Good evening everyone. Uh this is the Amoris Conservation Commission. Um um Andre Gera the chair and we got Rachel Laughler, Jason Dornney, Bruce Steedman, Alex is going to be uh
joining us in just a little bit. Um Aaron Jacques with uh with the town is here and uh uh Dave Zomeck is uh absent uh today. Um first up uh
chair's report um as of uh August 1st uh 25 2025 there's been a significant drought uh declared and um in Ammerst uh all non-essential watering uh has been
banned uh just for uh for the more um accurate description of what's going on. You can check the town website for it. Um Bruce,
just I I looked into it a little bit and it does include vegetables, ornamentals, flower gardens, and vegetables can be watered. Okay. All right. Except for that watering of ornamentals and flowers, gardens with
drip irrigation, handheld hose or watering cans may be permitted. Anyway, you can find that uh find that probably on the town uh website. Um what else? Uh we
um we have been down um two commissioners uh since July and uh are really looking forward to uh uh to more commissioners uh as uh
we can. It appears we may may have a may have a um uh an interview uh taking place uh this week. Um any
I don't see any uh new updates. We will be actually we will be discussing um the new regulations um uh that we've had uh from the subcommittee uh it appears that the town
um attorney has taken a look at them and had a few minor corrections but uh given a thumbs up. we should uh take a final some final looks at it as we move on and um and then uh present it to uh for uh
public comment and so on. Erin, is there anything uh that uh you had to add to this? Um yeah, so I just to follow up on what Andre said, I assembled all the completed sections and um inserted them
into the full land use policy regulation document. Um and there was a couple sections that the subcommittee didn't work on. So those ones were also reviewed. Um and I I think what our thinking was was give an opportunity for
existing members to look at the document as well. Hopefully we get some new members appointed. they can look at the document and maybe aim for the beginning of 2026 to have a public hearing um to hopefully get those on the books.
And it'll be a it'll be a a process. Um, I think the first thing, uh, that we can do is, uh, take a look at what we've got and, uh, if there are any, you know, what I would like to do is make sure that we take care of any, um,
periods, commas, uh, anything that's unclear. Um, and then uh make sure that uh and that we're not making any kind of mistakes that uh any that there are no blatant mistakes,
which it appears doesn't really have them. But we'll take a look and um then once we're ready with that, then we'll get it out to uh to the public probably around the beginning of the year like Aaron said.
Bruce, anything uh from you? No. No. Thank you. Thank you. Uh all right. Anything from uh in the form of a director's report or shall we move through? Um just letting everybody know that um
within the next week I think the work at Sweet Alice on the um boardwalk is going to be beginning. Um, so they're working right now to flag out the the um boardwalk location and they are ordering materials. So there's going to be some
temporary staging at the Sweet Alice Conservation Area and um the contractor will be accessing in there with vehicles in order to construct the the bo um the bog bridge. Um so that'll be happening soon. Um and yeah, very exciting that
it's finally underway. And also um Bruce um uh was I don't know if folks got the email but Bruce um spearheaded a a grant an MVP grant application and the town um
and the uh surrounding towns that are in the Fort Ruper wershed were awarded um I don't know the exact number but it was about $450,000 to do culvert assessments and uh just a really huge achieve. achievement and we're very excited about that project. So, thank you, Bruce.
Awesome. Um, two quick points. Uh, the objective is to hire young people and train them as a culvert assessors. Um and then in probably by spring uh have them out assessing culverts, training them first and then asset actually
assessing as many of the uh public way uh culverts as we can in the five towns. Um it does not only it's not only culverts in the watershed, it will be in the towns and it'll take a couple of
years to do them all. The information goes into a database that UMass manages and that database is used by the state to figure out when towns apply to get
either design and planning money or construction money through the MVP process. They use the database to determine who gets the money because the higher on the list because you had a higher score the better. And high scores come from this thing is in danger of
falling apart. So the worse the culvert is, the better the score, the earlier they'll get the money to replace it. And this is important because it enables the towns to get ahead of the problem so that they're not put in the
position as the DPWs must at some level when the thing blows out, they just go replace it with the thing that was there before. This enables them to get ahead of it and put in something that will be appropriate for wildlife connectivity and will last for a long time. So that's
the purpose of the grant. And Bruce, those grants are very labor intensive to write and put together. So, and I did almost nothing. It was Pioneer Valley Planning Commission that did most of the drafting. Okay.
I'm just I was the facilitator. Well, thank you to the you and thank you to them. Yes. You didn't even give credit, huh? Well, it's a good it's a definitely a good uh good project or a good uh
good cause for sure. Cool. Congratulations. Yeah. Good. All right. Um uh we have a couple of land use applications. It's 7:13 now. Um,
let me see. Why don't we go ahead and uh take a look at these uh before? Well, we got a 7:15. Let's do that. Let's let's take care of these uh land use applications. Okay. Do you want me to give a little background on them?
Uh, sure. Whatever. Just uh short because they're pretty uh straightforward, both of them. Sure. So these are annual um land use applications that Ammeris College um submits to us for a macro inverte macro invertebrate sampling on the Mill River
and also they do um dissection of golden rod galls from the um Sweet Alice conservation area as part of their class and they provide to us the reports from the macro invertebrate sampling which provides some insight to us on water quality for the Mil River and uh
annually we just provide sort the standard um conditions. And so staff is in favor of issuing both of these with the standard conditions that they provide um the results of their studies back to us um after the projects are completed.
Nice. Um and they Yeah, you had what four years of uh four years. Mhm. Um All right. So, and one of them Yeah, one of them is micro invertebrates. So, this is we were talking one one at a time,
right? Yeah, you could you could approve them one at a time. Yeah. Or uh has uh has everybody had a chance to look at that. And uh does every anybody have any objections? Okay, I've looked at them. I have no
objections. Uh, I move that we approve uh land use application CLU-25-9. Second. All right. There's a uh there's a motion uh to approve uh to
approve and a second. Uh Bruce I. Alex. I. Jason. I Rachel I I'm an I too. Um, I move we approve land use application
CLU20-25-20. Second, Jason on a motion. Bruce on a second. Bruce I Alex I Jason I Rachel I mean I
um that takes care of that. Uh we'll be talking uh on uh as far as land management updates. Uh I just did mention earlier that we're going to be looking to move the uh lean use policies forward. Uh so we'll we'll continue to
continue that conversation as we go. Aaron, there's uh so we uh we've been getting a lot of uh good public comments uh through the
town's website. Um, if you are submitting something to us for consideration that is not um well, yeah, I'll let uh I'll let Aaron explain uh because I think uh but
comments that you make are best submitted to us uh via this um public comment uh portal uh that the that the town maintains. Yeah. So, I frequently get emails from
the public um that uh folks just direct a comment to me and they don't necessarily say, "Please forward this to the conservation commission. They just send me a comment, a general comment." And unless folks specify to me that they want it shared or forwarded to the conservation commission, I I don't do
that as a general policy because I receive so many of these types of emails from people. Um the other thing is, you know, we established this public comment form basically to allow people to consent to have their comments posted online. And now that we've moved to a um
a uh a public uh facing um web-based conservation commission packet. Uh staff aren't supposed to be, you know, uploading people's personal email addresses because there's personal identifiable information on there. So, it's the easiest thing for folks to do
if they want to communicate with the commission is to um submit through the public comment form. If there's attachments, those can be shared with me and I can share those with the commission or upload the attachments to the packet. Um, I just wanted to make sure that was clear because some folks um have been frustrated that their
emails weren't forwarded when they weren't asked to have them forwarded. So, I just want to make sure that folks in the public know sort of what our general procedures are. Thanks, Erin. And now we'll move to uh to our hearings. Uh
first we'll uh set some uh general procedures. Um each hearing has 20 minutes dedicated to it. Uh five minutes for the applicants uh or their representative, five minutes for staff, five minutes for public
comment, um no more than two per person, and five minutes for commissioners. Uh once again um we'll emphasize that uh all submitted uh materials or requested revisions be submitted by Wednesday the
week before the meeting uh before our meetings by close of business. Make sure that you state your name, uh, address of the project for presenters and who you are as well as if you have any preferred pronouns and for the
public name, address, and uh, preferred pronouns. Thank you. With that, we're going to move to our first hearing. Um, this hearing is being held uh as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40
of the general laws of the commonwealth an act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Ammer's general bylaws. Uh this is an RDA, a request for determination uh from Cold Spring
Environmental on behalf of Fred Hal and Family Estate. Um uh located at uh 317 Shootsbury Road, map 9B, lot 52. Um
today's the uh opening a butter has been notified and so on. Um, with that, uh, we'll look for our presenters.
