorry how are we gonna like if we're this is not denying right this is just a temperature right? So if the applicant takes this information though, it's
like, oh, we're split on a number of these things. One of them like I want I would prefer that we have that conversation tonight if possible or at least some of it in that so they can then take that information and say, "Okay,
well you you don't think it's going to harm it because XYZ or you do think it is." So they can re uh >> something something >> something's very unclear here and I just want to make sure I clarify this. The finding of fact isn't issued until the commission closes the public hearing and
issues an order of conditions. So we're not issuing a finding of fact tonight. We're not closing the public hearing. We're not issuing an order of conditions denying or approving tonight. I'm starting to frame out what the order
will be. I can't do that until I hear from the commission. Um so, so once we get the framework of where the commission stands, it's going to guide me on my review. It's going to guide the applicant on their presentation of where
are the where are where are we lacking information. as we evolve through this review process, it's going to help us to refine those things or kind of solidify where the commission stands. I I do think that that the applicant should have an opportunity potentially to
respond. I think we should also give Sarah an opportunity to weigh in because there's a there's a a split here on several of these questions where we need a quorum to weigh in. Um, it's it's just to see where we fall right now so that we can figure out where we're lacking
and and we can this document is going to be an evolution until the order of conditions is issued. It will be attached to the order of conditions regardless, but we're not going to be issuing that tonight. We're not going to be issuing it until we plans are finalized and we're ready to issue an
order of conditions. That makes sense. >> So, it's an this is an ongoing process that's not over. And now uh after uh today's meeting um uh Josh and Ward and their and your team
uh Josh can um go back with the information that we've got and try and figure out what else to uh what else to do in agreement with uh Jason's uh statement that uh it would be a lot more
helpful for you to know uh why we're uh we have voted the way that we have I I think it would be good for us to uh to discuss that, Jason. Though I think we're at it. I I don't think we have enough time for that right now. I think
we're going to need to do that in the next meeting. Um I that's what I would uh propose because we still have another hearing to go and and we have to close uh have a few other things to do before we close our meeting. Jason, >> yeah, I'm just I agree with you.
Time-wise, it does make sense. I'm just a little bit like what are they what are we asking them to do then for the next meeting like to come back with this information like what are they going to do with this so we can move on um
>> yeah I'm fine with moving on >> okay yeah I don't really know how much they can do with it right now but there is there are a few things like the you know like Josh mentioned that they didn't they haven't had a chance to uh to really pour through and address the
uh um the peer review and and so on is right Josh or the uh some of the uh was it a finding a fact that you were looking to to to look at or anyway um >> yeah we have we haven't received a peer
review we you know at the last meeting which was um about a month ago we we really didn't have a chance to get much feedback from the commission I know we we obviously missed the last meeting meeting so we just don't want to, you know, any prejudice to be taken that this is taking a while to kind of get where we need to go. You know, it's, you
know, it's kind of out of our control. So, any feedback we can get tonight. We'd really appreciate it. I know this applicant is is really excited to be able to try to move the project forward. So, any anything that can help us, we would appreciate, but we've addressed all comments received from Aaron at this time. So, we have we have nothing
matterof fact that we can respond to. >> You don't have any uh matters uh pending. Um well, I I hope it will serve you um as a little bit of relief, but I would like to see us uh have these
discussions next uh next meeting um if that's possible. Carol can't hear you. Sorry, you're you're uh you're muted. So one of the choice on the first
question was did we one of them was did we feel we didn't have enough information. So that's why I voted no because I didn't feel I had enough information. So that might be help helpful to you Josh.
Okay. >> There you go. and we I think we can uh have a bit more of a discussion uh the ne next time round. Um that's that's all I really wanna wanted to discuss uh tonight. I really don't
think we we're we're I think if we start to discuss uh each one of these questions for each one of us individually, I think we're going to end up uh taking too much time. Bruce, >> um Aaron asked us to go >> through wave request two.
>> Thank you. Thanks for uh getting me back on track there. Waiver request two. Um uh buffer zone presumptions. Isolated vegetated wetland and/or vernal pool. No work may occur within 100 ft of the
isolated vegetative wetland uh and other such and no structure or associated driveway utility parking lot and/or other road may be constructed within 100 ft of the IVW
or isolated land subject to flooding as well or vernal pool. uh work and building uh are defined uh if you have I'm just going to go ahead and read it. Uh uh filling, excavating, excavating, grading, operating
construction equipment, altering vegetation and or storing or stockpiling earth or construction materials. Uh building means a structure requiring a building permit. Uh are both proposed
within. Okay. So finding the commission should consider this regulation after hearing the applicant's case for a waiver which we've heard take a vote to determine if they're willing or unwilling to grant or consider granting a waiver under this provision to move the project forward as proposed before
moving on to a full project review of the application. The motion should include the commissioner the commission's regulatory rationale for granting or denying the waiver request based on the language of the regulations and the evidence provided by the
applicant. So I'll read this uh I'll just make sure that we're uh we're all understanding that the buffer zone uh presumptions is that isolated vegetated
wetlands and or vernal pools no work may occur within 100 ft of the isolated vegetated wetlands isolated land subject to flooding or vernal pool and no structure or associated driveway utility parking andor other road may be
constructed within 100 ft of the IVW, etc. Um, if you've had an opportunity to read it, um, is there any does anybody have any questions about that uh uh about the
question itself? We've had a chance to read it. So, uh, as for a vote, let's see. Are we willing or unwilling to grant or
consider granting a waiver uh of this provision of the isolated vegetated wetland uh 100 foot buffer zones if you're willing to um If you're willing to grant
or consider granting a waiver, raise your hand. There's one, two. >> The question was whether they're willing to grant the waiver. >> Yes. Are you willing to grant a waiver? In other words, wave the 100 foot
um uh the 100 foot buffer uh to isolated vegetated wetlands. Are you willing to grant that um for this project? >> So, we have Carol, Jason, and Tina. Right.
>> You also said, "Are we willing to consider it?" Right. Right. >> That's what it says. >> Well, I'm willing to consider it. >> Right. Okay. I think the question uh
Erin I don't Is that the right question? >> Yeah. No, I think you guys are you guys are doing great. >> Okay. So it So I mean by default I'm assuming Andre, Bruce, and Rachel are not willing at this time to consider granting it.
>> I'm I'm there with Carol. I'm willing to consider it, but I want >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Me, too. I mean, this is I think the question is is a little bit uh odd. Um All right. Where do we go if we're willing to consider?
>> Okay. So, um, that's really helpful. That's really helpful. So, it sounds like commissioners are flexible on waiver two, the the possibility of granting P w uh waiver number two. It sounds like some commissioners are comfortable with um approaching waiver
one and and there's kind of a tiebreaker on some of those questions. So, so my guidance would be I think I should dig into the full plan review at this point. um looking at storm water, looking at the details of the plan and I think um
it would be helpful for the applicant to bring some additional detail with regard to um the um uh documentation for uh
how they're proposing to protect the wetland from significant adverse impacts. how they're proposing to protect the wetland from harm. Um and um yeah, I mean I think maybe some
documentation on why the wetlands are severely degraded would be helpful. So like those are some things that the the applicant can come with. I can start doing my review. And I think once we get Sarah here, it's going to be a tiebreaker to basically be able to help
us determine whether the waiver is something the commission is going to is going to move towards. >> All right. Well, there you go, Josh. >> I hope that uh answers some of your questions. Bruce has a question. >> Well, I just want to test the the
proposition that it's not all or nothing. that if one was within 99 ft or 92 ft or 84 ft I mean where at some point the question is well how far away
are you going to be in order that you're not going to have an impact so I it it that's why it feels very flexible to me to have a chance that's why I want to consider it g given more detail and that's what Mr. client is asking for is an opportunity to give more detail.
