Uh good evening everyone and welcome to uh today's uh session of the uh conservation commission. Uh present here are all seven commissioners as well as uh town staff Dave Zomeck and uh Aaron
Jacqu. Um, and today is uh the 22nd of April uh 2026, 7:04 p.m. right now. Uh, as a start on, uh, chair's report, uh, I'll
announce that, um, the drought uh, as of April 8th, uh, status is mild. Uh, but there still is a, uh, a drought. Um, today we have one, um, uh, one hearing. It's a new uh a new
hearing and after that uh uh we'll go into some of the admin uh issues uh and then um then we'll be talking about uh land use uh updates uh with the uh with
the regulations and so on. Um what else? Uh I had a uh I had uh conversation uh with uh uh David uh yesterday um in which we
uh had quite a bit of productive uh uh issues come up. Uh, one of them, uh, we've been talking about looking to get, uh, uh, some kind of a budget for, um, for the commission for training and so
on. And uh uh during yesterday's meeting uh Dave uh said that uh the director of finance uh has uh offered uh or has suggested a line
item budget that we might uh uh uh that might help us uh to get some training and so on. I'll let Dave uh elaborate on that a little bit uh later in his report. Um let's see uh
uh also on training um Dave had uh suggested that uh KP Law might be able to help us with some training on initial initiation uh for uh commissioners as we hop on. um kind of a uh uh rules and
responsibilities of uh commission and staff I think is the way that uh Dave had um uh couched it. So uh that sounds pretty uh pretty promising that we'll have some uh some training coming up. I still want
to uh discuss uh these uh these topics with um folks at uh MACC uh the association of conservation commissioners uh or commissions um just to see what kind of uh what kind of
advice they have as well. Um and uh and then a little later on um either today or uh as we move on uh along, we're going to be uh discussing
um uh a few uh proposed or suggested um uh regulations or guidance uh for u mowing or uh the early successional habitat uh
uh planning I think is another word for it, another way to uh talk about it. Um uh beaver uh problems, how we address beaver problems, uh hunting, which will uh be coming up uh in a future uh
meeting. Um, and I think that's that covers most of it uh for now that we're going to be discussing today. Um, at least uh at least right now during our uh uh during our report. Um what else? I
think there was a um there's right now there's some legislation just an FYI for everyone. There's some legislation moving through uh that uh through the uh state house I believe it is um for
that's uh going to um regulate um rodenticides which is a huge uh huge problem uh nowadays for um especi you know for predators especially aven predators because they're the ones that get uh
most affected um by it seems. So, um I think Aaron could uh fill us in probably a little bit uh more on on some of this, something that she's been involved in. But I've seen um quite a bit um online
uh about it. Um essentially uh what happens with rodenticides is uh once the uh rodent eats enough that it kills it uh it will die and uh uh or it will
it'll it'll be uh it'll display um as being vulnerable and uh will be caught and eaten by uh by a predator or eaten by a scavenger after it dies. Um though once the uh scavengers or predators have
enough uh of the tainted animals uh they will die too and you end up having a succession of uh of death if you would um among uh among the wildlife. I've seen it happen with uh with some much
more powerful um uh uh rodenticides and fun fungicides and so on. Um but uh uh I've also seen it uh happen with rodenticides. So I think it's a very important uh uh topic and if
you uh I encourage you all to uh to become a little more familiar or to become familiar with uh with the issue of rodenticides and write uh write into your legislators uh uh if uh you feel
compelled to uh to um try and uh limit the rodenticides of available uh use to the use of rodendicides in general. So, um I think there's a uh there's going to
be an event on Saturday um at the uh at the Hitchcock Center. Um Erin, would you mind uh giving a little more specifics on it, but it's it's put on by um
uh by Tom Ricardi. Uh Tom Ricardi is a well-known uh uh raptor um person in uh in and around the valley. He was a uh uh third in command uh of the environmental
police for some time, but personally he had a uh he's always been um a big uh raptor person and he's a rehabilitator as well as a propagator of even of eagles. So, uh, he's going to be putting
on a show on, uh, um, on Saturday, and it's, uh, he's he's awesome. If you have kids, take them with you, and if you don't, uh, go enjoy it yourselves. So, uh, Erin, would you mind giving us, uh, some specs on that, you don't?
>> Yeah, Adam. >> Sure. Um uh so I worked to found an organization called um Connecticut River and uh Quabin Valley Save the Raptors about a
year ago. And um I contacted Mass Ottabon to try to um get an event going to try to raise some awareness in the Connecticut Valley and um Quabin Valley about the issue. And um
we were able to get Kestrel involved and the Hitchcock Center involved. And so this event um we got Tom Ricardi on board and um it's uh going to be learning about the issue of rodenticides and what you can do and
then uh demonstration by Tom live demonstration with birds and potentially um a release of a rehabilitated hawk which will be really cool at the event. and it's from 10 to 12 on Saturday. So, yeah, I'm very excited that it finally
came to fruition and um just the outpouring. I guess there's over a hundred people registered so it's pretty exciting. >> Nice. And and it uh requires a registration. Is that right? >> Um I'm not sure if registration is still open to be honest because I went in to
like see if I could register and it I didn't see you can add it to your calendar I think but I'm not sure that it's still open for registration. You can attend virtually or in person. Um, but you can try to go online and see if you can register. Um, but yeah, I think
it may have reached capacity already. >> All right. Well, great. Thanks. Uh, thanks for for the other info there, Erin. And um, you can also call uh give a call to Hitchcock Center as well if uh online doesn't work out. Jason,
>> I just wanted to echo and second your comments about Tom Mccardi. We saw him up at the Notch uh center and he brought a bunch of birds and the kids loved it. It was awesome. He was really good and
he's super knowledgeable and uh puts on a good presentation. >> Yeah. Great. Yeah. He's been doing this for quite a while and uh yeah, he the kids love uh love his programs and he's >> got he brought some cool birds out.
>> Yeah. Good. Good. He's dedicated his life to that, Bruce. >> So after that one's over, you can come over to the sustainability fair and come to the much more boring but potentially
equally important Culvert table which will be next door to the Fort River Wershed Association table which will be next door to the DPW table and we will have entertainments and information. come and visit us between I guess for
the people going to this 12 to 3 when the sustainability fair is over. Thank you. >> Can you tell us uh where it's going to be again and what time? >> It's on the common. It's from 10 to three, but I was imagining people would go to Raptors first and then
sustainability second. >> All right. Great. Well, >> we're in the middle. The these three tables are together right in the middle of the the fair. So >> awesome. Thanks, Bruce. Carol.
>> Oh, I'll be at the Fort River Watershed Association table. Hate to miss the raptor exhibit. >> Okay. Well, there's a lot going on this uh this weekend, huh? Great stuff. And we have some good dedicated
folks here. Makes me happy. All right. Well, with that, uh, if we have no other questions or other items, uh, we'll pass it on to, uh, Dave Zik, uh, for his director's report. >> Sure. Thanks, Andre. I will, as usual,
try to roll through these fairly quickly. Um, with all these events being um, being announced, it reminded me that I am co-leading a bird walk. It's I think it's called Urban Birding for Beginners on the morning of May 13th.