If you don't mind raising your hand, uh, if you're out in the when you're out in the public, we'll take a look and bring you in. I see no raised hands so far. someone from Cold Spring Environmental. Uh
seeing him not sure what's happening there, Andre. Looks like they're not here tonight. That's fine. Uh why don't how about we uh wait a little bit? Is it okay to just uh wait a bit now? We'll move on to it is 7:20, which is for our next
hearing. We may as well do that and check check back and uh see. I don't want to have to put this on a on another schedule if we don't need to. Okay. Uh so the
just so that it's uh clear what we're doing is uh we're we're going to postpone the uh hearing on Cold Spring Environmental. Um and we have our hearing number two which is a notice of intent GZA
Environmental Inc. on behalf of Archipelago Investments LLC in New Hampshire College for proposed mix use residential development at zero West Bay Road map 25B lots 52 and zero West
Street map 25B lot 58. Um the uh GZA has requested that uh we move uh that we uh move the public hearing to November 12th at 7:15.
Um just uh I think we should probably update a couple of updates on what uh what we've seen so far. Um let me make a quick summary. Um about one month ago, two meetings ago,
uh uh GZA requested um that the commission look at the uh look at the wetland the town's wetland bylaws and uh modify them uh to look
just like uh the Northampton bylaws where they have exempted several uh zoning um areas uh from the town's wetland bylaws. Uh last meeting we decided not to that
we've uh we've seen enough uh but and then this meeting um we had requested that they uh bring all of the materials that um that they needed so we can make a determination today. there. Uh if you've uh had a chance to
look at your packages, um the uh GZA uh Kyle, I don't remember Kyle's last name, uh from GZA, uh sent had sent an email um reiterating what he was looking for
us to uh change, which we he had given to us already in in his um uh PowerPoint. Um and uh there was a bit of a a
mixup and um he had intended for that to be shared with us directly but he didn't request it. Anyway, now we have it. We'll grant another this last or I I would I would propose that we uh grant
this next um uh continuation um until November 12th and that we uh set as a deadline for uh submitting any
um paperwork or request uh requested um information such as a plan uh submission etc. by uh one month from today. In other words, that by um October 24th uh all of
their submissions be submit be uh made and um that would give us uh or give uh Aaron some time to review them and us the chance to discuss them. on November 12th and that will be the last um
extension uh unless we uh find that there's uh there's something more. But we uh you know we right now as it is we do not have enough information uh to uh to approve anything.
Um we're we've requested that information. the information hasn't arrived at us, hasn't gotten to us. Um, it's been a while. That's that's what I have to say for now. Um, Alex,
uh, well, yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Alex. Uh, I just want to remind the chair that the chair is advised to remain impartial until Lee is heard from commissioners. And I have two motions.
The first motion is to deny the applicant's request for continuation. Yeah. Maybe we need to hear from the public, too. Yeah. Since we're I have Can I continue? Well, don't you want to do it by the rules?
I I You are proposing something. Um, and I don't want to get too far down the road on that without putting something else forward. Go ahead.
Uh, I move that we deny the applicants request for continuation. Reasons. The applicant has given no reason for this request. Two, the applicant has moved for continuance many times.
Three applicant has changed the nature of what it is now pursuing to the extent that has drifted away from its NOI and has in effect withdrawn its application. That's one motion.
Second motion is to deny the applicant's notice of intent for mixeduse residential development reasons. applicant has altered what it is pursuing before the concom
intent has effectively been withdrawn. And if the applicant wishes to proceed, a new proposal must be submitted to be in accord with existing town bylaws and regulations. And um those are my two motions.
Well, I think we have to do some discussion, don't we? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, Jason. I was going to ask I recall a while ago that we had discussed how many continuances we're willing to
grant to any one particular project. Um, this project has had a number of continuences and um, you know, one was granted by us as a uh, nicity because they didn't even
show up. They didn't send an email. They didn't show up when they were supposed to have a me hearing. And then the next hearing they attended, they asked us to change our bylaws so they could build a project. Um I I'm in favor of I would
like to hear from Aaron as far as process is concerned. If we um if we were to deny this request for continuence, does that mean then that their NOI has been also denied? What what is the exact
language here? Um and then what are the ramifications? They say they wanted to go to the planning board again. They have another meeting. that's why they wanted to continue this. Um, I don't know what they're gonna I don't know what the overlap is and
what if we just deny it, is that going to I I don't believe it's going to affect their meeting with planning board. Um, and it's my understanding that they would just have to file a new NOI to come back in front of the conservation commission again with their
new project after their planning board meeting. Um so I just would like to get a little bit of information from you Aaron as far as process Aaron. Right. So um
in terms of like if if we didn't grant the continuation then what that means is that the public hearing is effectively closed um because there's not it's not continued to a date certain. Um so when that happens you have 21 days to issue
an order of conditions. Um and and I if we do that um within that 21 days you have to issue an order of conditions and the order of conditions has to um you know approve or deny the project right um it sounds like I mean Alex's
proposal to deny the project um unless they specifically submit in writing to us or on the record to us that they've withdrawn um we would have to issue an order one way or another. Um just having dealt with a number of these type of
situations um where an applicant was say not being timely with submitting revisions. My recommendation to the commission is to set a deadline a reasonable deadline. So say 30 days is a reasonable deadline. Within 30 days a
plan needs to be submitted. very specifically outline that that plan that is submitted must meet the general performance standards under wetland protection and under our local bylaw as it exists today. And if the applicant
doesn't submit a plan that complies with local bylaw and state regs that at that time we would deny the project for lack of information. Um, so if you if you make a motion to that effect and you put on record that the applicant has this period of time to submit these
materials, then once that date comes, if those materials aren't submitted, the commission is on solid legal ground to deny for lack of information. Um, the only other basis for denial in my opinion is to say that the project
doesn't meet performance standards. Um, and I would be hesitant to to go there right now considering um the applicant has has expressed on the record that they wanted to revise to make their plan um better comply with the with the
regulations. It's just been taking a long time and and I agree it's been a confusing process with the request to change the regulations and like what now. Um, but I think the request to I think to state on the record, if you're going to proceed with this project, it's got to comply with the
current regulations. You have this period of time to complete it and we expect a a project submitt will comply with the regs at that time. Right. Didn't we already give them that date? I recall asking them to come bring
their revised plans to us by I want to say August the August the second August meeting uh today. Okay. So, we've requested that they bring revised plans to us today and they did not do that
by today. Yep. the uh Jason, let me just throw in um one thing that I would like to make sure that we that we take into account and that is uh
the emails that um Kyle sent where he uh he later requested that uh they be shared with us. We didn't have those emails shared with us until this meeting. I think it would be fair, and I know
we're being very fair every time. I mean, yeah, nicity, uh, type of thing. Um, I think it would make sense for us to take the email with the new information into account
as we move forward and give a specific date like uh like I was saying, one month from now. They requested a uh they requested to be heard on the 12th. Let's do the 12th and that's our last
day unless there's something that we have another question for or whatever. But um yes, we've given a lot of opportunities. We requested that it be that they have their things that they're have their
materials in by for today for a discussion, but I think um they're having sent some extra information that didn't make it to us uh gives uh gives rise to uh a little
reason to move it forward one more time. Okay. I I'd like to hear from the public if there's anyone from the public before we make any s Yeah. And we're gonna they're they're coming up. Erin, um, sorry. I just wanted to say that if
the what if the commission is going to move forward with this, I would recommend a motion is made and that there's a vote on it because I think we can have discussion, general discussion um as a group, but I think it's very important that there's consensus and there's a vote on the record um that
provides very clear direction to the applicant of the expectations and also what the consequence of not um completed completing the directions will be. So that if uh if we do decide that uh we're going to have a certain date by which uh
everything needs to be in, we should do that through a motion. Correct. And also state what is expected to be submitted by that date. So in other words, a plan that complies with our current regulations. Okay. Uh Bruce, so when we get to it, Erin, I have a
draft. I think I have captured what we said and uh maybe you could type it in the motion box on the screen so we're all in agreement what we're what we're we're what the motion is. But I agree with Jason. We should hear from the
public and then we should go back to Alex's suggestion for motions. Thanks, Bruce. Alex, uh just for the record, uh uh long before August, we asked them to submit a
plan that complied with the regulations and they failed to do that. So, it wasn't just by today. It was I think during the spring. I have to look back, but so I don't want to be held to to
exactly when it was, but I I I know we did. So it's that request has been made before and on September 10 there was an attempt to make such a motion and we didn't get there. So thank you for
letting me speak. Absolutely. Okay, let's move to the public. I see three hands up. Um I'll be bringing each one in. Two minutes max each. Um and I see four hands. Here we go.