>> Yep. Therefore, we will be considering it with his uh details. Right. >> Right. Thank you. >> Great. Yeah. Thanks to you, Rachel. Uh >> I think it would be helpful to have more discussion around those points. Uh but
also I'm I'm also reflecting on other projects that we have reviewed similar requests for waiverss and have have denied. And so >> I'm thinking about this in the context of precedent and the precedent that's already established also. So that that would be good to discuss in the future
in future meetings. >> That's a great point, Rachel. And and please please uh re you know please bring that back up uh when uh when we're discussing it because >> Yeah. Thanks, Bruce. Your hand is still
up, but I think it's Carol who's got the question now. Well, I agree with Rachel that if you're looking at something that would be precedent setting, um, a decision that would be precedent setting, we we'd have to really carefully understand
what the exceptions were to that. >> Thank you. Um, also I think one of the things that Rachel is saying is that there already has been a precedent uh set where we were actually
upholding the buffer zones. So there's a bit to uh be spoken on any on either side of that argument. Aaron, >> um, it'd be helpful to know from the applicant how much time they'd like to prepare. like would you like to be on
the January 14th agenda to present more or do you need additional time? >> I I don't like to answer uh a question with a question, but it some of it would have to do with how long it would take for you to get some of your initial
feedback if what's what's realistic? >> Um you mean on the overall project review? >> Yeah, I mean I think I think we should kick it. My suggestion is that we continue to January 14th at 7:15. Um, I
may not have a a complete review done at that time, but I'm going to do my best to get through as much of the application as possible. And I think at that time if you come with some additional information relative to the waiver requests then maybe we can
revisit the waiver request question and I can begin to present some of my questions to allow you to have some feedback so we can start working through the plan details. >> Yeah, I think that'd be perfect. And give us some time to get some additional feedback from the commissioners. Yeah, I
think I think Josh at that point we'll uh we'll have a little bit more time and I think uh that'd be a good time for us to uh to to kind of have a a back and forth um with questions and and concerns, etc.
Jason. >> Yeah. As Josh mentioned, with a project like this, I think there's a lot of um a lot of different commissions within the town that are going to be working together. I asked at the last meeting
if they were seeking a parking variance as well for the number of parking spots. don't recall the answer if they were going to if they already have received it. >> I think they went down to 72 spots. Go ahead, Josh. You you're
>> Yeah, it's not a it's not a variance, but the the the planning board has the ability to grant the relief kind of under site plan review. So, we are very, you know, kind of we are below the the town requirements in terms of parking.
So, there's, you know, there's some limitation. Um, but I mean that's where we have to work. I think the applicant is, you know, there's a lot of investment time and money, you know, and so they they're trying to get a better feel. This commission probably is the
biggest driver of of the application and the the viability and the feasibility to get the housing and the affordable housing. So, um, that's why that we're really kind of trying to work through with you this group so that we can, you know, then continue with the planning board.
>> Yeah. And some of my rationale for why I've made the decisions that I made without going into them tonight are, you know, I I don't want this to be an endless circle of like, oh, the concom's waiting to see if planning will grant
this so that they can grant this because there's opinions of potential harm to the resources or work in the buffer zone. Does that make sense as far as like,
you know, a bunch of questions that I might have that are potentially contingent on if you're even going to be allowed to make certain changes on the site. Like if you come back the way that this is proposed right now, you have a
parking lot where the used car dealership was. I'm assuming that this plan set that we have is shows a number of parking spots that you want, not that you're required to have. Right. So, this planet assumes
some sort of relief from the planning board. Is that correct? >> Correct. So the planning board might we might make all these decisions and the planning board can go back and say you need 60 more parking spots on this as an
arbitrary number, right? You need 60 more parking spots on this. We're not going to grant that relief. Where is everybody going to park and then you're going to have to find a place to put 60 more parking spots? >> I think that's, you know, the applicant's burden and we would have to
work with them and that board to kind of figure out the final parking. But I think the the limits of disturbance and kind of these waiverss that we're seeking here are critical to even understand you know what we can you know can do. >> All right. I my interest is more in I
mean if yeah I get I don't know what it is that we're allowed to how we're allowed to potentially work or discuss decisions of other commissions but you know that it would be I could see this taking a lot of time
and having a lot of circular questions as far as I'm concerned but um >> that is the the challenge of developing housing in the state of Massachusetts Yeah. >> Um,
>> time for uh Yep. Go ahead, Bruce. >> No, just waiting for the motion. >> Um, can we put the motion up there? Uh, >> it's there. >> I don't see it. I'm sorry. I got a >> Yeah, I'll move I'll move to continue
the public hearing for D number 089-0765 to January 14, 2025 at 7:15 p.m. >> Jason with a motion. Do we have a second? >> I second the motion. >> All right. Is that Tina with a second? >> Yes. >> Yep.
>> All right. Jason with a motion. Tina with a second. Tina. >> Rachel. Hi. Carol, >> Bruce, >> I >> Jason. >> Hi.
>> And I'm an I. >> Thanks, Josh. We'll see you uh in a few weeks. Enjoy your holidays. >> Thank you. You as well. >> Thanks. Okay, with that, uh we'll move on to our uh third hearing.
Uh this is a uh uh notice of intent NOI GDDARD consultant um on behalf of Roxanna and Dakota Freeman for the proposed construction of a single family home with associated shed, utilities, driveway, and associated mitigation
within the buffer uh zone of bo uh bordering bordering and isolated vegetated wetlands at 750 West Street. Map 22B Bravo, lot one. And um I see we've got uh Mark Rubin
here. And is there anyone else with you, Mark? >> Freeman is also here. >> Okay. Um well, they can join if they wanted to. If they're going to present, they can uh just raise their hand or are
they going to present? >> Mark, >> are they planning on speaking? >> I think they're they're going to be available for uh yeah, not presenting, but they're here if they need some questions. >> Okay. Well, Mark, why don't you go uh go
ahead. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um so, yeah. Um Mark Rubin, uh wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting and uh just representing Dakota and Roxanna Freeman for 750 West Street. Um
and you know since the previous hearing u based off of feedback from the commission and some further discussion with Roxanna and Dakota uh we made a few changes to the plans which I can share with you here. I can hear that. See that? Okay.
>> Yeah. Right. Um so, um so we'll just go through all the changes here. So, moving from left to right. Um we did add the previously approved Lton replication area down here um by the request of the
commission. Um you know, this is just an estimated location. So this was not, you know, surveyed or anything. This is just taken off of, you know, geo georreerencing from previous site plans. Um, and this is just an estimated wetland boundary here.