You do have to register with Kestrel. It's a co-led uh one of their staff, Lee, who you may know from Castrol, and I will be leading a birdwalk in downtown Ammerst uh focusing on urban migrants on May 13th at 7:30 in the morning. So, you
reminded me of that with all these uh program announcements. Um I'll start off with some some transition uh uh news um sadly for the town of Ammerst, but we're excited for him. Nate Mallaloy, who's our senior planner, is uh going to be
the new town administrator in um in Hadley. And I thought I might just take this moment to to kind of thank him publicly. Uh many of you may not know him, but Nate through the years has worked tire tirelessly. Uh he is the uh co-author, if you will, co-producer of a
couple of our earlier open space and recreation plans. So, uh, the one that Aaron is going to talk to you about maybe today or at your next meeting whenever it works out. Um, Nate, uh, tirelessly worked on open space and recreation plans. He wrote, uh, many,
many grants for with me for open space, purchasing of uh, conservation land, APRs, recreation areas. So, we're kind of wishing him well. He will be leaving town service to become the new town administrator in Hadley. uh Bruce and I and others on the call,
Aaron, we are always looking for more uh uh friendly faces and and collaboration with the towns around us. So Nate will be in that position of town administrator and working on a whole host of projects in the town of Hadley. So we're really excited for Nate. Um the
Conway study of Lawrence Swamp is done. Um um uh Andre attended some of these meetings uh as well as other stakeholders and uh we will we'll be getting a hard copy of that report but
more importantly we have a link to the um to the full report and I think if Erin hasn't sent that to you uh you know in the next couple of days she can send it to you but we're really really pleased with the outcome. It was a great process, a good report and I think there's a lot to learn in that in that
project. the students um did a wonderful job and brought us all together and really compiled a tremendous amount of information, something that we could never do with just limited staff time. So kudos to the to the entire Conway team for for doing that. And I'll be
meeting with them on Friday uh just to receive the the hard copy, but the uh the link is something that Aaron could send to all of you. Um let's see. birdwalk. Um, uh, Andre mentioned a town attorney. I
did have a conversation with the town attorney recently and we got to talking and, uh, the town manager was in that conversation because we had other things to talk with the town attorney about and um, yes, the the the uh topic of of
training came up and I said, "Oh, would you be willing to come and and do a training with us?" I believe many of you attended uh the training on clean energy bylaw and sighting, but I thought um you know if if uh we worked through Andre uh
and at some future meeting in the not too distant future uh the town attorney could come and do a kind of a training on roles, responsibilities for the commission staff, how do we best interface and and could be a whole host of topics on that. So, in the spirit of
getting more training for all of us, along those lines, Andre mentioned um professional development money. I work with our the town manager as well as our um finance director. Um and we've come up with the number of $5,000 annually,
which would be about $700 per count uh per commission member. Um so that is a proposal that is current it's part of the budget proposal moving forward. The town manager is developing his budget
for next year and um that line item as Andre mentioned is inserted for professional development uh to be used for commission members professional development training conferences etc. So that's moving forward. Um, I believe
Aaron's going to talk about the draft open space and recreation plan later. Um, tremendous work that Aaron and and again Nate Mallaloy Walker Pow Powell from our planning department and Mike Olen from IT have all worked tirelessly on that and really got that to the point
where we feel it's in pretty good shape and um I know you'll want some time to review that and comment and and give us your feedback. So that's the open space and recreation plan. Um, let's see. Moving up my list here. Um, Olympia
Place 47 and 57. Uh, talking with Aaron and um, briefly Andre and I touched on this yesterday, but I believe uh, the the two issues that were still outstanding up there were silt fence uh, maintenance and and
the erection and and uh, the placing of silt fences. And I believe those are all in place uh, for those projects. and and uh wetlands protection. And then we're still working on the issue of the possible contamination caused by the fire. Um I did talk with the town
manager and the town attorney about this issue. It's complex. Um but the conclusion of the town attorney was that it's really more incumbent upon the town working with you but the town manager um
to if in other words if if we want to investigate whether the fire caused any damage to town land. It's really incumbent upon the town to seek those answers. uh the town attorney did not
believe that the commission has the authority to to uh order or uh uh um you know tell the the adjacent land owner that he must do that. So, if
that's something that the commission would like to pursue, then I think even a letter from the commission or even a memo from the commission to the town manager would probably be the best avenue to move that forward. Uh, and then, uh, I talked to Aaron earlier
today and we talked about just getting an estimate for what that would cost. So, when the town manager says, "Oh, I just need to know a ballpark. Is that X or Y?" because I don't think any of us know how many acres, how many um soil
samples would that be. So that is a possible uh path forward there. And if the town were to do that and found um contaminants, then it would be up to the town to say what is the action that the town would like to take relative to
archipelago and their project to the west of our town land. Let's see. Other followup that has been reoccurring would be with UMass. Aaron and I had a very productive conversation with uh Jason Vindidi who is one of the senior engineers and project managers at
UMass. I believe he's come before you before uh on various projects. Very very productive discussion. a lot of focus on better communication between UMass and and town um and UMass and and projects
coming before the commission. Uh Aaron set up one or more site visits. I don't know the total number there, but I think there was at least one that happened and there may be more in the works. But we talked about even having a monthly check-in with UMass uh town staff having
a monthly meeting with UMass. We do this with other departments at UMass, but we haven't done it u on the conservation side, but to have some sort of a monthly meeting or quarterly meeting with Jason or one of the team members in the physical plant uh to keep lines of
communication open and to to address issues that might come up or or communication gaps um that might come up u or to just talk about projects uh so that we can work with them on advanced planning. when they're proposing a new building or
a new roadway or a new steam steam um pipe or whatever project they might be doing on the campus. So, I think it was a very productive conversation and and again, we're trying to get um communication back open and and and um
all of us back on track with UMass projects. So, those are the five or six things um I wanted to update you on. I don't see anything on my list that I missed, but happy to uh take any questions. >> Thank you, Dave. Uh Bruce, so Dave, a
year and a half ago, Vindidi promised he would come proactively every quarter and tell us what was coming and their plan and everything. It never happened. So, do you feel like this what you worked out with him is that concrete or it's
still sort of well, we'll think about having it? >> No, I I think UMass is committed to doing that. Um, I don't know I don't know all the ins and outs of of the UMass organization. It's a very large organization, but No, >> he said he would do it. Vendetti said he
would come to us every quarter. >> Yeah. I'm not I Don't I I would I don't recall that that was quite a while ago. But I think I think I think they are committed to better lines of communication. I think it would probably start at the staff
level and then through Aaron Aaron would report to you that the following project is coming forth and they've asked for a pre pre-esign walkound and Aaron would visit the site and and you know they could pepper her
with questions on you know permitting pathways etc. I do think they've had they've had a lot of staff turnover at UMass uh in the last year. I I have great confidence in Jason. I I think he is someone we can can work with and and
and is consistent. So I think this is kind of a new a new beginning if you will. >> Thanks Dave and Bruce. Um so when when you guys when you do uh have that discussion with them and come up with something concrete uh we'd love to hear
that. And it would be good for him for them to uh send somebody to talk to us like they did uh uh sort of promise her uh some time ago. >> Uh are you talking in general Andre or
there as far as far as I know >> I'm not sure there are any >> Well, I I'll let the questions continue now. >> Um going back to testing for contaminants, I would be So yeah, what I was talking about uh
Dave, my um was specific to uh having somebody come to us uh and uh and talk to us once in a while from UMass. >> Oh, I I think they would do that. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I think they would do that. Yeah. >> I'm I'm sorry for the interruption there, Tina. Go ahead. >> Oh, that's okay. Um, I would be supportive of the concom requesting testing um, of that area. I would be especially curious to see if anyone nearby is on a well and I think those
wells should be tested and then from there someone with the expertise can advise us how to proceed. >> Thanks Dina. I think that's a good idea. That does bring up the uh uh the question that I had. Um,
So, just I just want to make sure that I'm getting this straight. Uh Dave. Um so in a situation like Olympia Drive um or any uh where we would need to do some testing,
what you're uh what you're uh mentioned is that uh the town administrator is the one who decides whether or not um uh testing is going to occur. >> The town manager. Yes. So if you if a a
memo coming from the commission requesting such such testing be done uh is a path you have available to you. >> Okay. Um I just understood yesterday from our uh meeting that that that he
may not that he may not agree. Um but >> um I can't say whether he will order such testing or not. that's up to Paul Bachelman to decide working with our town attorney >> and that's one of the reasons why I was
looking for a budget for us. Um but then the next thing is that uh the next question is uh he'll uh determine if testing would occur but also if the testing is if he agrees to the testing
and uh and something is found wherever it happens to be on whatever project it is. Then the determination of whether legal action is taken or not is up to uh uh up to Paul Bachman as well. Is that what
I'm understanding? >> That's my understanding, but I I I don't want to speculate on the kind of what if there is contamination found. I think I think I would recommend taking it one step at a time and writing to the town
manager and then let's see where that goes from there. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm talking about I'm not talking about it as specifically uh the the Olympia Drive or anything like that. I'm talking about anything in the future for us to know where
kind of a process. Um that's >> Well, yeah. Paul Bachmann and his finance staff, they develop the budget, they create the budget, um and you know, all of these things take
funding to to move forward on. So, this is a pretty, you know, unique situation. Um, you know, having a fire of that size and the amount of water that went on that fire. And so I don't think it's a common it's certainly not a common uh
event which is great. Um >> but um yeah so I think the next step would be to you know if if you Andre as a chair wanted to pen a memo that the commission signed on to and endorsed that would be the next step is to write
to Paul and and uh ask for testing to be done. >> Appreciate the clarification. We'll uh we'll talk about that uh toward the end there when we uh when we discuss enforcement and so on. Thank you. Um Sarah has a question.