Uh, it doesn't appear that I can uh bring anyone in. Would you mind bringing them in, Erin? I can't hear you. Um, I'm going to make you co-host, Andre. Sorry, I forgot to do that at the beginning, but can when you add folks, can you make sure to add them as a
panelist? That way, it's easier to um uh remove them. Okay. And just try to Oh, here she is. Uh Maria Kapiki, you're up.
Thanks for joining us. You're muted. So, sorry. Um, hi Maria Kapiki, 65 Country Corners Road. Um, I just want to ex point out that to my knowledge,
Archipelago has never said that they intend to bring you something that is compliant with the bylaws, right? That that really had I I don't think that that's true. um they keep bringing you things to tell you to
change your bylaws, but I don't think that there has been any indication that they have any intention to bring you something where they're compliant. Um and I also want to just I mean I read the emails that were put in the packet
unless I I missed something else. There was no new information there. So, I wouldn't I wouldn't um characterize it as new, I guess, is what I'm saying. Um so, um I I think it's long past time
that that this ends. Um, and uh, yeah, I uh, I don't know, guys, you you are amazingly um, tolerant and patient, but I mean I I just don't see
where this is going in any fruitful way at this point. And I don't know how you can get any kind of assurances that uh, that anything would be different. Um, by the way, the planning board has been waiting for you guys. So, I don't understand the notion of waiting until
after going to the planning board that I mean I don't get that they're waiting for you planning. You guys are the ones that have to decide about the wetlands. So, that's it. I don't want to take up any more of your time. Thank you. Thanks, Maria.
We have Sher Wilson about to join us in the I've just promoted you panelist and this isn't doesn't seem to be working very well for
me promot people to panelist. Uh oh, you you just asked me to unmute again, just so you know. I don't know. This is Maria. Sorry. Uh so, wrong person. Yep, you're all set. Okay,
Jennifer Hixon is on. Um there you go. Good evening. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak again on this issue. Um, well, I'm just going to start by saying I've been to a lot of these meetings. Uh, one of them, uh, we had
the opportunity while we were waiting, uh, for the applicant. You all talked about all of the wildlife in and around your properties, and I so enjoyed that conversation, but it made me think about how this project will decimate the wildlife that we enjoy behind uh, and in
our property. And that includes bear, fox, deer, um, rabbits, you know, just everything that all of you actually talked about enjoying around your properties. Um, I have to say I don't understand how
anyone is allowed to change the rules to suit an unsuitable building um, for the property where this uh, structure is supposed to go. Uh even the builder himself said it was a very difficult and unusual property to build this facility
on. Um so uh I I I hope that uh we have reached a point where uh enough is enough. Um, it is clear that the plan with the chainling
fence to ruin our wetlands, to ruin our wildlife and our community is not acceptable to all of us that live here. And I hope all of you folks uh find a way to agree um with that opinion. So, thanks again and thank for all the work
that you do on our behalf. I need the address. Uh 12. Sure. Sorry. 12 Autumn Lane. Thank you. I'm going to direct a butter. Thank you.
Lee Jang. Hi. Hello. This is Gustavo and Lee Jang. We live at 68 Country Corners. Can you help uh one more time with uh kind of spell out your name, please?
Sure. It's G U S T A V O and the last name is O L I V E I R A. I've also sent you a written comment. I hope you were able to receive it as well. But it's good to also be here
u and and hear. Can you still hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thanks. Yeah, it's it's good to, you know, keep up with these meetings and hear your conversations and your and your ways of thinking. I want to start by thanking Alex for his motions and Jason's for his very pertinent qu inquiries
and um ask that the committee recognize that your role is not just to interface with applicants and be tolerant or nice uh or fair to them also it's necessary
to be fair to us our you your the people you represent, you know, or constituents or or, you know, fellow Ammeris residents and citizens who have been keeping track of this, concerned about this and and as you dedicating a
lot of time to uh to a process that personally I I don't know about you, I feel disrespected by what this company keeps doing. The request to make us change our laws to
fit their interests. Their lack of respect for the constant patience of the committee to request that they submit uh materials that conform with our laws. Um
my understanding is that today was already the deadline. Um, I from what I understand what Aaron was explaining, I I don't see why you couldn't today vote to deny and we're done with this. my reading of why they're pushing this so
long and why, as Maria pointed out, they're trying to oh, push it off to your planning board and planning board is waiting for you, you folks in the wetlands is that they're counting on they're hoping to actually get the laws changed in their town and they just want to string us along until they can get
that process through. This is extremely anti-democratic. It's disrespectful not only to you and the committee, but to us, too. So please be nice not only to them, to us too. Be fair not only to them but to us too and
deny this request. And please continue to protect our environment to uphold our bylaws. We value you all so much. That's why we engage with you. Hopefully you see this as being constructive. Thank
you all. Thank you Mr. Oliviera. Andre can Erin has a point I think about the process. Please. Um I just wanted to um uh reply to that comment if I could. Um, so I completely
understand the frustration and um, I just want to make something clear of what the consequence of denying could be without following sort of the regulatory protocol. So, if the commission denied tonight and didn't have a regulatory
basis for the denial that could stand up in court, what could happen is the commission issues the denial, it goes to superior court, it goes to D and it's overturned in court um that the commission uh did not follow proper
procedures andor it's overturned by D and a superseding order of conditions is issued and the project moves forward without local control. So that's the consequence. I and I understand everybody's impatient and wants this like we've been patient, we've waited
and we've wanted to do this right. But um if we don't follow the appropriate regulatory steps in order to get where we need to go, that could be a potential legal consequence. And so I just want to make sure that's clear that that's why
I'm recommending that we follow this this procedure. Thank thanks Erin. Um, and uh I think we're all uh we're all tired of we feel like uh this is kind of
stringing along a little bit or I do um but we need to do things uh according to uh according to the rules and um and what we don't want to do is uh go ahead and make a denial and um end up uh
having that uh or making any kind of a decision and having that blow up in her face. Um it's you know we are giving an opportunity we are giving a warning that this is uh their this is what I'm
proposing at least uh our la their last opportunity uh and on the 12th we will be able to we will have the materials in our hand to make a determination or if we didn't receive the materials
then we'll make a determination based on that. Um, another public comment, Sher Wilson, you're up. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Sherry Wilson for Macintosh Drive.