But it is, you know, far enough away from from the uh existing driveway that it doesn't, you know, change what kind of uh buffer zone or anything is uh being impacted. Next thing we did is we moved
the utility lines from alongside the road here to underneath the road. So install those will need to dig up the road but the limit of work does not go you know the limit of work for the most part doesn't go beyond the edge of the road. Now
um in addition to that uh we did add the stockpile area along the edge of the road here. Um there is going to be some necessary tree cutting here in order to access the sewer line. You know, the applicants don't want to do any tree cutting, but you know, in
this case, it was necessary to do a little just to get to the sewer line, but this would be replanted after after cutting. In addition to that, over where the house is, we did shift the house a little bit west and expand the limit of
work here. So, we were trying to keep the limit of work as tight as possible, but as the commission pointed out, there just really wasn't enough space in the limit of work to really get the machines around the house and do the construction. So, we did expand the limit of work um and shift the house a
little bit to center it within the limit of work. Um so, this change will put the limit of work farther into the 50oot buffer zone, but it won't result in any additional tree cutting. And in addition to that, we did add some
extra plantings over to the west here. Um, not only would this serve function as a mitigation, but you know, the applicants also want to do as much planting as they possibly can. like their goal with this part part of the goal for their house is for it to be in
a forested setting and have as much um you know you know have it as close to the natural wet you know wetland and forested area as possible. So so they really do want to plant as much as that possible in these areas.
So that's essentially all the changes that we've made. Um so you know overall we think this will be a general improvement to the site. Um you know this house is and the associated shed is really the only
you know I mean that's the only added completely impervious area and the rest of this space that we'll be utilizing for the limit of work. It's either already existing driveway or it's been previously cleared for the house that
was proposed to be here in the past. Um so you know the fact that they want to you know currently it's you know slowly being taken over by invasive species like uh multifllora rose. So you know clearing the site and replanting with native species I think will actually
benefit the site overall and the adjacent wetlands. Um so with that I can uh happy to answer any questions you have about the changes. >> Thank you Mark. Um, I think what we're going to do is uh
go to Aaron uh for the town's um perspective on on what's uh what what's happened in the last few weeks. Aaron, >> yes. So, um
so a couple updates. Um, I was supposed to go out there the Tuesday of the snowstorm to verify the wetland and wasn't able to get out there to review the wetland boundary. Um, so that has sort of introduced a challenge with confirmation of the wetland boundary.
And it would be really helpful for me tonight to get some guidance from the commission with regard to um, uh, whether the commission would like to continue the hearing. uh until
you know the timeline that we had discussed earlier in the meeting which is basically when we have growing season and and adequate water table um or if the commission is is okay with continuing to review this um application
um understanding that we are unable to confirm the resource area boundaries as part of the application right now. Um so that is one piece that would be helpful for me to get some guidance on. Um I have drafted another finding fact
because we have multiple um again multiple waiver requests for this project. the waiver requests. Again, uh we're looking at encroachment in the 100 foot buffer to isolated wetlands and um as well as the encroachment into the
50-ft no touch uh with the residential um limit of work and the uh utility connection. So, those are are two waivers. Again, I need some guidance from the commission on whether you're moving in their direction of of issuing
those waivers or not. Um the I did have two follow-up questions which I don't want to concern the commission with too much tonight, but really just confirming the specific dates that there was um the vernal pools were were confirmed during
the the vernal pool season, which we haven't been able to do yet. And then also just to confirm because there was some commentary in the application that um only the areas where proposed work was um located and/or buffer zones were
cast were confirmed by the field delineation. So I'd like some confirmation that the entire site that is shown on the plan was confirmed by field delineation. Um, and yeah, I think that that basically covers
my comments from the report, but I do have a a finding fact. I would love it if we could sort of get do a relatively quick straw poll on each of the questions just to see where commissioners fall again um on the issuance of the waiver so we can see
where where we stand and um kind of how I can move towards issuing an order of conditions or if there are plan changes needed. >> Sounds good. Thank you, Erin. Um, what I've been unable to find the uh findings
of uh fact in the uh in any of our paperwork. I'm sorry. I probably missed it, but um I'm going to need you to pull that up when it's time for us to uh to ask those questions.
Um, meantime, um, we're looking for, uh, looking to see if the public has any, uh, questions or comments, uh, about, um, 750 West Street. I can't see if anyone's raising their
hands, but if you're in the public and you had any questions about 750 West Street, please uh raise your hand and we'll uh get you into the uh conversation. Going once. >> I don't see any. >> Okay. Uh with that then, um
commissioners, uh do we have any uh questions in the meantime or do we go straight uh Rachel? Yeah, the the previous plans showed um isolated wetlands sort of to the southeast of the
work area um that would in theory have a 100 foot buffer that and they don't appear to be on the current plans. I wonder if the applicant could speak to that or if we could have some clarification about that. >> Mark.
>> Yeah. Um, can I share and share my screen again just to confirm what area we're discussing here? Um, I'm guessing it's kind of this general area that we're talking about here. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um, yeah. So, we didn't determine wetlands to be in in that area. Um, yeah, I've seen the previous plans, so I know exactly what you're talking about. Um but we just yeah we didn't determine that those had the uh appropriate
vegetation or soils to qualify as uh as as wetlands. Um and I know yeah Erin's I think when Aaron was discussing the um confirming wetland I think that was kind of the
main area she was thinking of. Um I think that's kind yeah there was some discussion about that uh previously. Um but yeah based on our delineation uh we didn't think it was a wetland.
>> Thanks Mark. Um yeah unfortunately uh the weather got to us before Aaron was able to get a good look at that. >> Bruce especially given that that there it was on the plan and now it's not. I would absolutely like Erin to have a
chance to get out there. So, for that piece of the three things we're discussing, I' I'd strongly encourage us to give it a chance to get to the springtime so she can go see it. If it can happen sooner if for some reason all
the snow went away and, you know, drought was lifted, that's fine. But anyway, that's my view. >> I agree with you, Bruce. There's there's, you know, you got to be able to make a uh we, you know, uh the town needs to be
able to make a determination as well. Um and I think the uh the timing of the uh the drought, the snow, and the cold um have worked against uh the applicant in this. Any other questions or any other
comments from the uh from our uh commissioners? Could I make a further comment just on that previous uh subject there? >> Go ahead, Mark. >> Yeah. Um, so I'm wondering if this uh situation if it be, you know, if the commission
determines that they're open to uh um if they're open to, you know, open to issuing a waiver and they don't have any further concerns and this portion of the, you know, this potential isolated wetland is the only thing holding things up. Um just wondering if it's
potentially possible for the commission to approve the work without approving the wetland boundary. skipping that this, >> you know. >> Yeah, Mark, >> I I'll tell you from my perspective, um
I think that the that's not that's just one spot, but essentially I I'm not comfortable without uh uh Aaron having taken a look at at at all of it. Um you know, I she really hasn't been able
to see any of it or check it for wetlands. That's my opinion, but I'm just one of seven. So, um >> yeah, I mean my feeling is that is outside the limit of work that area. You
know, the commission there was a sidewalk. You know, we did go around the limit of work and look at that area. So, that was portion of the site that was viewed by the commission. Um, so just want to say that is that is something that you know would appeal. I
know you know my understanding is that Dakota and Roxanna are eager to you know move forward with the construction of their home and you know I think we would prefer not to have to wait till spring. Um but you know I totally understand the
commission's concerns on this though. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. I mean, it's a, you know, we're we're talking about a a house that's that's kind of built with right right in the
middle of or right right in the middle of these uh BBWs, right? I mean anyway, Jason >> Mark, do you have uh the number off the top of your head
as far as So, it's 100% of the site is within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone, right? I see that note on >> Yeah, the buildable area. The Yeah, the limit of work is 100% within the 100
foot buffer zone. Yeah, >> this is on sheet two of two of the plan set >> dated November 26, 2025, but the only 100 foot buffer that's shown is the perennial.