>> Yeah. Thanks. So um I just I don't know whether how I would get involved in the conversation, but I'm a little um curious about because my um I'm not an environmental attorney per se, but there's I have one in my office. So Massachusetts 21E
governs environmental issues, right? So usually it's the responsible it's the potentially responsible party who would be the property owner where there's the spill occurs. That's the person who would be responsible for assessing what kind of pollution occurred. It you know
there's an allocation of responsibility excuse me to the property owner where the um where the spill as it were originated. So, um I don't know. Um you know, um anyway, I I I'm curious about
to better sort of understand because that doesn't kind of sound quite right to me. >> Sarah, that's a really good point. Um I'll be talking to uh MACC just to get some clarification from their end. Um I you know uh just to see what what MACC
has uh as far as opinions uh because as you know being an attorney all attorneys have opinions. Um so I and I'll tell you uh my in my personal experience I've done I did the
uh the oil spill um uh out in the uh Buzzards Bay. That was my case and the AR the uh the company that uh was operating the uh the tug um that was pushing that barge through uh became
they declared themselves the respon the RP responsible party and I've had that in oil a bunch of other oil spills and other things like that. So good point. We'll uh we'll we'll check out MACC. I know that uh the uh KP law
attorney uh has said one thing and um I just want to double check that. >> It's always good to do that. >> Anything else? Anyone else with questions, >> Andre? Just um >> Yeah, please. >> Yeah, I think I think this sounds like a logical and and next steps. And again, if if there's a memo that's coming to
the town manager, that's great. I just wanted to alert you, I may turn my camera off later. I've got threw out my back yesterday, so I might be standing or not sitting for two hours. So, it doesn't mean I'm not here, but I might be moving, though. >> All right, that sounds good. Dave, if
you hear your name, uh, we'll wait for you to get up. >> All right. Hope you feel better soon. Um, with that, uh, we have, uh, do we have any land use updates? Uh, Aaron,
>> none. >> No. No. No. No land use applications tonight. >> Okay. Uh so with that, we're going to move into our first uh first hearing and only hearing. It's 7:34 right now and apologies that uh we have it scheduled
for 7:15. Um some general rules uh general procedures for um for hearings. Uh each hearing has 20 minutes dedicated to it with five minutes for uh the applicant or their representative.
Excuse me. Five minutes for the uh staff to provide commentary. Um five minutes um or two minutes per person for um for the public and five minutes uh
for conservation commissioners. Um all submitted uh and reviewed u materials have to be uh submitted to us uh by uh Wednesday, the week before the meeting. that close of business. And uh for
anyone presenting uh please uh state your name, who you're working for, um the address of the pro uh project, and if you have any um uh preferred pronouns, please uh state those as well. For anyone of the public, uh give us
your name, please, address, and uh any preferred pronouns. Um, I ask uh I ask that all uh people attending uh mute themselves um while uh while we're uh having the uh hearing
unless you're speaking. I usually uh uh will keep myself unmuted, but uh anyway, so here we go. Um with that, we're we have our first meeting or our first hearing. Uh this public hearing is now
called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of Ammerst general bylaws. This is a notice of intent um submitted
by uh the Zenineer on behalf of Ammeris Community Land Trust for the construction of a two family duplex structure with associated um with associated parking utilities, storm water and wetland mitigation. Portions of the work
are proposed within the 100 foot no work distance to isolated vegetated wetlands jurisdictional only under wetlands protection town of Amoris general bylaw article 3.31 project location is 174 AMD street map
14A lot 332 um do we have um I think Bucky here or anyone else. Uh please raise your hands
and we'll try to bring in. All right, Buckyy's in. I think that's uh that's it. >> Welcome, Bucky. How are you? >> I am well, thank you very much. It's good to be back here at the Amoris
Conservation Commission. Um I do have um my my five minute soap box to stand on here. So I'm going to run through a brief presentation. Um which I'm sending a request for um which normally, you know, takes a moment
or two. Uh while it's coming up, um I am Oh, there it is. Uh this guy. Um yeah, my name is Becky Sparkle. I am the civil engineer helping out Ammeris Community Land Trust um with the property in uh
installing affordable housing at 174 Amity Street. Uh it's part of the project team. It's relatively small. It's Ammerst Community Land Trust with Linda Slakey and Bob Rob Crowner who I believe uh may be on the call this evening and might be his panelist. Uh
hopefully um there won't be a a need for them to speak necessarily and Bruce can't join us tonight. The wetlands were designated by Ward Smith of Wendell Wetland Services. Uh looking at the existing conditions here, uh it's a a
little over a halfacre site uh on Amity Street next to a dental's office. There's a multif family building there with parking. Uh there is a isolated vegetated wetland in green here uh was survey located and the affiliated 50
foot green buffer here and the other 100 ft green buffer here. Uh in the backyard there are a bunch of just debris and and trash um some wood platforms um miscellaneous materials within the the
garden area. Um, and we also have infestation of Japanese knotweed. Uh, also, as was pointed out during the sitewalk yesterday, uh, there's quite a bit of poison ivy in this back area, and somebody pointed out some, um, bittersweet as well. So, all of those
plants are are going to be managed by this application. Uh an important fact here is that just to the east is uh a driveway in the roof area and actually offove the screen another part of a driveway that all drains to this flume,
this asphalt paved flume. So, there's several thousand square ft of storm water runoff that since roughly 1993 has been not directed into a drain system as it was supposed to be, but has been concentrated and dump dumps right
here and it flows down. Uh what was probably once a consistent slope and continued off site, but uh over the years the inundation has lowered the grade. You can tell by roots sticking out above the ground by 8 or 10 in. Uh
so there's been erosion and subsidance due to the water in inundation. So effectively uh what we have here is a nonpermitted illegal storm water management system. Uh we we've got a detention basin or really a sediment basin here um that's
collecting the salts and and other pollution from the abeter's property. What we are looking to do um is uh ultimately have a duplex building here in the dark red uh with a permeable
parking lot. Um and in addition there would be a few storm water controls. We are taking clean water, roof water, putting it in an infiltration chamber, dry well, uh, and adding a small, I say it's small, it's uh, it's about a foot and a half, foot and a quarter deep
detention basin here, which also infiltrates. Importantly to capture runoff from the neighbors, we wish to install a sediment for bay check dam and another basin with a wick bottom to uh
capture all the flow for smaller rain events and um portion of the flow for large rain events and importantly uh sediments and other pollutants that are being constantly discharged to this property. Right now all of that pollution is just going into the wetland
that is was created by this uh runoff but it is there nevertheless and we are trying to now protect it to the greatest extent possible with this project. Other features um um because of the notweed removal that process really goes on for years and maintenance around this
infiltration basin uh we are adding to the plan um these orange dash lines which would be wood chip paths um just so people can more easily get to those places and do the necessary maintenance. There were also some comments during the
sitewalk yesterday uh where the silt fence that I had specked out was suggested to be a compost log. So, I've added that to the plan here today. Um and uh add a construction entrance up here as well as uh more for delineation,
additional um sediment barriers right up along the the sidewalk. um just to you know hopefully keep construction managed. Um um let's see uh that is um you know
effectively the project. I'm going to skip the number slide here quickly uh just so we can go to the revitation. Obviously um much of the site will be disturbed in a temporary manner um you know for storm water for uh cleaning up
the area in the 50-foot buffer for taking out the knotweed that is in the buffer and the wetland itself. Um and so we have an invasive removal plan. We've got multiple types of seed mixes where, you know, in the 50oot zone where we're
not going to let people go back so much because there's going to be a barrier along this line. Um that that is going to be a native uh wildlife and um conservation mix by New England wetland plants and that same supplier providing
their their famous wet mix which will be help restore the wetland and the mitigation process. Um, and I will just bring it up because it's here. Uh, I do have a bunch of numbers and some more technical stuff uh from
the bylaw that we could discuss if we'd like to, but it seems to me that this project is not so much of a numbers project uh so much as a process project. Um, and there's because it's somewhat unusual. This is a unique situation uh
where we have an isolated wetland that of course has a strong protection around it but it is not a typical isolated wetland. It doesn't appear to have any connection with the groundwater because we did soil testing for the the storm water. So we know that the groundwater is relatively deep. It's not shallow.