Uh, I understand that you want to do this legally and I want you to do it legally also. I do not want this to end up in court. But I do think that archipelago has been stringing you along
for a very long time. And the sooner you can tell them no because they have not followed your request to make a revised plan. They
have ignored your requests for months. And this is insulting to the conservation commission and as somebody else said it's insulting to us the neighbors. Um it's insulting to the town.
um they are extremely arrogant and I think it's time for the conservation commission and I believe that's what you are trying to do on November 12th um to tell them you are not playing by the
rules we are playing by the rules thank you goodbye and I hope it will be a permanent goodbye we would like housing and mixuse is there but this is a very bad proposal. Thank you for standing
firm. Thank you Miss Wilson. I appreciate that. We have Lisa Jurus. We'll try to get you in now. There we are. Miss Jurus, you're in. If you please state your name and uh name
and address, please when you're unmuted or when you're Oh, there's Sorry about that. This is Paul Jurus. I'm here with uh Lisa, my wife. We're at 22 Macintosh Drive. Um, I appreciate the explanation and the legal ramifications
of potentially doing things the wrong way. We certainly understand that. Uh, but from another perspective, I think what we're ultimately doing here is rewarding bad behavior. And I I concur
with Maria. I think that archipelago has done everything they can to obscure and obfiscate and delay so that they can essentially get what they want. And in setting that kind of a precedent, I think what it opens the door to do is
for anyone in the future to use this as a tactic to coersse the committee or anyone else in the town uh to do their bidding and precedent is a very dangerous thing. So I would just ask the commission to think very seriously about
the precedent that may be set here because it not only affects future decisions but it also affects our ability to make rules and enforce those rules in the future. So letting people know that
this is a useful tactic I think could be very risky. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Appreciate it. Carol McNary, you're on. If you don't
mind uh stating your once you're unmuted. Uh, your name and address, please. You're still muted. Carol McNary. Yeah, here I am. Carol McNary.
Welcome. I think uh address 115 Spencer Drive, Ammerst. And um we certainly have met one another in Zoom many times. I'd love to see you in real life. Um,
I'm not going to repeat myself. Um, but I'm going to say that over the months, many months, I've been attending these hearings, I've come to have great respect for what you do. I have great respect for uh the town staff in the way
they support you. And um, I respect Erin's advice. But I remember at the last meeting uh it was such a wonderful example of how to work how citizens can work
together um when the I can't remember the gentleman the man who came to talk on his own time about the facilitating um uh ditching for the that would help the
farmers. You know what I'm referring to? Mhm. Okay. So, you all of you worked together. There was conversation back and forth. It was constructive. Nobody took exception to not getting their first
request just the way they wanted it. I I thought that was a really good example of putting um the expertise and and commitment to the to a a really good outcome.
Um, I'm really not being sarcastic, but I honestly don't see how the materials that I've seen presented as new compelling evidence that include pictures of a trolley, consultant
studies that really aren't to the point. Um, just a flurry of sketches. Um, now we need new bylaws and emails. I I do not know what are in those emails, but I don't think they were submitted
within the oneweek deadline. Um I don't just don't think that's helpful. And and I think that uh this commission shows in your in your interactions with
most the people who come before you how it should be working. And so I I look forward to a um a legal outcome that that benefits the community and I
really do thank you for what you've been doing. Thank you uh Carol. There's a lot of thought put into uh into our decisions. I appreciate when people notice that. I'm going to bring Katie in. Katie,
you're in. Uh if you don't mind muting yourself, uh tell us your name and address. Thank you. My name is Katie Nutton. I live at 340 Spencer Drive, Ammerst. Uh, I'd like to say that I think Archipelago has has not been respectful of the
commission throughout this process. When it became clear that the commission was not going to approve their original plan, they modified it slightly. But since then, they've relied on such arguments as, "Oh, it's not really a wetlands and, oh, you can just change
your bylaws and, oh, you can just change your bylaws." They've said that about three or four times. One tiny little sentence is all it takes. They say this is like saying, "Oh, you have a brick house. I'd like to add one more brick to your house. It's one tiny little brick just in your house. It'll be so easy."
Well, no, it really won't. And I want to commend you for seeing through this obfiscation and ducking and diving and trying to hold them to account and get them to give what give them what they should have done in the first place, which was take your comments um to heart and actually try to come up with a plan
that meets the regulations and the bylaws instead of seeming to think that they are above such things and you have to change your minds and your regulations to suit them. So, I appreciate you being steadfast. I agree with the other speakers that it's unfortunate that we have to give them
one more chance because I do think we've given them plenty of chances. But I also see the need to be prudent because I'm pretty sure if there's a loophole, they will try to wiggle through it and so we don't want to give them any loopholes. So, thank you for your hard work and hopefully we can bring this to a
successful conclusion. Thank you. Thanks for your comment, Katie. It looks like there's that's it for uh public comments. Um uh a little before uh how do we uh Erin,
how do we get uh our commenters to how do we move them back without uh removing them entirely from our meeting? I think they have to actually remove themselves as panelists. Um so if if folks who spoke um could remove
themselves as panelists, that would be great. They hit the upper right there. Um, I believe so. If I remove them, um, I believe it'll kick them out of the meeting and so I don't want to do that. That's what I've done in the past and it wasn't, uh, it didn't work out very well.
Yeah. Andre, um, could I just, uh, make one point of order? Well, um, before we move on to a motion, you can. And I wanted to make another comment as well. Why don't Let me just do this quick comment just to make sure that every that folks are uh, aware. Um,
last week we did discuss um the this proposed change uh by Archipelago or by Kyle from Archipelago and uh we're we're not going to uh make
those changes. We decided not to. Um so just want to make sure that everybody's uh clear on that. All right, Erin, go ahead. I'm sorry. Um, I just wanted to I it just occurred to me, Andre, that you um are not going
to be present for the um November 12th meeting. Um, and I didn't know if, you know, we I think the deadline date should remain the same um for 30 days from now, but wondering if we might
consider um if just to get your thoughts on that considering that just as a reminder that you won't be here for that hearing. Um, and I don't know what other scheduling issues we might have because we're only down to five voting members on this and
that could be a problem if we don't have a quorum. Is the 26th a uh uh is that Thanksgiving? I would imagine that that's before Thanksgiving. Is that the day before Thanksgiving? The 26th. Yeah. So, um we'll be talking scheduling
for November later in the meeting, but that could be a problem. I think that would work uh very well. Um but um I could certainly be here, but um
yeah, I won't be there November 12th. Um and would probably want to be there for that meeting. Um so maybe we can have it on a different day like in December.
Yeah, that was going to be my recommendation. Um, and I know we had talked about shifting our December meetings to doing like December 3rd and December 17th. Um, that way we could still have two meetings in December. Um, so if
if you don't mind, um, let's, uh, get to that. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. There we still have some more commenting. We do have a couple of motions that Alex put out. Um, and so if
uh let's see where we're taking this. Um, I see uh several folks from the public who are uh who are in here as panelists. If you can remove yourself from the panel, that'd be great.
How do we do that? I would look up in your upper right of your picture and hit those that three little uh dots that are there. And um
do you know how to do that? Aaron should be um remove panelist or exit as panelist. Um I see. Yeah, I'm not seeing that. not in my picture and not in my participants list. Yeah, I also just have the option to
leave the the thing entirely. So, I I have to get my daughter in bed. Thank you. I'll see you all in December, I guess. We'll see. All right. Okay. Yeah, I'll I'll just leave and come back. I think that's going to be the simplest. Thank you all.
Okay. Um let's see. So, we had some we were uh discussing uh hang on a second. We were discussing um what to do next with uh with this application. Um
Alex had a couple of motions uh to deny, right? Alex, can you um re can you explain again uh your motions? Were you looking at motions to deny clar Bruce if you took the notes? Um
yes. Yes. And I have one more motion, but I'm h those motions were not seconded and I'm happy to um rethink them given Aaron's comments because I too want to
uh follow correct process and um make plain our intentions and do it in a way that comports with um due process by the commission.
And um so given that my motions were not seconded, we don't have to amend them. We could rethink them as a group and I'm happy with that. However, I in in I did want to offer
uh one additional amendment or one additional thought and that is that to move that the commission will not change its wet and regulations to accommodate the request made by archipelago and will not discuss the matter with
archipelago in the future. And I I put it that way because although we had talks on the 10th um they were not present and it was not clear that as a result even though they
watched the video I don't think we ever put our thoughts in emotion. Um so now I I put it on the table. Yeah. Um, and I can go over the other thoughts, but I'd like to hear from the
commissioners on what I just suggested if that's okay with you, chair. So, yeah, I I do I do feel like we did um kind of put a uh put a top on that bottle, if you
would. Uh but um yeah, I mean uh we are uh we have no uh information from uh from Marchipelago or anyone that uh has made us decide to change uh the regulations.