This isn't this. Can you confirm this is a 100 foot buffer of one, two, three, four? Four resource areas. It's so it's not a 100 foot buffer, it's four different 100 foot buffers.
>> It's it's multiple 100 foot buffers. Yeah. Does that then uh Andre or Aaron does that then change the question or is the question like cuz the question
is you know are you willing to entertain a waiver uh for the provision of like the 100 foot buffer but do we need one waiver or do we need four waivers? Um
this is my recommendation is handle the isolated wetlands and the BVW separately. Um so essentially even though there might be different wetlands as in different wetland numbers that the isolated wetlands have a 100 foot no
touch the BVW have a 50-ft no touch but there are certain provisions between 50 and 100 where development is permitted. So I would recommend that we sort of break them out and that's why I broke them out with two separate waiverss. So one for the 100 foot isolated and one
for the BBW um and the encroachments on the 100 foot to the bordering vegetated wetland. So, all right. Any other does that are there any other questions from uh commissioners?
Um I don't have the I don't have that uh straw poll. I don't have the questions in front of me. Aaron, >> did you want Andre? Would it be helpful if I read it since you're >> Yeah, cuz I can't read.
>> Sure. Sure. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. No. >> Can you make it bigger? >> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm just going to try to make this as easy as I can and also quick because I know we still have like a lot of business to deal tonight and we're
almost at 10:00. Okay. So, so here is the the first piece. So, buffer zone presumptions again isolated wetlands, no work within 100 ft. Um, so the finding is the commission should consider this regulation and after
hearing the applicant's case for a waiver, take a vote to determine if they're willing or unwilling to grant or consider granting the waiver of this provision to move forward with the project um before moving to a full project review. The motion should include the commission's regulatory
rationale. So, we can include the regulatory rationale. I just want to get again a straw poll of where people stand on this to see um how they're feeling about the uh work in the 100 foot buffer. So if you're if you're um
comfortable with granting the waiver then a yes. Um if you're uncomfortable with the waiver it would be a no. just to get a gauge. So, if you're comfortable with the
waiver, uh, yes, not comfortable, no, >> just for the 100 foot no touch to isolated wetlands. >> Okay. All right. So, uh, if you're comfortable with a no touch to the isolated
wetlands, uh, go ahead and raise your hand. If you're not comfortable with it, raise your hand. >> Okay, I see Jason, Andre, Bruce, >> all of us, >> Carol, all of you. Okay, so not
comfortable. Okay. All right. So second waiver is um the minimum setbacks. So under BVW we have a 50-foot setback to the resource area um which is a no touch and um we
this includes the setback required for utilities as well as the setback required for um residential construction. So disturbance associated with residential construction. Um again the commission
has the ability under these regulations to reduce the required setback from that 50-foot no touch in consideration of the existing development on and around the site. Um so if you are comfortable with
granting a waiver um to the 50-foot no touch um it would be a yes. If you're uncomfortable, it would be a no. >> I just want to clarify this is for the road and the sewer which already exists.
>> Um, nope. It's for the it's for the um the utility connection. Um, so let me show you where these areas are. So it's for the utility connection coming in over here. So this is the
connection to the sewer and this is for the building envelope around the house that's encroaching into the 50 foot no touch. Um the proposed driveway expansion is outside of the 50oot. So that is not part of the waiver just the house
footprint and the utility connection. >> Okay. So >> can I what would be the percentage of encroachment of the house envelope building envelope? It was 9%, right, Mark? >> Nine.
>> The overall proposed buffer zone alteration, I believe, was nine. And the they're proposing a pretty significant mitigation package with this. Um, >> yeah, if you want some actual numbers,
um, I mean, we're proposing, um, permanent new impact of only about 2,690 square ft and total mitigation of 33,756
square ft. Erin, uh, is this, uh, question a would you consider question like the last one or meaning like the, uh, the previous application or is this, uh, you
know, uh, full thumbs up or full thumbs down? >> It says consider >> consider. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're we're just we're just trying to get a gauge right now for where the commission stands with the waiver. So, if you're comfortable considering,
that's a yes. If you're not comfortable considering, it's a no. Is that >> correct? >> That's what we're doing. Okay. If you're comfortable considering a waiver of the 50oot uh uh BVW, um
raise your hand. That's all of us. So on the big on the 50 foot uh we're all willing to consider it. >> Okay. Okay. So it sounds like you're
uncomfortable with the encroachment on the isolated wetland but you're but you're comfortable with the encroachment on the BBW past the 50oot no touch. Okay. That is extremely helpful. Um >> meaning meaning comfortable considering it, right?
>> Yeah. Comfortable considering it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yep. Based on the mitigation that's proposed and stuff. Yeah. No, that's very helpful. Okay. Interesting. So, that's really interesting guidance for the applicant as well to consider. Um
Okay. Um so I think the next question is continuation really like uh do we considering the issues with the delineation
considering the issues with the uh waiver number one the commission was pretty unanimous not wanting encroachment in the 100 foot to isolated wetlands. Mark, do you want to continue to the 14th and kind of
try to figure out the next steps before that hearing? >> Yeah, I I'd like to continue as early as Yeah, let's continue to the 14th. Um >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, I will ceue up that motion on our agenda so that we can keep
it moving. Um, I think the motion would be moved to continue the public hearing for D number 089-0766 to January ary uh what's the date again? January >> 14th.
>> 14th at >> 7:20. >> There you go. There's your motion. >> So moved. >> I second. >> Bruce with a motion. And was it Rachel? >> Oh, is Jason? Sorry. And who who second? >> Rachel.
>> Rachel with a second. Okay. Rachel. >> Hi. >> Carol. >> Hi. >> Bruce. I >> Tina >> I >> Jason >> I >> and Am I?
So we'll be seeing you in a in a couple few weeks there Mark. Um hope you have a a good end of the year. >> Thank you. You too. >> Thanks for your presentation. >> Okay. >> And now we go to other business.