Got relatively permeable soils that wouldn't hold water. uh there's the obvious contribution of all of the storm water from the neighbor and um it it is an anthropogenic anomaly in several several regards. So it's more of a storm
water basin than a wetland. Um but we are we are treating it like a resource area. Um and we believe that this project is going to make some meaningful improvements uh to the interests of the wetlands protection act and the Ammeris wetland bylaw. Um, so I'm going to put
it down there and open it up to questions and the remainder of the meeting. >> You're muted, Andre. >> Sorry about that. Uh, thank you, Bucky. Um, what we'll do right now is we'll put uh put the questions out to the uh uh to
the public. Um, let me just double and then uh then we'll um we'll have our own questions after that. Um,
if that uh makes sense to you. Um, let me just double check here. Uh in the meantime though, uh Erin, if you don't mind giving, uh giving your um views on this and then we'll look to see
uh who out of the public would like to uh speak. >> Sure. Um sorry, I'm having a little trouble with my voice tonight. Um so uh just to make a note that this is only jurisdictional under our um local
bylaw and regulations and um I did draft a finding a fact which is in the packet and I sent it to the applicant um earlier this evening as well as um special conditions under the bylaw and regulations. Um I think that one thing I'd like to
emphasize is the uniqueness of this situation. Um and I I tried to spell out in the finding of fact the uniqueness of the situation with the um elicit storm water discharge. Um the issues with the
groundwater. So ordinarily um an isolated wetland would be connected to groundwater. In this case there's quite a bit of separation there. Um the permeability of the soils and and why it's perched there is kind of a question. Um,
and I think all of this is to say that um, the water that's traveling into this wetland and forming is not being treated in any way. And so I really think that with the improvements that are proposed, both storm water and also the resource area improvements to get native
vegetation in and around this um, feature that it will provide more habitat and and resource area improvement than currently exists on the site. Um the other quick thing I just wanted to mention um or just clarify
with Bucky is I know we discussed um the revisions on site and I see that you've made those. Um will you be um submitting a plan to me or did Okay, great. >> Yes, I will. Yeah, after tonight's meeting anything from you know that is codified and or added tonight I'll
produce a final plan set to make sure that it is in conformance with the commission's requirements. >> Perfect. Okay. Yes. So based on that, um I don't as staff have any concerns about um the project as proposed and um I
basically have drafted this to be moved forward this evening. >> Thank you, Erin. Um I do see uh that there is someone in the public and I think uh that's uh it's Linda Slaky. Is she uh one of the folks who >> Yeah, she is my client.
>> Okay, her hand is up. So, let's uh see. How do I bring her in again? Uh Erin, I'm not uh don't seem to be able to do that. Oh, here she is. Thank you. >> Hello, Linda. Thank uh thanks for
joining us. Um and you're no longer on mute. Welcome. >> Thank you. And I first I want to thank you for your careful attention to this situation and also just um call a little bit of attention to the context of this
project. Um the five units, two in the duplex and three that will be uh formed in the envelope of the existing building will all be owner occupied and permanently affordable. That is the the land trust will retain ownership of the
land. Linda, do you mind telling us what uh what your relation to the uh to this project is? >> Oh, my relationship to the project. I'm the I'm the president of the board of the Amoris Community Land Trust. Sorry. >> Thank you.
>> Um I and I live at 18 Nutting Avenue. I should remember quickly what the directions are. >> It's all right. It's okay. Thank you. You can you can continue, please. Um that's those are really the points that I w wanted to call attention to both to be grateful for the level of
careful attention that's been given to this and also just to remind people what the context of the project is. >> Thank you, Linda. >> Okay, I don't see anyone else uh out of the public. So if we have uh so any
questions that we have from uh from commissioners please uh please raise your hand. Um four of us uh we had a great great participation uh uh the other day with four of us uh
attending the um the site visit. Um so we got a we got a good eight set of eyes there on them. Um Bruce please. >> Well I don't have a question. And I have a comment which I'll hold until the questions have been raised.
>> All right, Bruce. Sounds good. >> Um, I'll start with a question. Uh, Bucky, you did mention that um there will be a barrier um somewhere around the 50 foot mark or so where the wetland at the edge of the wetlands. Um
we had discussed a possibility of some fencing. What barrier are you planning to put up just for clarification? >> I I believe we are open to the split rail fence which had been brought up at the meeting with um access for you know
the the ongoing maintenance in the storm water notweed area. Um I I haven't talked to my client in detail about that. Um but from past conversations I don't believe that would be any sort of an impediment. Um and um you know, Linda was around for the meeting yesterday and
I I think she was on board with that. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from uh from commissioners? >> I see no hands, Bruce. So, why don't you go ahead? I just want to say that if the many other applicants who come
before us could do the level of care and skill and detail and clarity that this application provided, our work would be much easier and much more productive. So, I just I uh thank you both the
applicant and and Bucky for the the way you went about this for something that's pretty small really and pretty simple, but still you went many extra miles to to work through the the details and I really appreciate it and I hope that
others will do the same. >> Thank you very much, Bruce. >> Thanks, Bruce. Well, I see no more questions. Um which brings us to uh the point of um
motions. So uh there has been a finding of fact that uh um that Aaron uh made Rachel I'll get to you in just a second. So, there's a a finding of fact that uh that was written
by Aaron and um we'll be looking to move to adopt that finding of fact uh as drafted and you'll see the other motion uh below it on the screen there. Um before we go into motions though, uh
Rachel uh does have a question. Rachel. >> Yeah. No. Um, yeah, thanks to the applicant and and and Bucky for a really great uh site visit and a very clear application. Um, I just wanted to to mention and I've read through the
finding fact and I don't Erin, I don't know if we need to be any more explicit about the allowance for community gardening or fire pit areas within the 50 to 100 foot buffer um in this in this
um conditions or if you if you think we've got that covered. >> Um, yeah. Yeah. So, I did try to add one bullet down at the bottom. Um, regarding >> Oh, >> the commission understands that portions of the 50 to 100 foot buffer in the
isolated uh to the isolated wetland outside of the mitigation area may be used for community garden space, picnic area, passive recreational activities. >> Excellent. Yeah. Okay, great. I didn't see that. Okay, cool. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Thanks, Rachel. Any other questions? I see no more hands up. So, uh, we're looking for a motion to adopt the finding of fact as drafted by staff. >> Uh, Bruce, do you have a question? >> So moved. >> Bruce moves.