That's what we did last time. Uh we discussed that um as far as I'm concerned, but any other thoughts? I'd like to hear them. I just I don't see the need to tell them that uh that that we're denying it. The
other thing is uh you know they took uh they took a a hearing and turned that hearing into a request to change the bylaws. Um you know requests should come in uh in
emails or uh public comment really. um they took the time that we had set aside for a hearing and didn't even provide anything to the hearing. Anyway, um but
I feel like I'm babbling here a little bit. Um they're not uh they they did they requested we change it and we decided not to. Go ahead, Jason. Yeah. So, sorry, Alex. Did you put did you put another motion
on the table? And if so, can you repeat what it was? And I wrote it down so I have to I'm going to turn off my video so that I can read what I wrote. Hold on.
I move that the commission will not change its wetland regulations to accommodate the request made by archipelago and will not discuss the subject with archipelago in the future. I and that's what I wrote and I'll just
say that that goes on record that we're not going to be spending our volunteer time talking about this subject anymore of changing our regulations because they asked us to. It doesn't mean sometime in the future I we've already suggested
that we change our regulations but it wasn't at the request of Archipelago and it wasn't with their project in mind. There are lots of other things that need adjusting, but I so my motion simply addresses what Archipelago
uh asked, which had frankly nothing to do with NOI, had nothing to do with their project. It had to do other regulations. So, did I answer your question, Jason? Yeah. And I think I would be comfortable
seconding that motion. All right. Um, so we have a motion to uh notify Archipelago that we will not be um reconsidering their request for a change
in the bylaw. And what was the second portion of that motion, Alex? Yeah, chair. I didn't say in my motion that we would notify them. is simply a motion that the commission will not
change its regulations to accommodate the request made by Archipelago, and will not discuss the subject with Archipelago in the future. Okay. So, Alex with a motion and Jason
seconded it. I um let me just so let me just say something about uh uh give a quick opinion on that. Um we can say that we're not going to discuss this with them in the future. What happens when they begin discussing it with us?
Then you tell them you you tell them it's inappropriate and we're not going to do that. Well, I think we can do that already without emotion. meaning that that uh if they I mean when we get to
let's say November 12th whichever uh when we have our meeting and if they start to talk about changing the regulations uh we're they're they're out of uh order. I mean we're going to that next meeting so that they can present to us uh X Y and Z that we're requesting.
Right. But you didn't tell them not to talk about it when they were out of order in the first place. And um uh by making an emotion, you have something to point to that the commission decided.
Okay. All right. So uh any any other comments, Bruce? Well, I have several things. Um Erin, is it a problem that we have not been able to ask to achieve the public
folks who are still panelists from leaving the meeting while we are going ahead with the meeting? Is that a problem? Because we I don't think so. I think they're waiting to hear the the uh conclusion of this hearing before they leave and they don't want to miss the the hearing to to
leave. Just just checking. Just checking. Yeah. Um my thought is that if Archipelago or any other company wants changes in various town bylaws in v and regulations in
various ways, there are lots of processes for doing that. And to say now that we're not going to talk with him about it puts us in a weird position. If 6 months from now there is a discussion um by whatever process is being used by
the town uh where we need to discuss it. I suppose we can just withdraw our our prohibition at that point. But it you know there's a that feels like a problem to me. Um that's all we'll say about that.
Thank thanks Bruce Rachel. Yeah, I had a similar thought. I feel like um we may want to try to avoid being reactive to what was thrown at us by archipelago. We do have a set of regulations uh that we hold everyone to.
Um, and I wonder if our wording of a motion might be that we were requiring AR we were requiring archipelago to come back within the 30-day period um with the materials that we requested
and discuss their project only. And we recommend that any future discussions about changes be um pursued through another appropriate meas method, not in the space of this hearing or or
this commission's conversation. Um and then I think if they bring it up at a meeting, then we'll deal with it then. Um thanks Rachel. I Yeah, I tend to agree. Go ahead, Jason. So, so I took Alex's
motion to mean we wouldn't be discussing with them further in the hearing, right? Not as a blanket ever. No, that's right. In the hearing. Okay, that helps. So, can we modify the
motion to just state that we won't when when we hold the hearing as a as yet to be determined date that we're asking them to provide all of the information to that I suspect somebody will make a second motion for uh that at that
hearing. We're not going to discuss this because we've already discussed it at our last meeting. We came to a conclusion and that it would be inappropriate to continue to try to have that conversation in the space of that hearing.
So yeah, Jason, I think that that is something that we can control from the chairperson's uh position without actually putting it into a motion that we will
not discuss it. Um I'm not sure I I just I don't feel comfortable doing uh putting that into a motion like that uh where there is where we give ourselves zero um openings uh for discussing it. Not that
I'm looking to dis to discuss it or uh at all, but um I think it's a so number one, we all we're all agreeing. We all know that it's inappropriate for uh for during a hearing for somebody to come and revisit
something that we've already put down and said no. Uh so um I think I I I wouldn't allow um any further discussion like that to go on and I think if we do it that way
we're not uh we're not tying our hands or their hands or uh you know we're we'll just put them on notice. I as far as the first part of the uh motion I'm
I'll go for that. Alex, they are going to bring it up on the 12th. You can be certain of that. And personally, I'm I'm interested in economizing our time. If they bring it
up, it will be 20 minutes. No, it won't. They have five. Excuse me. I'm sorry. They don't They don't have 20 minutes. They have five. They'll take 20 minutes. Personally, I'm just interested in economizing
uh the commission's time. So, I'll strike the second part of the motion um and just say that we're put a um on the record that we're not going to uh um
participate in that that we're not going to change our regs at their request and um uh or um I don't have I don't sense there's consensus right Now on the commission on this I I think if you worded it it's
something like um like the commission will not uh uh the commission has denied uh their request archipelago's request to change the town wetland bylaws and
has decided not to continue to discuss it during any hearings. um during hearings. I mean, that's that's fine. That's perfect.
All right, let me get it. Say it again. Um uh the commission has uh uh decided to deny um Archipelago's request to change the town wetland bylaws. It's the regulations, isn't it?
Yes. By laws are Yeah. The wet bylaw regulations. Town wetland bylaw regulations, right? Yep. Um and any uh and future attempts during um
during hearings uh will not uh let's see uh future attempts to discuss it during hearings will be denied or something else. Go ahead, Rachel. I'm getting myself a little confused here. I
I would I would say if we go that route that we would say any attempt to discuss this matter and hearings associated with this project are denied
will not be discussed because it's within this hearing that we don't want to continue discussing it. Sorry, we've already discussed it a lot. That is the intent. Yeah. What do you think, Bruce? Do you have some uh
Let me read it again. So, um the conservation commission the the motion is that the conservation commission has decided to deny archipelago's request to change town wetlands regulations and any attempt to
further discuss um such changes in the hearing will be denied. and the Yeah. the hearing associated with their application, right? Yeah. Can I give it a shot?
Yeah. Um the conservation commission has denied archipelago's request to change the town of Ammerst wetland bylaw and regulations and agreed not to discuss it during hearings associated with the project.
Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So, as a as a point of of process, I'm going to ask Aaron to if we are voting on what she just said, I need her to send it to me for the minutes
in just exactly what she just said because I I don't I haven't captured it. Sure, I can do that, Bruce. All right. So, we need if anyone's up for that, we'll need a motion for that. Uh, sorry. We already have a motion that was
seconded. Yep. We need to vote on that before we make another unless you withdraw it. We're Yeah. Okay. We were trying We were We were trimming it. Whatever. Uh, okay. I will withdraw my second of the original motion.
And I I can withdraw my original motion to be replaced by what Aaron has just read to us if it's presented as a motion. So Erin, can you read that again and see uh if anybody decides to move that?