>> Yes. So, uh, requests for, uh, certificates of compliance. >> Um, we have the presentations first. Um, >> Oh, we do? >> Yeah. The informal presentations. We have Bucky Sparkle and then, um, Darcy
from Beacon. Do you want me to pull Bucky in to have him go now? Okay. >> Yeah. They've been waiting for a while. >> Yeah. waiting but still here. Good evening. Um, >> thanks Bucky for your wait. You've been patient. Good. >> You don't have to do this every other
Wednesday, >> but I understand it's late and this is not the first time this has been in front of the commission, so I'll be as quick as I can. Um, for those of you who don't know me, my name is Bucky Sparkle. I'm a civil engineer. Um, and I am
representing the Ammeris Community Land Trust in uh trying to do two things on a piece of property at 174 AMD Street. the existing building. They want to convert that from I think it's sort of a hodgepodge of apartments on the inside
to three standalone affordable units. Um and then with the additional frontage an area on the property put in a compact duplex and two parking spaces also affordable housing. Um and this property
is located about 400 ft or less from the primary intersection in town, you know, Amity Street, Pleas. And because I know there are some some people who haven't heard the previous presentation. So the nutshell is um and
let me um let me bring up a visual here. Uh sharing the plan that I have submitted. Um, what I will talk about here, I'll zoom in just a little bit. Am Street is on the north. Um, and this is
a a dentist office back around 93. They built a driveway, which turns out to be encroaching, but that's not a commission issue. Um, and they have their roof water, they have the, you know, sidewalk water, uh, their driveway water. It all
is funneled down into a pavement flume and it's dumped onto the backyard of this property. And that's been happening now for a couple of decades and that's how it is. Uh obviously these days that would be a highly illegal uh storm water
discharge in a variety of of ways. Um however this the owner who's um been renting for at least 40 years uh wasn't worried about it. it wasn't disturbing them. They didn't live there. Unfortunately, what has happened is because this is
vegetated and there's, you know, heavy tree canopy and there's a fence that runs along the back property line, uh, debris and leaves, etc. have have built up along the fence and created a dam. Um
and then with that effect that means that a puddle starts to form and you do that for enough decades and we get hydric soils and wetland vegetation. So, we we have seems to be the theme of tonight's meeting uh an isolated wetland
uh right in the middle of downtown Ammerst um which was probably not uh considered and I could be wrong but probably not considered strongly by commissioners who were writing the bylaw to put a very strong um no no disturb
area uh and some of the buffer zone requirements which you know are are sound rules. Um, but in the middle of the most urban part of town, these are highly problematic situations. So, that that's the encapsulation uh of what we're trying to do. Now, last was there
a question? I'm sorry. Um, all right. Uh, last time we were here, we had the wetland flagged, but we didn't have it surveyed. So, we have a survey now. We have the wetland delineated. they have the real buffer zones and have a good understanding of uh what the project uh
is and the impacts it would have. Uh really quick, existing parking lot, existing building, want to put on a little shed. The darker areas are are new. This is the duplex with the two required parking spaces, a little bit of
sidewalk, but this is the 100 ft buffer, which of course wraps around to many other properties. And this is a 50ft buffer. And last time we were here, we were asking, you know, what are the chances we might be able to move through uh the commission uh with with this
project? Um we don't have any real problems with the the planning board or ZVA, but from a regulatory standpoint, this commission um you know is would would require waiverss. Again, it seems to be a theme of tonight's meeting. So, we've done um a little more work,
>> uh cleaned up, you know, our drawings, uh calculated some areas, but I think it's pretty obvious that um let's start back at the wetland zone. So, in BVW, nobody wants to touch that. There is uh a section of a few hundred square feet
of Japanese knotweed, which is continuing to expand um as it does. uh right there. There are also a couple of um debris piles and structures and platforms, tires and bicycles and garbage back there uh that we would like
to get out of the 0 to 50 foot buffer. uh from the 50 to 100 foot buffer. Um you know there there's already I mean we have certain you know rules about 20% disturbance already the existing uh infrastructure the parking the buildings the sidewalk
that's 20% disturbance right there. Um and in order to put in another building do a little bit of grading some storm water now we're talking like 90% of that buffer is going to be disturbed. um you know right here in downtown downtown
Ammers. Um so uh that's that is the the you know condensed version of this and you know tonight I've seen a few straw polls um and and some um deliberation. So again this is sort of a situation where we are looking to take the
temperature of the board. Uh Emer Community Land Trust has invested some thousands of dollars in this, but not nearly what it would be to complete the application and go through a regulatory process with multiple boards. So, uh there's a lot of money on the table at
this point and um uh we are, you know, looking to get some feedback here. So, I think at this point, I'd love to hear questions and comments and whatever feedback we can get as to, you know, would waiverss of
this significance uh be plausible considering, you know, the location, the the history of the wetland. When the fence rots out, there won't be a dam there anymore. The wetland's going to drain out and dry up probably anyway. Um, we can probably do some storm water
mitigation and reduce some of the pollution and capture some of the, you know, what is what is now, uh, not illegal discharge. So, yeah, love to hear from the commission.
>> Thanks, Bucky. Um, we have a few people, uh, ready to talk. So, uh, Erin, let's start with Aaron. Just wanted to clarify, Bucky, did you say 90% of the 50 to 100 foot buffer on the property? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I mean, that is pretty much everything except this little corner. We have a storm water management system that's not sized. This is sort of an assumption. Um, but this whole area would end up being graded in part of the construction zone. So, that would all be disturbed by
equipment. Also, we're likely to put a drywall here. uh and then the building and the associated grading around there. So, as you can see, it would be pretty much the entirety of the buffer zone from 50 to 100 ft.
>> Thanks, Bucky. Um Jason, >> yeah, thanks Andre. Thanks, Bucky. Um given that the drainage onto the lot should not have ever happened in the first place um from the neighboring lot.
If that drainage were to cease, would this wetland, you mentioned the fence rotting out and the wetland then draining, being able to drain, if that runoff were to cease, would this wetland exist?
If if the fence weren't there, um I think that would be the death nail for the wetland. And the fence is quite rotten and rotting rotted and starting to fail in certain places. Um however, there's still, you know, the reality is,
you know, if we could reroute the neighbor storm water, there is still, you know, a sidewalk, there's roof area, you know, all of this green space, if you follow the contours, really does go. There is a local a local area. It's the grade keeps dropping. It's it's all on a
slope. This is uh you know, this is in the middle of a slope, but on this property, this is sort of the local low spot. Um so, we're still going to send water there. I don't But it's, you know, mostly from, you know, tree canopy and
and grass. I don't know that, you know, if if you don't have a yard, you know, that the neighbor doesn't have wetland, you know, right here there's no wetland. So I guess with that being the case, >> um the hydraology is going to be
identical here and here once the fence is removed >> and the fence is the fence going to be removed. >> Well, it's in the buffer zone. So, you know, that wasn't our intention. um that although if nothing is done to that
fence uh if I can bring up some pictures but but the fence is not long for this world >> so nature will remove it one way or the other >> that seems to be how it's going to go. >> Okay. Um so then as far as the 50 to 100
foot is concerned is this layout like are you is this the only layout that fits? Can you put those two parking spots next to you know the other eight spots
and bump the duplexes forward? >> Um potentially. And unfortunately our architect happens to be on the planning board has a meeting tonight. So uh that is sort of an architect question. What I will say is that what we are trying to
do is preserve uh right now there's parking in between some large trees. Um one one of them is is probably not going to survive the process, but we'd love to save the the popular tree up here. So getting more parking,
I don't I don't know if that is at all plausible. Um maybe if we take out the popular tree, we could jam it up front. I I know the architect would would, you know, it's part of the historic district commission. We're surrounded by historic district commission on this site. So, uh
I know we're putting parking up here uh already, but um it it gets even tighter. Actually, let me take that back. There is a rule that you can't park within 8 ft of a building. So there's no way we can get parking up here and we can't really keep coming back this way with
with additional parking. >> Are you able to get relief from not having park like you mentioned this is in downtown trying to redevelop a lot or put like the the notion that you have to have those two parking spots to me is
not is silly frankly. I that is absolutely worth um trying to investigate. Um it is uh permit parking in the area. Uh which you know if you're a resident that is that
is plausible. I do know that because this is uh for affordable housing they are trying to minimize any burden upon you know the resident. So some people having to you know pay annually for that permit is a minor burden. Um but
considering the location and the potential benefit for anybody who lives there and access to you know schools and jobs um this this is something worth worth pursuing. Um so it sounds like if we can
drag this duplex building further from the resource area at least one member of the commission would look a little more favorably favorably upon this. >> Yes. thing because that the other building is existing and the parking is existing. Correct.