>> I Yes. I move to adopt the finding of fact as drafted by staffs. >> I second that motion. >> All right. Bruce with a motion and Jason seconding. Uh Jason >> I >> uh Rachel
>> I >> Carol >> I >> Sarah >> I >> Gina >> I >> Bruce >> Hi >> and Amani. So the finding of facts is adopted. Um
we are looking for that second motion. I'll I'll move to close the public hearing and issue the order of conditions under wetlands protection under wetlands protection town of Ammerst under town of Ammerst
general bylaw article 3.31 with the attached special and boilerplate conditions and finding effect. >> I second. >> All right. Who seconded? Was it Sarah? >> I think it was Rachel. >> Yeah. >> All right. Rachel seconded. So Jason
with a motion. Rachel seconding Sarah. >> Hi >> Rachel. >> Hi >> Jason. >> Hi >> Bruce. >> Hi >> Carol. >> Hi >> Dina. >> Hi. >> And Ammon I. So uh Linda and Bucky.
Thank you uh for your presentation and uh good luck with the project. >> Thank you very very much for your contribution to the circumstance. Everyone here tonight has been very helpful and and I learned a lot. I love learning stuff. So this is good. Okay. >> Awesome. Well, thank you again. Uh have
a good night. >> You too. Bye. >> So with that uh we now move to um uh discussion on uh on conservation land uh management policies. Uh looking
I think we finished last time we finished with the um with the main uh body of the uh of the regulations. Is that the is that correct Aaron?
Um yes, we had uh the at the not the last meeting but the meeting prior to that we had finished going through um the the body of the the um regs and policy and we were we had moved into the
appendix. >> Okay. Um and uh as a reminder um we did not finalize the beaver uh uh part of the uh regular rags. I did go
in through that today and uh wrote a bunch of uh wrote a few things that uh might help us with it. Um but may so maybe we can take a look at that after we uh go get into the um
attachments or into the into uh the I keep forgetting the word for it, but it's uh is it the uh the attachments or the agenda? >> Uh the appendix, I think. Appendix. >> No, the appendix. Okay. All right. Um
can you please bring that up? I'm going to >> so just to refresh my memory with I think we were looking at some of the the beaver documents. Did we want to move forward to the next section which was the agricultural ranking um and come
back to the beaver stuff? >> Um why don't we come back to the beaver stuff? Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Great. I just want to make sure I had that right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Oops. So, um this is the agricultural ranking
form that that um Bruce developed and um this is was developed so that um if applicants submitted if we put out an RFP and applicants submitted applications to um to do uh an
agricultural uh license, um we would use this form basically to uh as a almost like a grading sheet to grade the um the application for selection to select the the agricultural producer that would be
doing the work on the townland. >> Can you guys hear me? >> Uh yes. Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I didn't lose you guys. Well, I was going to make two comments by way of context. So, one thing I did
not do, we the the subcommittee did not do was say, "Oh, there's a minimal score you have to have." So, if in revising this you wanted to do that, we could. Um, this was more I think in the context
of, oh, we've got five different proposals. how do we compare them in terms of uh our interest in in providing these licenses. So um I don't have any personal uh stake in this game whether
you want to change it or throw it out or do anything but it was an attempt to have some sort of concrete quantitative way of thinking about these applications and the interest that we had because you can see from the the the topical names
that there's some interest there that we wanted to achieve. makes sense. Um so you're uh essentially looking for some uh some uh social fairness uh etc. Is that what you're
>> Well, some of it is like comparatively take the first one. We we think we the subcommittee thought that residents of Ammerst should get more attention, more opportunity than a resident of a bordering town. Therefore, there's more points. Uh we thought that annual crops
were more important than hay. So that's that's why the numbering is there is to try to give our the level of our interest or our value to each of those types of of differences. >> Okay. Um,
I don't see I'm not seeing uh problems with it. Oh, sorry, Bruce. Uh, I see Bruce. >> No, no, no. I Yeah, sorry. I'm done. Thank you. >> All right, Tina, please. >> Uh, I just have two comments. The the hay scoring so much lower than the
annual. I see kind of this across the board. people putting people valuing vegetables more than hay, whereas hay can be a silage crop for animals that we then go on to eat. So, I don't necessarily know that
vegetables is more important than hay. Um, that's just my comment. And then also with the type of farming with fully organic, like being certified organic is pretty challenging. So, I'm not really sure how we would know. But then also I think
there are other things that are more important than organic like their soil health practices like do they use cover crops I would give that 10 points or are they no till or low till I would score that higher. So I think there's like
some caveats there with the organic that might not necessarily get to what the commission is looking to assess. Tina, do you think that um do you think you could make some some
suggestions uh perhaps uh directly with um directly to uh Aaron so that uh she could include those because I think those are very uh uh very good suggestions and and I I can totally
agree with your point on the hay. I was walking through ah through a hay field the other day and I was just thinking that all of this is is is going to the uh is going to the cows that are right down the street which was exactly what what happens. So
yeah, it's it's important and it also uh it's it's also a big part of uh part of our our local agriculture. Do you think you could do that? >> Yeah, I can do that. I don't know if I did already. I cleaned my desk. I know I
edited this, but I think I might have cleaned this away, but I can do that. >> Yeah, I'm I can't find my edited uh uh my edited version either. >> I'm glad I'm not the only one. >> Yeah.
Okay. Um Rachel Uh, Rachel, did you have a question? You're you're uh I'm sorry, you're you're muted. >> Um, do we do we have on on this document, do we have an outline of what the score range would be for each entry? I
um say a scores from from 0 to 10 or 0 to 20 or is a negative score a possibility if if the town had say a really negative previous experience with the farmer? Um do we want to clarify
that that range here? Uh >> um >> answers >> I think I have an answer to Rachel's point which is that some of them are all or nothing like you're a resident or you're you're not whereas some of them
like the previous positive experience in number five that I could see the range would be like four to seven and 0 to three because it's more qualitative. It it has it it uh it has a range. So, you
know, feel free to mock it up. I don't, again, I don't really care. It just was a way to get started. Um, the issues with the other town departments could be zero to 20, I suppose. >> Thanks, Bruce. Jason,
>> um is is there a definition of like what does it mean to not degrade other town services or um does not hinder other under number four does not hinder other town conservation or recreation objectives?
Do we have definitions for all of those things? >> No. Um we didn't go that far. >> Okay. And then um I'm I'm certainly in favor of like a minimum score. I think a minimum score
would be good to define somewhere. You have to get you know I don't know where it would be. Um right because you can't get residency like you can't get more than 12% on residency, right? And and so
you know it's like 12 22 32 42 49 and then presumably zero or 20 I so 69 is like the highest score you could get or can you combine scoring?
Can you grow annuals and hay and other and get 15 >> or or can you be a resident of Ammerst and a resident of a boarding town at the same time? >> So Jason has pointed out a structural
error that I made which I now I didn't see it at all until now. So the total score clearly isn't 100 because it's in each category you're only getting one score. So, this will take some additional fussing to get it to a place where we're all satisfied with it. And I
apologize that a year and a half, two years ago, I didn't see it. And I still didn't see it until now. And do you and do you think then that issues with other town departments at 20% like
um >> we didn't honestly we didn't take it that >> sorry >> that's the highest like that's one thing with the highest >> percent value it's like should we focus more on like type of crop as being like >> we could
the a higher percentage than issues with the town departments. >> We could >> because I don't know what like with fire DPW I >> most of the land that's going to potentially be farmed probably isn't going to interfere with like I'm
imagining other town departments. So >> I think we imagined that discussions would ensue between Aaron and other departments about whether they had an issue with a particular application. Um, but we really didn't take it any further than that. And clearly I we didn't think
about it clearly enough given this the total score error. So we could drop the whole thing. We could start over. We could rely on Tina to to give it a much better understanding of what's relevant since
she's probably our best expert. I'm fine with whatever you decide. How about uh how about we um leave it as is right now. Um, let uh pending Dave uh
uh Dave's comment um and let uh let Tina put some uh some well educated uh numbers in there and then we can just uh all of us consider what uh what we want to do with this and next
time we uh we meet let's uh let's get this um this table uh worked through. Dave. >> Yeah, I don't I don't have strong opinions, Andre and and commission. Um I
you know, kudos to Bruce for working on this. It it has been a while. I guess my overarching question is does this form really belong in a policy document? or as Bruce said, the substance of the form should be revisited each year in advance
of the annual request. Well, if it's your policy, it's not that easy to just redo it, you know. So, I I didn't know whether it gets broken out and and you have your policy, again, I don't have the whole document in front of me here. We're we're focused on this, but your
policy is the commission supports uh uh the use of some conservation land for agriculture, and it outlines the broad policy. uh there must be applications and a committee set up or whatever the policy is and then you know then there
is a form that the review committee uh looking at applications uses each year because I think it might change over time in year one it might be different you might rate things differently or you might have different u criteria for in
year five you know based on organic standards or whatever it might be the other comment quick comment I would have is I honestly think they're I think it's unclear to me what a resident of a bordering town is and I'm not sure why we would give if if you take that
literally that means the towns that touch Ammerst and I'm not sure if a Hatfield farmer wanted to farm in Ammerst why would that be any different than a I don't know a Graanby uh farmer wanting to farm in Ammerst it just seems random
to me I would also like to see a bigger differential between Ammerst resident a non-resident because I think Ammerst residents paid for this land to be protected. Uh they pay for this land to be off the tax roles as well. So Ammerst
residents I think should have Ammerst farmers who would like access to the land I think should have a greater differential for scoring scoring points does not seem that large to me. So those are my quick comments. Thanks.