The commission has denied Archipelago's request to change the town of Ammeris wetland bylaw regulations and agreed not to discuss it during hearings associated with this project. So moved. I will second that.
Alex with a motion and Jason with a second. Jason I. Rachel. Hi I that's one small steps. All right. I would like to make a motion
that Archipelago Group um I would make a motion to uh require that revised plans be submitted by the applicant no later than um
October August October 24th October 24th, 2025. said plan must meet the current wetland bylaw and regulations, protection act and storm water regulations. If submitted plans do not
comply with state and local regulations, the application will be denied for lack of information. Jason with a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Alex with a second. Alex, I Rachel. Hi.
Hi. and I'm all right. So, um, together we do good work. That was very good. Very quick. Thanks a village. We just need to figure out when to continue it to now. Um,
what's the next uh the next issue is a date. Um, I won't be around on the 12th. Um, uh, I would look for the next uh date in December. the first date in December. I don't have a have that in front of me
here, but I can check. So, the the proposal was to shift the December meetings to the 3rd and the 17th to avoid the problem of of Christmas Eve in effect.
Uh, does anyone pose that? I don't have a calendar in front of me. Oh. Could you could you explain, Bruce? Excuse me. Hey, chair, can I speak?
Yeah, please. I'm a little confused, Bruce. Um, yeah, I'll bring up a calendar. Thank you. Um, what was or Erin, could you remind me what we decided to do on shifting meetings?
Um well, so Andre isn't going to be here on the uh the meeting on the 12th and so there's there could be potential conflicts with having a quorum because we are down to five members who can vote
on this project without Andre. Um and so the thinking was that if we continue if we and also the second meeting in November falls the day before Thanksgiving which could also present scheduling issues for people. I know it will be one for me. Um so if we canled
the second meeting in November and then shifted our December meetings as Bruce suggested to the 3rd and the 17th then we can still have two meetings in December and not have a conflict with um Christmas Eve. So the I guess the discussion is to
continue this to December 3rd at 7:15 if if commissioners are okay with that shift in schedule. So December 3 is the first Wednesday. Yes, it is. And the 17th is the ne uh uh is it 17th,
I believe. Yep. Is the next one. Jason had uh his hand up. Jason. Yeah. I just out of curiosity since we know we'll have potential quorum issues on November 12th and then November 26th is the day before
Thanksgiving. Can should we think about rescheduling the November meetings? Should we schedule November for the 5th and the 19th? So, we still have two meetings in November and we're avoiding at least the day before Thanksgiving. And then we
could also shift in December the 3rd and the 17th and that would still give us a roughly every other week schedule. Well, so it's it's been since I've been with the town, it's been pretty common for us to only have one meeting in November. Usually it gets a little quiet
towards the end of November. Um, and I know Andre is going to be away until the 19th, so I doubt he'll be here on the 19th. So, we won't have a chair for either meeting in November. Okay. Um, so just trying to
think on all these things. Well, then if we know we're going to have no quorum on the 12th, should we just cancel that meeting? Well, we may have a quorum of four members. We just won't have a quorum of
voting members for this particular hearing. So, Oh, for this. Yes. Right. For this particular hearing. So that doesn't mean we can't conduct business. It's just for this hearing. We we could potentially have a problem if any other person misses it. Um hopefully
we'll have new members appointed very soon and it won't I'm good with the December reschedule. Cool. Let me um uh let's let me just uh start by addressing can can we address
uh let's address this GZA uh meeting? Um it looks like uh looks like we're all okay then with the third being uh uh one of the dates. Um, so why don't we uh make a motion to
uh continue the public hearing for D number 0890752 to December 3rd, 2025 at uh 7:15 p.m. So we're looking for that motion.
So moved. Rachel with a second. Rachel, hi Bruce. Hi, Jason. Hi, Alex. Hi, and I'm an eye. Um, so now,
so uh on the third, I think a little bit later on we we'll uh we'll talk about all of our schedules if that's something that we need to do, figure out when we might not be have a quorum. I'll be out
till the 19th. The 27th to the 19th. Uh Jason, so as a potential confusing factor here, we've we've made the motion that they have to have all the material to us by the 24th.
If they get material to us by the 24th and it does not meet the requirements then and it's denied then is that does that automatically cancel the hearing? No. Deny it in our hearing.
Okay. It the denial has to be um has to be done in a public uh public hearing. So, we would bring the uh whatever uh paperwork, whatever instruments
they've uh uh provided us and review them. And if they've provided us none, then we'll we won't have anything new to uh to approve to use to approve. Okay. They'll provide whatever they uh
we've requested. Alex. Yeah. Just to be clear, we're talking about the 24th in the middle of talking about October, November, December. And I simply asked 24th of which month? So that we're talking about the 24th of
November as the date that as the uh deadline for you already voted on October 24th. I'm sorry. The 20. Yes. uh 4th of October
uh Alex. So that so we they have a month to provide all their all their stuff and it gives them and it gives Aaron in the middle of three different holiday periods uh adequate opportunity to dig into it as
deeply as it needs to be done. Okay. So, uh, Rachel, I'm sorry. Are there any, uh, procedural constraints about the time of their submission materials and, um, waiting for the hearing to come after those
materials? Is there any constraint to the commission on that that front? I think just the fact that we've required that we're requiring them to have all their stuff into all their materials in uh, by a certain date. I mean, they've had a they've missed
several other uh deadlines. Uh this deadline will be hard and fast, and that's it. I'd like to hear Erin's um comment on what Rachel uh just asked about. Right.
I mean, I guess my my feeling on that is because it was a motion that was seconded that if the materials don't come in by that date, then the commission has cause to deny on the 3rd of December, just outright deny on
that date. Um, so they would need to get those materials in by October 24th. And if they're not in, the commission the commission has legal cause to deny. Um, I don't think there's any if they do submit by that deadline, it gives me adequate time to review the materials and come prepared with recommendations
for that next meeting. So, I don't I don't see there being any real issue with there being a lag between the submission deadline and the hearing date. That's what I hope. Thank you. And we're not required to respond any within any particular time frame then
like like within 30 days of their submission. We're not required. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Rachel. Alex. Yeah, just a procedural what if. So, say on the 24th of October,
they submit and there's big chunks missing and then they file after the 24th additional information to supplement what they submitted on the 24th. Are they allowed to do that?
That's up to us, right? I'm just asking Aaron or anybody. I mean, I think we cross that bridge when we come to it. I don't think we can really anticipate all of the um issues, but I think um what we're looking here
is a good faith effort to submit a plan that complies. Um yeah so in in my other life in the regulatory arena I have seen people submit stuff to make a deadline that was incomplete and then revise it.
Um let's so I I just wanted to be clear on that we are anticipating a complete application. Yeah. And if you guys feel that it's it's incomplete or you're you're unable to vote on those materials that were
submitted on that date, you can deny for lack of information, you have the legal cause to do that. Jason, I would just state that it's my expectation that a a a an a packet that
meets the regulations is a complete packet. If you submit a packet that does not have a bunch of information there, you can't by definition meet regulations if you fail to submit information. So a packet, it's my opinion that a packet
that meets regulations is a complete packet. That would be mine too. Yep. Agreed. Thanks. Um, anything else uh before we move from uh the archipelago
hearing? Um, chair, did we have a motion on the October? Um, this is not a sign of age. October 24th. Did we vote? Did we?
Yes. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. The conversation wandered. I wasn't quite sure what we decided. Yeah, we've been uh we've uh woven quite a bit quite a quite a good piece of fabric here.
Um all right, so we're good to move to the next uh to other business. I think we Let me just double check. I think at the very beginning we had okay the land management updates we could could
Bruce could Bruce repeat what we approved uh which of the several motions do you want? Well, never mind the one that we're denying their request to amend the
wetland rigs. I'm interested in the one that requires them to file by October 24th. It's on It'll be on the screen because uh it got Aaron typed it out for us. It's right there. You're highlighted, Alex. So, have we voted on that yet?