>> Yes. >> So that's already there. That's that's not disturbance because it's already it's existing disturbance. I'll say it's not new. >> Yeah. I my understanding was I mean just technically that the rule was 20% total
existing and proposed. Is am I interpreting that wrong? >> No, that's right. >> Okay. >> No. Yeah. >> Just making sure I understand. But but yes, in effect, um you know, a third of this area, well, 20% of this area right
now is is covered in in a parking lot and a building. >> All right. Thanks again. >> The end result would be another 20%, but the short-term disturbance would be larger.
>> All right, Bruce. In the spirit of thinking about alternatives, what happens if it the duplex becomes a onelex and it simply gets built the way it is except the duplex unit 2 doesn't
exist. Um this is a point where I also wish the architect were here. My my they were really hoping to get um six units on this property. They believe that is financially viable for them to do five units. that is turning it into a
fourunit question. So I am not sure if the dollars make sense and the funding makes sense to do an affordable housing project if they can only get one more building um one more unit. So I will ask the question
>> well I was seeing it in this is an informal discussion and I just tried to think of the options. So >> that's great. Yes, this is that gives me something to talk to the the client about. Um, and you know what development's a risky game? All the easy
lots have been developed. So, you know, what what what kind of skin do they have in the game here? What kind of funding that can they get? >> Okay, thanks. Uh, Rachel, >> we still can't hear you. Sorry,
Bruce. Your hands up. >> Um, keep doing this. Um, yeah, Bucky, thanks for thanks for um for the informal conversation. Question for you. Have you looked at the soils at all? Um, >> yes. >> Okay. Can you tell us a little bit more
about that? >> Um, they're they're going to be just fine for um I I think we ended up with um mostly sands and and lomi sands. uh test field data.
There's there's my test. There we go. So, we have um uh lomi sand. So, lomi sand lomi sand um for the test hole. We did one test hole um and then sand and gravel 33 to 54 in and then back to
sandy lom. So we get into alom after you know 54 in but as far as this is where the drywall would would be. So I I did some testing down there. >> So how deep did the sandy loom go? >> Uh I stopped digging at 65 in.
>> Okay. So that's that was what we did which was you know suitable for the type of you know small we're just going to gather some roof water into a dry well >> and high ground water was
>> uh let's see to go matrix 10 your 41 moist so I might have that in another move that over there yeah oh redux 53 in there we are >> so we Would we need that twoft
separation between high groundwater for any storm water structure? >> Ideally, yep. And I don't know what final grade is going to be in that area. Um, and the dry well out would probably be one of the shallow more like a leeching chamber instead of the the
deeper cylindrical ones. >> Okay, >> Carol. Thanks, Rachel. Um, so I have a question about storm water management. Um, and I'm wondering what Erin thought
about that >> just in general with a project like this. Is that the question? >> Yeah. with >> um I mean uh I think the devil's in the details um
to be honest. Uh I think Rachel Rachel's questions really are driving that uh question hard. Um, I so I guess to where where my mind goes with that is
the existing outfall coming in from the neighbor's property because they're not just dealing with their own storm water, they're dealing with the neighbors storm water as well. And so that is a real thing that concerns me about this. and particularly um and I'm just going to go
there because Bucky said it like the the storm water is going to be directed towards this wetland. So my concern is you know uh design grades making sure we have adequate separation making sure we have a structure that's going to be able
to handle the storm water on the site. Um, and uh, you know, I think that there are things that could be done to potentially uh, reduce this wetland from being here because of the inadequate
storm water from the property that's upgradient. Um, and I would highly encourage, as I have since day one, encouraged this applicant to pursue that um, relief with the neighboring land owner um, for for their benefit of this
wetland not continuing to grow, but also for the benefit of water quality in general and and because they're trying to do something here. Um, I think it's a complicated question. I think we need more information, but I think it's a challenging site and I think it's going to become more challenging the more
impervious we add to it. Um, >> I was wondering, >> so are you're saying that the neighbor is involved or try to involve the neighbor and taking care of this problem and not contributing to it? >> Yeah, they shouldn't they shouldn't be dumping their storm water onto the these
folks property. um they they should be treating it on their own property. And so that's that has been the primary thing that I've discussed with this project proponent from the first day they walked in to talk to me. Um was I would try to have a serious
conversation there. >> Yeah, we're you know trying to trying to work with them to a degree. Um, you know, there are, you know, there's really only so much that can be done with that much impervious area coming at us. And of
course, anything that would be done would all be within the 50ft buffer zone. Um, you know, we we could potentially direct it other places. Um, maybe put up a curb and keep it in their parking lot. I'm not sure what happens at the bottom end of their parking lot.
And they do have quite a bit of impervious area down there. Well, they could install some catch basins. Um, connect it to town water and sewer. You know, there's or not well, not water and sewer, excuse me, town storm water system. Um, you know, I think there's there's there are potential
alternatives. I realize they're >> invasive. I know the town system is uphill unfortunately of uh, you know, the the neighbors impervious area. So, whatever they would do would would be on the um the back end. So um
this this is the you know town's map. So back here potentially you can see this red line is roughly the the 100 foot buffer affiliated. It's a little rough as you can see but uh >> I can't see what your I can't see your line there. If you're pointing to something but >> the red line doesn't come. Do you see
the red circle? >> I don't see anything other than your plan. It's because I am sharing according to um my application and not my screen. So, let me go right to my
screen. >> There. How about that? Does that look like your town now? >> Yes. >> All right. I'm so sorry. Um uh so yeah, the the large red circle is roughly the the 100 foot buffer and um the town
storm drain is up here, but um you know once you get south of here, you're already too far below the storm drain. So all of this, you know, right now it drains to here and then drains through this person's yard and then drains through this yard. Maybe we could
encapsulate it and put something down here. Um, and I see we as a joint effort because if I were this land owner, I would I wouldn't spend a dime to help my neighbor. We're talking about, you know, 15 20 $25,000 on, you know, easily.
>> So, I I have a suggestion here, Bucky. think we should talk offline just as staff in the office because it's getting really late and we have mult we have a lot of other business tonight but I think there are things we could talk about you and I and potentially the proponent to >> try to brainstorm on some of this stuff.