>> Thanks Dave. Good comments. Um I I I I agree on the uh there should be a huge a much bigger difference. Um yeah, I don't really uh I don't disagree with uh towns closer to us uh getting
some preference. Um I I think um now I'll just put this out and uh wondering what you all think. I I think that it's uh that we can um have a
table like this um made up and uh perhaps uh as a separate page. In other words, take the table out of this one
uh section and make at the and put it at the end of it um as something that can be uh re-edited and replaced as we uh as the policies um
evolve. Uh but I think it is good to have this because it is a standard and so everyone knows what to expect. Um, but I I do Dave, I I I think that's a really good idea to to to kind of
uh to to uh build in some um uh some ability to uh to to rework the numbers and so on or the criteria. um uh an easier way than uh having to take get
it take the whole um uh policy apart. So if uh I don't know what the rest of you think, but we can probably take this out and put it as a page at the end of the um at the end of this uh subsection.
Dave, I mean Jason. >> Um, yeah, I think I think having the if it's if it's going to be consistent, I think having it in here as a example of how we score is fine. I did want to mention also I had a question I forgot previously. Number three, we have fully
organic and includes some organic practices. Uh we don't have anything that says just non-organic straight. Are we only um will we give any points if it's like no
we don't have any organic practices or are we going to I don't believe we said that you have to be organic. So, um, just another potential line to add there. All right, Jason. Thanks. Um, so maybe
we can put another line in there for uh for conventional um practices. I mean, I think the line that's uh missing there is the conventional practices zero. uh frankly but uh you're um looking you
you uh what you're thinking is that the conventional should have some kind of points to them Jason. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then we have to and then we have to define what some organic practice is. It 1% 10% half right you
know what >> that's big. Yep. just as a kind of overall structural. Maybe instead of having things be a percentage, you can just, you know, have it be like,
uh, one to, you know, one to five for each one, uh, you know, or something like that. And it totals up to a certain score and you have to have, you know, 15 or above as opposed to making it a percentage. >> Mhm.
Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think right now the way it is, uh, it's it can't it's can't be a percentage because you can't be both a resident and a non-resident for the 20 points. So, we'll have to rework that one way or another. But, yeah, I see what you're saying. Should
uh, so do you, so we should have a line in there for um, conventional as well is what you're recommendation there. Okay, Bruce. I just want to double check with Tina that she is willing and able to um take the next draft given all these
comments because I haven't been writing it down and I'm probably not in a good position to do it. So I I think that what what what Tina's going to do is uh add her value add some add the values there and perhaps some more categories
that she sees fit and then we can all I think uh what I would like is for all of us to kind of have our have some thoughts on it um for the next meeting to uh to discuss. Okay. And if there's any, you know, editing or
whatever, uh, then maybe, uh, you know, maybe Erin could help with that. Um, Tina, please. >> Uh, to Bruce's comment, yes, I can work on this. I probably won't focus on organic so much because to like I agree
with Jason, fully organic or include some organic or conventional. I think it matters more the farm's philosophy because yeartoear things change. So, if you're only quasi organic, but then a pest comes in, you have to take care of it. And I think that the policy
addresses this, but I'll also be very transparent. I'm like fine with all organic or all farming practices. So, that's where I might differ from others, but I just don't think organic is the beall end all in local a. I think it's a tough tough game to be playing to be a
farmer. So, I wouldn't want to take tools off their tool belt. And and like you're saying, it's extremely difficult to get an actual certification of being certified organic, right? >> If you're a small farmer, it just might not be worth it monetarily. So then you
would just really never know if you're trying to regulate someone what they're actually doing. >> Yeah. Makes it pretty hard. Okay. >> All right. Well, thanks. Um, so Tina's going to uh take a stab at this and uh
we can move to our next uh page. And >> so a lot of these are just regulatory references that are are or were referenced in various drafts. And so um I think this is just
referencing some of the the state law relative to firearm use for hunting. Sorry for when I get to the bottom it just skips all the way. So I trying to
it's difficult to get there and then I go too far with the toggle. I'm trying to get it so you can see the whole thing. Oh, >> all right. Sorry about that.
>> This is basically just a uh a recounting of the state law. >> Yes. And that there's a lot of that in here. Um there's a lot of just references to to um state law. >> Uhhuh.
>> I Yeah. I mean, I have a uh a slight aversion to um to quoting law in a policy because the laws change and the before and the policies may not have, >> right? So,
I I would uh I have no opposition to this being in there, but I would put in parenthesis um uh check, you know, uh check updated state laws. Um, I mean you can uh look at the uh
you know you can look at the uh uh some the 500 ft uh buffer here and that applies to uh to bow hunting as well but right now they're looking to change that for bow hunting. So the laws
will change. So if we put in the parenthesis something um uh stating yeah to check uh to check uh uh updated um state regulations especially hunting regulations uh they
change often not not so much this public safety law but I don't have a problem with that being there. I see it. I I don't know if anyone else does. Sarah has a question on it. Sarah. >> Yeah, I'm just um so I agree with you,
Andre. I would just say um rather than check it would be what I would do is put the date effective as of whatever date and then you know check state check Massachusetts general laws for updates.
You know it's the law that this is law not regulation that's being cited. Okay, great. Like effective uh effective at time of uh printing or effective at uh I don't think we need to go back to the date
that the uh law was uh was enacted, right? >> No, no, just it's effective as of whatever date these are adopted, date of adoption or whatever. Like this these will have a date presumably. >> Yeah. >> Just make sure it's current. make sure
the current one is attached and then it's effective as of the date the policy is adopted and just check Massachusetts general laws or MGL, you know, Mass General law for updates. >> Okay, great. Thanks. And I and I think we're going to see that uh in in a
couple of the next pages too in the following pages. So Erin, if we can um keep that in mind for all of the uh uh all of the cited regulations. So, do you want me to just scroll through and um I mean, and I guess also
do we want to just have a a catchall that says sort of at the beginning of all of these appendices that say um these appendices are are um up to date as of the effective date of our
regulations. But um please check state regulations for any updates. >> State law, it's Massachusetts general laws for updates. Yeah, you can say the the law the laws that are referenced because it's
not all laws, right? So the laws that are referenced in the appendices are effective as of whatever the date of these this stuff is. Check um yeah, check Massachusetts general laws for updates.
>> Okay. I would add add Massachusetts general law and regulations because the uh the general law typic what's happening at least with hunting is the general law remains the same but each year they reissue the uh the regulations.
>> So um that catchall would cover would cover all references and then we would only put it in once essentially. Does that make sense or the very beginning the wonderful Okay. >> Full idea. Sorry, Sarah. I cut.