Yes. Okay. And that was unanimous vote. Yes. Thank you, Andre. Um I just wanted to let you know that Alan Weiss is in the meeting at this point if we want to go back to hearing number one. All right. Okay, good. Well, let's do
that. Um, I'll bring them in. We'll get our uh hearing number one done. Alan, you're on. Um, I am unmuted. And you are unmuted. Let me just start this up again here. This hearing is
being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general law of the commonwealth an act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently a and as most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Ammerst general
bylaws. This is a request for uh determination uh from Cold Spring Environmental on behalf of Fred Hal Family Estate to determine whether uh work to repair a septic system uh uh is subject to wetlands uh protection
act and town of uh Ammeris wetland protection bylaw and regulations at 317 Shootsbury Road map 9B lot 52. Allan is ready to uh present, I'm sure. Greetings. How are you? I apologize. I
had a link issue and early on and I also thought it was 7:35. Um Aaron probably knows the original schedule was mistakenly set up for the 10th. Whatever. I'm here. That's the point.
Okay. So, we're talking about a septic system repair at 317 Shootsbury Road for the Hoke residence. And um yeah, very simple. Um the system is going in roughly where the old system is. We tried to maintain all setbacks as um we
normally would and as required by title 5. The commission came out um the other day and we uh discussed a few things such as trees and um offset from the house and um the only thing within a
certain jurisdictional range would be the footing drain of the house. Not in my opinion anything else. Um but certainly worth discussion at the time you know of the site meeting and uh
observation of its location. Um there was a tree also rather substantial in size that needs to be cut. I wished we didn't have to. Um you probably know historically from my work I try to avoid that but in this case this tree is
leaning towards the house with the root structure I would expect there we would undermine its ability to be remain stable and I you know just think it has to be that its removal is appropriate.
There was one um response that uh Aaron can mention as well that uh involved uh an abuter and I spoke with that abuter personally um and um she has no issues
with the septic repair as proposed at this point her words. So that's where we are. Thank you Aaron. Yes, this is the system area here in the erosion controls. I don't as staff have
any comments on this. Uh I wrote a drafted a um uh special conditions and I did speak with the abutter. Um and after she spoke with Allen um she was satisfied that her concerns were addressed.
Andre, I think you're muted. Thank you. Uh, the trees that are in the pictures there are uh that are that have an X on them, those are the ones that are going. Yes. Yes. All righty.
I have no questions. Uh, but let me let's go to the public here. uh see if there's anyone in the public who has uh comments and then we'll uh open it up to the uh commissioners. If you are in the public and you have any comments, um raise your hand.
I'm seeing no hands up. Uh we'll turn it over to the commissioners. Uh anyone with any questions, Alex? I don't have any questions. Boo and I were on the site visit and I'll just say that there was some discussion about
whether or not this project was even jurisdictional. There's a I'll just leave it at that. Okay. Um does uh any other comments or um
anything that uh might help? Okay. Well, with that then, um, we're looking at a, uh, at a motion. I'll do it. I move to close the public hearing and issue a positive determination of applicability checking box 5 confirming
jurisdiction pursuant to the wetlands protection town of Ammeris general bylaws article 3.31 and regulations and a negative determination of applicability checking box three under the wetlands protection act with special conditions as drafted and discussed.
That's Bruce with a motion. Second. And Alex with a second. Alex. Hi. Hi. Rachel. Hi. Bruce. Hi.
So, Alan, uh, thank you very much and good luck with the, uh, project. Thank you so much. Have a good night, folks. Thank you, Ellen. Good night. Okay. Well, I'm glad that you noticed. I saw the hand up. I didn't realize that it was Alan from the uh from the
hearing. So, uh Okay, we have other business. Um request for minor administrative changes. Aaron? Yes. Um so the first change is uh I would say extremely negligible but I
just wanted to make you aware of it. Um the Montigue Road battery storage project they were not able to start um construction this fall. So they're pushing off the start of construction to the spring and as such they'll be um pushing off the start of their
mitigation planning as well. So they're just letting us know that the project has not yet begun. Um, and there's a letter that asserts that I don't think you have to approve anything. It's mostly just letting you know that that's um they're not scheduling to start till
the spring. Um, the other one is the Sweet Alice Conservation Area. I mentioned earlier that um we're start building a boardwalk which had already been approved under previous order of conditions approved by the board. Um,
Kestrel Land Trust had approached the town. Um there's an area between the Kestrel headquarters and um the pond where there's currently um some wood chips and um like flag stones or um go
stone kind of walkway area. And I guess a bunch of people have been tripping on it and it's um they they'd like to put in u more of a bog bridge type um structure there. It's in the buffer
zone. um sort of very um uh it's it's a really feels like an upland area really where they're putting it, but it's in the buffer to the pond. And so they're requesting to install that. Um and I don't have any issues with it. It's about 75 ft of bog
bridging and will get some of the compaction away from the pond's edge, so I think it'll be a good thing. Thanks, Aaron. Um, Bruce. So, Aaron, is there Go ahead.
Is there any um will there need to be uh erosion control for this? No, I don't think there's even they're just placing um uh boards down as as footings essentially and then building on top of it.
Okay. Okay. I I take your word for it. I just I can't picture it. So, all right. Any other questions? So we should have a motion for the second one for the bog bridging approval just because that is a um there's a you
know a standing order of conditions and there is a change to the I move that for the sweet alice conservation area we approve the bog bridge in buffer zone DP number 089-0689. [Music]
Alex for the motion. Second Bruce with a second. Bruce I Rachel abstain. Alex I
and I'm an I. So we've got uh it's motion's gone through. Um the request for a certificate of compliance. Um yes. So for 20 green leaves, I'm not requesting that the com I'm not
suggesting that the commission approved that. Tonight I did do a site visit and I observed some areas where the erosion controls had failed and m um sediment material had entered a wetland. Um a little concerning considering they had an erosion control monitor who had asserted that um the site was stable and
all work was complete. Um anyways, I've asked them to comp to clean it up and uh remove the sediment and seed down the area of the wetland that had been um impacted. Um so I'm waiting for that work to be completed. Um so I'll just no
action on that tonight and I'll keep you posted once that's been resolved. Um the 17 Juniper Drive is a local bylaw only NOI and I was out and conducted a site visit and I um am in favor of the commission issuing a complete
certificate of compliance for that project tonight. All right. Well, we're looking for a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance for NOI 99-0654. So moved.
Alex with a motion. Second. Jason seconds. Jason I Alex I [Music] Andre, did you did you vote?
Yes, I am an I. Yep. I wasn't very loud. Sorry, I I get a little bit uh my my voice goes down as I get more tired. All right. Um now we have orders of conditions for
uh West Street DPW uh DP number 089-0761. If you've had an an opportunity to take a look at them uh in our packet, um we're looking for motions. Um Erin, would you mind putting them up
there just so that awesome? So, uh, Erin, can you, uh, so what we have is, uh, orders of conditions that, uh, uh, were needed to be drafted. Is that, am I right there, Eron? Yes. So, we had, um, the first one was
for the DPW project on West Street. The public hearing was closed at the last meeting. Um, there's draft orders of conditions in the folder. I included sort of the standard boilerplate as well as a, um, weekly monitoring report. I required um some phased um
pre-construction meetings as well. So a pre-construction at the start of the DPW work and then a second um pre-construction at the start of the contractor um who's doing the roadway work. And during that process um a designate at DPW, Paul Deathier, um will
be conducting the um erosion control inspection reports throughout the project. Great. Thank Thanks, Erin. Any questions or any uh comments? If not, we're looking for that motion.
If you don't remember, that's the place that's uh right right near uh Mil Lane, just above Mil Lane, where they're going to bring the uh they're going to get rid of a bridge and bring the um sidewalk out to toward the uh road and go around that bridge area. Well, as the person
who lives closest to it, I move to issue an order of conditions D number 0890761 pursuant to wetlands protection town of Ammeris general bylaw article 3.31 and regulations and the wetlands protection act with boilerplate conditions under
both the wetlands protection act and town of Ammeris general bylaw with noted special conditions is drafted. Second Bruce with the motion. Alex seconds. Alex. Hi, Rachel. Hi, Jason.