But unless the commission has other input they want to give on your proposal, >> which yeah, I would >> I had one last thing to say uh uh Bucky and that is that I uh I would like to see more um get more information. I I would like
to take a look at the spot uh the the wetland in the back. And uh so that's that's my uh my view. I don't feel like I've got enough but every but uh when you're uh thinking about if you're
thinking about those straw polls that we took uh earlier um I would be willing to consider um but don't have enough information if you want u okay >> my view
>> but I think that's it for us for tonight Bucky I appreciate your uh your presentation And I hope that's a a bit that it's helpful for you to get a little more guidance there. >> It it is it it does uh identify a few
things and now we have a few more talking points. So we'll we'll have more internal discussion offline. Uh thank you very much for your time on a very busy night and um I'll check in with you on some other time on another project. >> All right, Bucky. We'll see you again. >> Thanks, Bucky. >> Thanks.
>> Thank you. Take care. So, um, we're moving from here to, uh, certificate of compliance, 169 Meadow Street. Is that right or are we, uh, do we have another presentation? >> We have, we have another presentation. >> I'm sorry.
>> No, that's okay. Um, I'm going to bring in Adrian and Darcy. Hi there. >> Hello, Darcy. >> Hi. Commissioners, >> welcome. >> Thank you very much. >> And hello, Adrien. >> Quite a night.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Welcome. >> You're both on. Uh, I need the addresses. >> Yeah. So, if you don't mind each uh just giving you us uh your addresses or the address of uh or the the company you're
working with. >> I see the GCA. >> Yeah. >> Um, sure. I'm Darcy Jameson, vice president of development with Beacon Communities. We're a Bostonbased affordable housing developer located at Two Center Plaza in Boston. Okay. Thank
you. >> And I'm Adrien Dunk with GZA Geo Environmental based out of Springfield. >> Mass. Do you need the full address? >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. So, uh please uh start your
presentation. We'll be all yours for you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um so, just again, Darcy Jameson. Um, some of you may know Beacon Communities because we are the owner of Rolling Green Apartments and we were the developers of North Square at the Mill District in
particular. I worked on that project. Um, we are I'm going to I'm going to screen share. Do I have Yes, I have screen sharing capacity. There we go. Can you guys all see that? >> Yeah. So, um, Adrian and I are here tonight,
um, to have a very informalformational presentation. Um, Beacon is very preliminarily starting to look at a new development opportunity in North Ammerst. Um, and we
are just starting to sort of shop around in the community talking about this potential opportunity. Um the opportunity is really growing out of the Amoris's master plan um for North
Ammeris that was done oh I don't know probably about 10 or so years ago looking at new opportunities to create housing connectivity new town center. So we've had an opportunity to look at a
site located at 246 Montigue Road. Um, many of you, I'm sure, are familiar with the mill district. You have Sunderland Road, Montigue Road, and there is a 25 acre parcel located right here. We've
had preliminary conversations with the seller um and starting to think about is there an opportunity for us to help advance the town's master plan of creating more housing and connectivity in North Ammerst. just very high level. Um, when we
originally started to look at opportunities, we were looking at would there be an opportunity to do some apartments, a couple of hundred apartments along Sunderland Road and perhaps um a similar size affordable housing development for both of these
along Montigue Road. Um, I'm I'm backing up to sort of our initial look a few months ago because as we started to really study the natural resources in the area and think about this site and Adrian will talk about this more.
There are a lot of wetlands and a lot of natural resources that as we worked through this thought we should really be stepping back from some of these and seeing if we can respect the natural environment a little bit more in this area. Um, this area of the site has
already been disturbed. There's a house, there's a barn, there's a driveway. Um, so very high level. Um, we're thinking through the opportunity to use the existing driveway. Got wetlands this
direction, wetlands this way. Adrian will talk about that. Um, a new construction building, 140, 150 apartments with parking and associated amenities, 100% electric, passive house, all the
good sustainability stuff. I know that's not the purview of the commission, but I do like to sort of share that that would be the direction that we would be moving forward. Um Adrian will talk more about this with regards to the conservation commission,
but we did map the wetlands um both the state wetlands and federal, state, and local. So the goal of tonight is really just to provide some very preliminary information about what we are starting to think about as a possible development
opportunity. We're not even looking for a straw poll. Happy to hear your thoughts. Um, but I will let Adrian just share a few more details and keep it keep it tight tonight. >> Great. Thanks, Darcy. Um,
there's some views along the road, but okay, here's our site. As Darcy said, GZA did a full delineation um, back when we were considering the entire parcel. So, we did delineate on the full 25 acres. Um, and there are, you know, there's a
lot of lines and colors going on in this site. So, um, I'll just give a a highlevel overview. There's Eastman Brook comes in under, uh, Route 63. It flows southwest across the site, goes off site, and then flows back through
the middle of the property. And it's a perennial river, so it has the riverfront area. And it also has a 100red-year flood plane, so a bordering land subject to flooding. Um the bright green line with teeth
pointing inward is the limit of um bordering vegetated wetlands. So most of that southwest corner is bordering vegetated wetlands. Most of the center of the property along Eastmanbrook um which here is on the western limit of
the proposed um conceptual um development. That's bordering vegetated wetlands. And then there's two isolated vegetated wetlands and they're kind of a teal line with teeth. >> Let me see my cursor.
>> Yes. So there's one west of the proposed development and then one north kind of squeezed between uh squeezing the existing entry to the site. Um so to just kind of run through, I love saying this, there's no proposed alteration to
the bordering vegetated wetlands. There's no proposed alteration to the bordering land subject to flooding. So, check check. We love that. Um the riverfront area um within the the proposed parcel,
it would be some redevelopment um from the driveway, the site entrance, but the existing house and yard would be restored and then other great natives planted um along Monagu Road. Uh we are
investigating the opportunity to add sidewalk um extending from Pulpit Hill Road up to the property and also um implementing or extending the sewer. So those would be in the state right of way.