>> Um, >> I was just agreeing with you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, I mean I um and it's it's I guess the other thing that I find kind of interesting about the appendices is
like it goes there's there's a whole section on beaver and beaver um removal process and then it goes to agriculture and then it goes to um the firearm public safety law and
then it goes back to beavers again. I'm almost wondering if for the sake of continuity for people accessing this if we shouldn't try to group the um appendices together. So like all applicable beaver things are in one
appendices and or in one section together. I agree and like likewise Erin um in the order that they're presented in our um in the act in the bylaw I mean in the
laws in the regs. Mhm. >> So you know how we have uh different you know we'll have uh we have different sessions um for example forest management is followed by uh community gardens
um >> right >> and then after that is uh plantings and beavers. So, anything having to do with plantings uh should be before the beavers and so on. >> It does it does seem to be a little mixed up. Um >> yeah,
>> but yeah, whatever we can do to um to have them a little bit more uh uh better organized. >> Okay. So, I'm just going to keep scrolling if anybody wants me to stop at any point. Um, oh, so conservation land use
application. Um, so, um, okay. So, >> it's not updated, is it? >> Come again. >> Is that an updated one? >> Well, yes. So, um, we
we have like an online form, which is like a fillable form that you can populate in open gov to submit an application. This is a paper form. Um, so it it looks a little different. It's just like a static form. Um, we
wanted to because we're we're talking about the process of land use application and what you can apply to for a land use application for and so forth that um we thought it would be important to include the land use application in here. Uh but it does look
very different um than the than the open gov permit and it's all the same information but there may be some sort of consolidation that takes place in the digital form. Um for example it might be like a check box and then you fill in
the name of your organization or something like that versus um you know this where it's like a blank. Um, so it it looks a little different, but it's the same the same content essentially. >> All right. Um,
where could we put something that states that it's different if we if you think it would uh help? Um, otherwise, I think it's fine as is. Um,
I'm trying to find in the um in our uh in our policy. I'm trying to find where we might um if if we can put it there. a little statement about uh there being
um an online uh an online application that's uh different from the referenced um reference page that we have there. Yeah, I'll just make sure we have um so
and part of this is um we we started to believe it or not we started development of this doc these documents before we even had open gov. It tells you how long we've been working
on this. So, like this form is what the open gov application was based on, but it's been so long that I don't think we've uploaded the open gov link in here. So, I'll make a note that we should update this to include the open gov link.
>> Okay. Um All right. Now, I'm at land use applications and it is right after beavers. So, I'm that one's in in good order there. Um so under land use applications on our uh
regular on our policy it says use of conservation land scheduled for scheduled events or research projects must be requested through a conservation land use application C appendix I >> um perhaps in that
spot We could uh we could put something I mean I don't think it's really necessary but we can also do uh we can also just put a statement there saying that uh uh applications are available
online um through uh what did you call it? >> OpenGV. So, I'm seeing that on page 23 at the bottom of page 23 of the uh um
of the uh uh policy that uh we've been through on I think uh it's the one that you have from 0324 2026. >> Okay. So, I can add that I can add that in there. That's yeah, that's makes
sense. >> Would uh be a good idea. All right. We can keep going. >> Uh, sorry, Andre. >> Oh, I didn't see your qu your your hand. Sorry, Jason. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um, Erin, can you just take the application
from open.gov, print it blank, and put it in here so that they both match and then >> we don't have this issue. Well, we could, but um
yeah, I I'll I'll look into that option. Um it's the application. Yeah, I I'll look into that. I I mean, I just know that there's certain things about it um that that
change intermittently. for example, like the list of conservation commission members is on there and that list changes um based on membership and that sort of thing. But I'll I'll look into it and see if we can make that happen now that we have because again this was
in here as a static application because we didn't have open gov at the time, but now we have it. So maybe we can try to figure that out now. Well, and my other question is, do we even want to have like a hard copy thing? Do or do we just want to direct any everybody to
open.gov? And I don't know if we can't like an I don't know if that's an accessibility issue, but >> if we can, shouldn't we just direct them to open.gov and not even have an application in here? >> Yeah. So, um that is the the preference is to have everybody go through open
gov. There are situations where, for example, people come to the window at town hall and say, "I'd like a land use application to have a picnic at Puffer Pond or something like that." Um, and so then I'm handing them the form. Um, so
yeah, for accessibility reasons, because not everybody has a computer or knows how to use one, um, I think it's good for us to have both. >> Thanks, Bruce. Um, I was just going to comment that for
with respect to all of our interests in trying to be really thorough and careful with this amazing document, I think we should try really hard to just let Aaron do her job and and fix things for us. Um, we have one of the best agents in
the state. We should just let her take care of some of this stuff. >> Thanks, Bruce. Well, I mean, really, I'm just trying to be efficient here. So, >> sounds good, Bruce. Thank you. All
right, let's keep moving through. Uh, okay. Oh, I didn't quite get the top of that. Sorry. I I can't find my my uh my version here. Um, >> yeah, and I apologize because scanning
through this, it's it's super wonky like it it's um keeps jumping. Um, but this is funny because this is again going back to beaver. Um, so we uh the beaver thing, it's like straddling through all the other topics.
So, we should definitely consolidate that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we can keep moving through that. Yeah, I mean I don't really like how this is formatted, so I'll probably do some formatting improvements. Like I'd rather just insert the PDF and have a
cover page that says appendix um than have it be like copied and pasted on each sheet of our Word document. Um >> Okay. But yeah, I'll take care of that basic kind of stuff so it's a little
more um smooth. >> Okay, thank you. >> This is a long document. Flow control structures, all the specifications on flow control structures. >> Yeah, I mean do we need to have that in
the appendices or or I mean, I don't it doesn't hurt anything to have it, but uh do we need to have it there or do we just reference things? I mean, >> yeah. So, that's a great question, Andre. So, I think there was a little bit of confusion when we first developed
the beaver section. Um, and we um so originally it was the idea of the beaver section was to how do we address beaver scenarios on conservation land? And I think that,
you know, as the discussion is kind of a broad discussion, right, of how to deal with beavers, it turned into how do we deal with beavers townwide and what's the legal way to deal with beavers? And so that's I think how it kind of became this um the the appendices became almost
like a um uh a go-to point of information for how to do it right, um if you will. and um and whether some or all of this is appropriate to include um I think it's it's right now
it's pretty comprehensive as far as what it includes but there may be things that we want to um pull out. I mean this this um document is gosh it's pretty 62 pages long. So it's a pretty the appendix is is quite a bit longer than our document
itself. Um and how the commission wants to deal with that I will defer to you guys. >> Yeah. I mean I don't have a problem with uh with with all of this being on the appendix. Uh it's, you know, appendices
are usually referent referential if you would, but if someone's going to print this whole thing out, that's going to be a lot of a lot of paper. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think this is what we're going through, what we just went through uh
before is a booklet, isn't it? >> Yeah. There's multiple reference documents that are inserted in here like page by page contentwise and some of it I think is somewhat duplicative as well. Um
>> I I was going to say so if you notice uh some that that that are essentially the same uh duplicative as you said um let us know and and we can take uh take one of them out.
just for efficiency and so that people aren't getting lost in the appendices either or also. >> Yep. Definitely. >> If your hand is uh still up, I don't know if you have >> No, it's up again. So, >> please
>> uh the thing I would say given this one is there needs to be consistency across the different topics of how much detail you provide in the appendices. So you could go have another 60-page document about agriculture or about hunting or
you know so I would heir on the side of taking a lot of this reference it somewhere and say if you really want to dig into this reader go to this place go to this link or go to the library but try to make the appendices consistent
across how much detail they give for each of the big topics. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, Erin, did you did you want um I don't know. I mean, maybe uh maybe
some of us could uh could get together and and um decide what might be duplicative or uh or maybe next, you know, maybe we do this on our own and by next week we have uh
we basically uh start cutting some of these out that uh that we believe we don't need. Yeah, that might >> hands of who who uh who's up for looking
through this. Um I mean I'll look through it. I don't know if anyone else is going to have uh a time to do that, but I would hope someone else can do that and we can both we can all uh just try and cut some of the u extra paper out of it.