Hi. Uh, I'm sorry. Uh, who did I Okay, Bruce. And I am an I. So, the second one is the uh uh
is the hospital. Um, yes. Um, so I I drafted this one. Uh, there's sort of broken out special conditions for the um invasive species management. So I did require that they use the cut and dab method and that all of the
invasive species removal be by hand. um if they want to use mechanical means for the um invasives removal, they have to come back to the commission specifically for permission to do that. Um I was concerned about that because mechanical removal can actually cast more seed and
cause more um spread and infestation. And so hand removal is much more exact. Um also requiring that um so the cut and dab method is what the commission has approved. If they want to use um folure spray method, they have to actually come
back to to me and provide a rationale listing the specific species that they're proposing to spray. Um there's requirements for them to provide the name um contact information and license number for the um individual who's
conducting the spraying. They're going to be required to cordon off the area where the spraying is taking place and put up signage that indicates that the spraying is happening and when. Um and um the there'll be signage required
around the proposed mitigation area, signage required around the perimeter of the um landscaped yard to ensure that landscapers do not mow into the wetland again and also um that they're it's
clear that they can't um dump or put any materials in the wetland. and an annual monitoring report so that they have to report back to us for the first 3 years to basically provide us an update on how the mitigation and the um
uh vegetation management is is going those are special conditions just I don't that know that that's all of them but just a gist I move to issue order of conditions DP
number 089-0764 Four, pursuant to wetlands protection, town of Ammerst general bylaw, article 3.31 and regulations and wetland protection act with boilerplate conditions under
both the wetland protection act and town of Ammeris general bylaw with noted special conditions as drafted. Second. Alex with a motion and Jason with a second. Jason, before we vote? Yes,
please. Erin, given all the signage, do the signs have a phone number? If someone's concerned about the idea that there's all this spraying going on right there, is there a phone number on each sign? And if so, who is going to what
number is this phone going to be going to? Um, I I hadn't anticipated the need to put a phone number, but if you guys think there should be a phone number, well, I I would encourage it. It's right next to a hospital. There's a lot of
people who have the slightest idea of all the stuff we've gone through to make this very clear. And I think there should be a number that anyone who saw one of the signs could call and say, "Well, what's going on?" Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess my only concern with that is if they start
calling the town um every time the treatment's happening and we're getting like a hundred calls from people that I would have trouble fielding. Um I mean, if you if you guys want to do that, I I mean, the other option is to maybe have the person who's conducting
the treatments be the person that they call, but I'm I'm open to the idea. I just uh Okay. foresee that the town will be getting a lot of phone calls about it. How about if uh we provide uh
um do we have uh some kind of a link or a um I forget what your what these things are called right here, but something Q code, right? a code uh that would link somebody to the um uh public comment um
thing. That would be a really good idea to have. Yeah, I can look into that. Um if if you'd like I could um if we uh um amend the motion to include that
condition that we um include a QR code for the public comment toward to the conservation commission then um we can require that on the signs. Yeah, if people are up for it uh think
that's uh necessary. I frankly I think there should be uh some kind of a QR code and if we're going to uh encourage people to call and uh if they see something um that QR a QR code uh that would link it would be great. I don't know how
those things work. The reason I brought this up is because when DP sprayed the East Hampton noshawak pond, they had us say had several signs all around the pond saying call this number if you have any
questions about what we're doing. And it's sort of the same thing. It's like it we I think we need to do something. I have a problem with a QR code in that it doesn't get an immediate response and we're talking about a
hospital and people's sensitivities. Um I'd rather have somebody answer the phone or answer their question. So um the QR code is sort of a culdeac.
Okay. Now could sorry I have a suggestion. Can can the can we the the number go to the administrative assistant that you and I have discussed a couple of times and that she would have a stock answer to give if someone called.
So something else in it's a suggestion. Go ahead. Sorry I interrupted. No, it's fine. I'm I'm done. Um, uh, I I I
guess I feel a little on the spot with that one just because we're we're just sort of getting kicked off with maybe some minute taking um, assistance, which is sort of in training. So, I'm I'm a little apprehensive about directing the
public to somebody in in the inspections department who might not have all the details. Um, if the commission feels strongly, we can just use use the conservation department phone number. Um, just anticipating, you know, my workload and um
and stuff that it could present and especially because this is essentially going to be either permanent signage andor, you know, signage that's going to be there for multiple years while these treatments are underway. So, I'm sorry. I I didn't realize that. I I assumed it was during the spraying there
was something that tell people that spraying is underway. Yeah. Yeah. Um for the temporary signage, I think it would be a little less of a problem. Um and but it would be over a multi-year period and probably for a series of months that
it would be out while they're doing the Well, then okay, then I would just if it can be done easily, fine. If not, I withdraw it. Okay, Erin. Um, as I understood it, there won't be uh there'll be very uh minimal
spraying and the rest is going to be dab cut and dab. Correct. Okay. So, the the spraying is going to be left to a minimum. Correct. Okay. Yeah, I'm open to any to to just taking it straight on or uh to adding
something. I It doesn't I'm neither here nor there. And was the second to the motion Jason? I believe so. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So, do we uh does somebody want to amend that motion or as is?
Okay. So, um what do we have? We had Alex uh with a motion and Jason with a second. Yep. Okay. Jason. Hi, Bruce. Hi, Rachel.
Yeah. Uh, Alex. Hi. Hi. Um, did we want to go through monitoring reports uh today? No, I don't think so. I guess my one um
comment on monitoring reports is, you know, it's been very challenging keeping up with them. I I am reading them and I'm trying to get back with people on corrections. But if commissioners could when you're looking at packets spend um time if you're able to looking at those.
It's especially helpful and also for you guys to have your finger on the pulse of the type of issues that I'm dealing with with applicants. It's been it hasn't been bad because it's been drought. Um so but I am concerned with particularly the number of big projects that we have
large construction projects. We've got Ball Lane, we've got um Fort River, we've got the Ammeris College um geothermal and then we I just had a number of projects kick off that are going to have monitoring reports. So, there's going to be a pickup in the number of reports and it's it's when
when it starts raining, I'm concerned it's going to be challenging for me to um keep up on them. So, any help folks can offer um reviewing those and looking at them would be really helpful. That was great. There we go. We got some homework. Alex?
Yeah, Erin, you mentioned Ammeris College and the geothermal. I was down there the other day and I happened to notice that all the waddles have plastic netting netting. I don't know if you happen to see that and I don't even know if it makes a
difference in that particular spot. Leave it to you. Waddles waddles have the plastic netting. That's in my experience that I have not seen waddles that have biodegradable netting. The expectation is that the waddles are removed. the the
blankets are really what is a bigger concern and that's because when the blankets go down and they seed they usually leave the blankets in place and let them decompose. So if there's plastic in those then the plastic stays um whereas the waddles are are taken and
thrown into a dumpster or you know cut open and the plastic is thrown away. Okay. Um so uh now we're going to go to public comment if there's any final comment uh that the public has.
There's no one there left. Uh that's just six participants is all I see here. Yeah. Okay. So no public comments. Um and do we have any topics that were not anticipated in the last 48 hours?
So just to to clarify on our schedule to make sure I got this right. Um we're we're staying on for uh the meeting on the 8th um as scheduled. I'm not sure if we're going to have a quorum on that date, but we are attempting to stay on.
Um and uh I believe depending on Bruce's availability with internet, we may end up having to kick everything to the 22nd, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it on the I'll do my best by utmost. Yeah, absolutely. Um, so the 8th, the 22nd, and then in November, we're only
having one meeting on the 12th, and then the two meetings um in December will be on the 3rd and the 17th. Um, so those are the dates that I have through to get us through the end of the year. Now, Bruce, you'll need to chair on the
um 22nd and the 12th. Uh the weren't we going to do the third in the of uh Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're right, Andre. October and November.
Yes. Yep. So, I'll be back. Uh I'll be back. Okay. All right. All righty. So, I suppose we look for a motion. I move we adjourn.
A second. Alex with a motion and Jason with a second. Jason I and I folks thanks for your patience tonight everybody.
Good night everyone night.