Um the property, you know, would comply with the state storm water standards and there'd be, you know, native species planted um everywhere. there's going to be plantings and other opportunities for restoration on site. So, under the state
wetlands protection act, um pretty great opportunity and the it's been scaled back to avoid a lot of impacts to resources, which is fantastic. Um, in terms of the Ammerst wetlands protection bylaw, this uh project is
proposed as affordable housing and we'll be pursuing a comprehensive permit with the zoning board of appeals. Um so we will be requesting to wave the the local bylaw but we are seeking to meet the
spirit of the bylaw and make a good faith effort to respect it um you know to the extent practicable. So that said the two isolated vegetated wetlands um no no impact to the limit of the wetlands themselves. They are not
vernal pools. Um, based off our observation of the topography and the vegetation in them, they are wetlands, but they don't hold standing water. So, they're not vernal pools. Um, there's likely going to be a need for a
little bit of um construction within the the 50-foot no touch, some temporary construction access, particularly at the site entrance uh to avoid the riverfront area. And also there's a really steep slope there. So just to keep everybody
safe and away from that slope, but then no um you know long-term no work in those areas and and no development in those areas and also observing no buildings in the 75 foot no touch. And
we will say the most of the property is used as agriculture now. It's currently hay. Um, looking at the aerial imagery, there's intermittently cattle in in the IVWs. Um, so that will cease and the property will be allowed to naturalize
and reveate. So, like we said, trying to meet the spirit and the intent of the bylaw. Um, our process is that this is a preliminary um,
presentation here today. There are a few more uh items to check and make sure that this project is likely to move forward. But then we would be submitting an ANRAD to the conservation commission to confirm the boundaries of the
wetlands on site before additional um site design moved forward before grading you know and all that that effort was put in. We'd like to confirm the wetland boundaries then advance the project design. then we would be moving into our state and local permitting. So, we would
anticipate coming before this board officially uh twice in the process. Thanks, Adrian. Um I do just want to stress um a few of the things that Adrianne said which is we went from sort of looking at the larger 25 acre parcel
understanding the wetlands most of it's not developable and really trying to focus development in an area that has been disturbed. This is not a just to be really clear not a not a final site plan. Um there's a long way to go here
with starting to just explore this as a development opportunity, but this is conceptual and really meant to share with the commission that we have been taking the land use issues and regulations very seriously and starting to really study them early in our
process. I think in the spirit of the time, we'll stop there. And the goal tonight again was just to keep this very tight and just informational. Erin, I don't know if you want to add anything from our conversations or
you're on mute. >> Yeah. Thank you, Darcy. And thank you, Adrian. Aaron, you you're still muted. >> You're muted. >> Thank you. Um Yeah. No, just appreciate the iterative process that we're going
through and um that the resource area constraints are being considered um by the applicant in this situation. >> Well, thanks again. Um if there are any questions, uh go ahead and ask them. Let's be brief about it
though. Bruce, go ahead. >> Not a question. Um, just as a starting point, the bullet on the list that said wave the local bylaw, I'm as a starting point, I'm pretty uncomfortable with that as a starting point.
>> So, I'd want to see alternatives that didn't do that. >> That's a fair comment. Um, I that was really meant to um sort of note that we would be going through the comprehensive
permit chapter 40B process. um we would have the opportunity to request a waiver, but we certainly want to be working closely with the commission to try and respect the bylaws, look at the alternatives, um and mutually agree on the direction we're heading.
>> Thanks, Darcy. >> Yeah. So, that that's a good comment to >> maybe we put that out there a little too directly. That wasn't quite the intent. Um but we also wanted to be transparent about how we were thinking about the project. And I'm just saying let's get it out there now. And
>> yeah, >> talk about that available. >> That too. >> Thanks again. Um Tina, >> um I just want to comment that that is mostly prime farmland soil. So it'd be nice to see as much of the property stay
in farming as possible. >> Yeah. Um so we are um if if this project moves forward um we would be acquiring let me just back up a slide.
We would be acquiring what's more or less outlined in the white dotted line and the balance of the site would be remaining under its current ownership and I would anticipate under its current use which is is agriculture. Um,
>> all right. Any other questions? >> It looks like a really uh interesting project there. Um, and I do see that you you're you're making some ef some good efforts there to uh to stay within the wetlands and uh and Ammerst uh town uh
boundaries. So, thank you very much. I'm looking forward to seeing more uh from you when you when you do uh package it and move it forward. >> Thank you. Um any other questions or we'll we'll sign off and wish everyone a happy holiday season.
>> All right. Well, thanks. Any other questions before we uh say goodbye? No. Well, have a good uh season and uh and we'll see you around. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. And uh now we can look for the uh certificate
of compliance uh request for 169 Meadow Street. Is that what we're going to next? >> Sure. I mean, how's everybody doing? Let's check in. Everybody really need to go? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> still live. >> Yeah, you're still alive. Okay. So, if
we need to table the certificates of compliance, we can do that. Um, it's late. It's 10:30. Um, if the commission would like to do that, we we can do that at the next meeting. Um, the the one thing that I would just like to check in
on is the fact that um we have a request, it's in my my report, to reduce the um inspection schedule for um some of the monitoring reports. So, on five separate projects, which would be the
three DPW projects, as well as the Ammerst High School track and the Eversource um College Street substation project. I'm fine with them going from a weekly inspection to a monthly inspection. Uh that's really a commission decision. I would only
recommend it in the instance that um if freezing or snow covered conditions cease in the course of the season that they come back to a weekly monitoring schedule. Um you know if we have a thaw and then they have to go back to weekly.
Um so that's the one thing I would want to check with the commission on because those are sort of timesensitive. But the certificates of compliance, um, I think my recommendations are going to stand and if the commission is feeling like we need to table those, that's completely
fine. >> I I think we should. Um, I I can, you know, I think we can uh we can all sit here and work through them. Uh, but I think it's better that uh I think >> it's been a long day. Um,
>> yeah, >> I don't have an issue with uh with any uh of those uh with um letting uh uh letting the reports uh slide until it's time that uh that that
that there will be changes, so to speak. >> Okay. >> So, I'm I'm with you on that. >> I second that. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Sorry. >> Is that the general consensus? >> Yeah. I generally
but you know we're gonna get rain and it's gonna be 56 degrees supposedly. >> So in those instances you're saying then that you know is it monthly except or within 24 hours after a quarter inch of rain.
>> Yeah. Where Exactly. So if it's if it's a freezing condition with snow cover then then they can be on a monthly schedule. But if we're getting um a thaw, then they're back to weekly. So that's the condition of them moving to, you know, if they're shifting. So
>> is that thaw defined? That's my like that's my question is is a thaw because a thaw I would because if it rains right now with the amount of snow that's on the ground potentially in some areas and get a quarter of an inch of rain, you're going to get a lot of runoff, right?
Especially if it's 56°, >> right? Well, I would say 56 degrees would count as a thaw. Um, >> but if it's 40° and it rains, >> which could be this week, >> you know, so I I think we're talking
freezing in the in the instance of freezing conditions with snow cover. Um, so if it if it's if it's things are thawing out, if we're going above freezing, then they're going to be back on their their weekly inspection schedule. >> Okay.
>> And and you'll you'll be defining that for them. >> Yes. Yes, I will. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great, Bruce. >> That's exactly what we need. You see, and Aeron's going to tell them when they have to go out there and when they don't, and then we'll have the
information we need. Yes. >> There we go. Thanks, Bruce. Anyone else? So, we don't need to vote on that, right, Erin? I think we we're all in there's a general consensus that uh we're we're
>> we're all in agreement. Um, so is there uh any So now with this uh the next thing we're going to do is just uh are there any uh comments from the public uh that um
uh haven't been addressed yet? You see any hands up? I don't see any >> any topics that we couldn't have uh reasonably anticipated in the last 48 hours. >> There are, but none of them are so
urgent that they need to be discussed tonight. >> Well, thanks for that answer. Um well, with that, we're looking for a motion. >> I move that we adjourn. >> Thank you. >> A second. >> And thank you. And was that Tina?
>> Yep. >> Okay. I'm gonna recognize your voice soon. All right. Uh, so that's uh Jason with a move to adjourn and Tina with a second. Tina, >> I >> Rachel, >> hi.
>> Harold, >> hi. >> Bruce, >> Jason, >> hi. >> And I'm an eye. So, it's unanimous. >> Good job, guys. That was a tough one. They're not all like this. I promise. >> Yeah. Good job, everyone. Yeah.
>> Do you ever consider taking a break in a 3 and 1 half hour meeting? >> You should absolutely take a break. Just get up and take a break. >> Do what you need to do. Don't don't don't worry