Yeah, I'd be happy to to do that as well to try to look at it and sort out what we can remove. >> Please, please do the same. We can discuss it at the next meeting then. >> Um, as far as what you know, if there's portions that we want to get rid of. Um,
all right. Can we continue uh from where we were uh to the end and then try to uh >> Yeah. So, that was the end um where I just stopped. Uh, we were on page 67 there. So, that's the end of the
document. >> Another. All right. Great. Um, I do have more on beavers, but I don't think we're we have any enough time for that right now. I can see that uh uh that we've got the uh so we have the
open space and recreation plan uh letter of review. I think I would like for us to uh have uh more opportunity to to go through that and uh so that we can have a discussion of it on it um next week.
So let's table that for uh the time being. Um and maybe we can talk about the uh request for amendment of order of conditions. Um, and I think what I'm going to do, uh, if
y'all don't mind, um, is I'll, uh, before next meeting, I'll send out, um, my comments on the Beaver, uh, policy. Um, and, uh,
next week we talk about that. we talk about the uh uh open space uh and recreation plan. Um so I mentioned the beavers. I also have uh comments on um on the mowing policy
or early successional habitat policy and uh there was more. So we'll be discussing uh those next time around. Um, but I think in order to uh uh bring us to a to a a closure that
we've agreed to is uh why don't we go ahead and um uh work through the request for amended uh order of conditions for Sweet Alice and then we uh go for a clo for closure
or whatever else is left. Um >> sure. Um, so, uh, this is a a map of the Sweet Alice, um, conservation area with the, um, Plumbrook Pond, um, in the the polygon sort of the top right. And the
trail system is is on the >> I'm sorry, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. You guys can't see my screen. >> Sorry about Sorry about that. Thank you. Um, here we go. Um so this uh pond, the
Sweet Alice property, and then the trail system at Sweet Alice. Um this area that's identified here in pink. Um there are some some issues there. It it appears there was a when the trail was originally constructed, there was some
country drainage in the form of swailes that run along um the trail's edge. And um over time that swale has become clogged with um leaf debris and it's kind of blocking the flow of water. There also was sort of previously some
more well- definfined um water bars through the trail allowing the the swale to drain. And so um this is just a a proposal basically to to um clean those swailes so the water can move through
them. Um and then installing these water bars um in the trail to allow the water to to move through the trail and then just a a small um bog bridge over the top of the the water bar for to make it
easier for people to to walk. And then um in this case, sort of a a a flared end um kind of thing that you wouldn't even really need to step over because it's it's such a low gradient. it's more just creating a low spot for the water to move through the trail surface. Um,
so I mean really really minor um kind of stuff that we're looking to to try to just improve the trail experience at Sweet Alice. And so that's that's what is proposed with that amendment.
>> All right. Um any questions? Uh should I go to the public? Sure. >> Check the public here. I see one attendee. Any questions from the public? Please raise your hand. I see no questions from the public. We
have questions from our conservation commissioner. With that then uh there are no questions. So, uh, we're looking for a motion to approve the proposed minor administrative change to order of
conditions D number 8 089 0689. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Bruce with a motion. Jason seconds. Jason I. Rachel >> abstain.
>> Carol. Um, >> yes. Sarah. >> Hi, >> Tina. >> Hi. >> And did I call on you Jason yet? >> Yes. Hi, >> Bruce. >> Hi, >> Bruce.
>> And am I as well? >> So, we've got six six eyes and an abstination. That's >> abstension. >> An abstination. consternation.
>> Right. >> So with that we are moving uh we move on to um uh to the withdrawal of uh uh 126 140 and 148 Southeast Street and 43 Belchtown Road
DP number 0890765. Um, do I need to call to order anything like that for this, Aaron? No. >> No, we already closed the public hearing on this. It was just that their request to withdraw came in like very late that
evening and so we have a formal request now. >> Excellent. Thank you, Erin. So, we're looking for a motion to uh accept the request to withdraw the notice of intent for D number 089-0765
without prejudice. I'll >> move. >> Second. >> Jason with Jason with a motion. That was Tina, right? With a second. >> Yes. >> Tina. >> I >> Jason.
>> Hi. >> Rachel. >> Hi. >> Carol. >> Hi. >> Sarah. >> Hi. >> Sarah. >> Hi. Bruce. >> Bruce.
>> Bruce. Okay. And I'm an I. >> All right. So, um the uh request to withdraw is accepted. Um we have I think one uh one item for compliance updates. Is that correct? Uh
>> yes. Yep. Um, so just as a heads up that um I was in touch with a landowner at 15 Em. I drove by and observed um what appeared to be a uh a stream that had been dredged. And I made contact with
the owner and um they were very cooperative and apologetic. And it turned out that there had been a stream which was piped through a culvert in their yard um and the culvert failed. and they didn't realize it was a stream
and they were trying to um do the right thing by pulling the the broken culvert out. And um so they they did that and um in doing so they basically day lit a a pretty large section of stream that's in
their yard. Um, I requested that they remove the dredged material away from the stream bank and seed down the stream the stream bank and then put the material in an upland area and either seed it down or spread it um, cover it, one or the other. Um, they were again
very cooperative and um, apologetic and wanted to do the right thing. they'd like to restore the stream and um hopefully we'll be um coming in with a proposal to do that uh a little more um creating a more natural channel in the
future. So, I just wanted to make the commission aware that I'm I'm working with the landowner to try to to stabilize it right now and hopefully it'll be um coming forward with some more um information on uh what they plan
to do long term as time goes on. All right. So, we'll probably be seeing them in the future. Um any monitoring reports? I don't know. >> Um we did have one um bad report on the
the Rotary down um on Amity Street. There was some turbidity in the stream. Um I I spoke to DPW and they uh are are confident that they've addressed the issue, so they're continuing to monitor it. um but continuing to monitor sites
and try to make sure um applicants are keeping their their upkeep of large sites um under control. And that was the only one that really jumped out. Um >> can can you explain what the DPW did to address it >> briefly?
>> Yeah. So, um there was a a catch basin in the road that apparently had a a silt sack in it and the silt sack had become deteriorated and was torn or compromised and it was in the dirt part of the road.
So, it they didn't see it. Um and so it was observed the material was in the stream and they replaced the silt sack in the catch basin and said that that addressed the problem. Um, >> so yeah, we'll continue to monitor that. >> Thanks.
Uh, is there anyone uh do we have any comment from the public uh before we close? I see one attendee. No hands up there, but I do see that we have uh one of our hands up. I'm not
Bruce, please. I just want to thank Jenny Kellik, our our member of the public who keeps an eye on us and she stays the course every time. Thank you for joining us, Jenny. >> I see she's there. Thanks, Jenny.
>> Um Andre, if I could just make one other quick plug, the um Ammerst hazard mitigation plan public meeting is on April 30th at 6:30 at the Amoris town hall. Um this is a document that we've been working on for quite a while uh to
try to identify areas of um sort of flood hazard or hazard natural hazard um areas in town. And so this is sort of the we've drafted it and it's a public um information session to get input on the draft plan. Um the draft plan's
available online if anybody wants to look at it and that information session will be in person. Thank you. Any topics uh not reasonably anticipated 48 hours before the meeting?
All right, everyone did a great job. Again, look, it's 8:52. Um looking for a uh motion to adjurnn. >> I move we adjourn. >> You sure?
Yeah, >> we have a >> anyone second. >> Second. >> Sarah did. Okay. Um All right. So, we got Jason on a motion.
Sarah seconding Sarah. >> Hi, >> Tina. >> I >> Carol >> I >> Rachel, >> hi >> Jason. I and I'm an eye. Thanks everyone
for a good uh productive night again. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thanks everyone. Have a good night. >> Two weeks. guy.