I'm the vice this is Bruce Steedman at 702. I'm the vice chair of the Ammeris Conservation Commission. This is a regularly scheduled meeting. I'm sitting in as the chair for tonight because Andre and several of other of our members and
staff are ill. They're under the weather and we wish them the best of health and we're going to try to be move this meeting along so they can get some sleep. we can all work on our self-care, which in a lot of ways we need to be doing as much as we can.
So, one issue that uh stands out and influences some of the other work that we're doing this week and maybe for several months is that we're now in a mild drought. Back in the drought again, maybe still in the Anyway, we're in a drought. It
was uh declared uh January 12th. So, as we will see in a few minutes, that will influence what we what we do. Welcome to the members of the public and the staff, Aaron Jacques, David Zomec, and the members of the commission.
Um, that's my um limited report for tonight. Dave, do you have a director's report? >> Thanks, Bruce. Can you hear me? I'm having a little connectivity issue tonight. >> Seems okay.
>> Okay, good. Thank you. Um, yeah, very briefly, a couple of updates for the commission. Um, [clears throat] um, as many of you know, we are into, sorry, I seem to have some strange things happening with my internet. Um we
are moving forward with some of the work up at Puffers Pond with the dam and dyke and and uh really to the last many months and many months to come will be focused on design and permitting specifically focused on the imp
necessary improvements to the dam and dyke. And so we've started the MEEPA outreach process and some of you I'm sure got notice of that. Um, and we'll be having uh additional information go out on on what the hopes are for
improving Puffer Pond. But I wanted to kind of mainly for the general public to understand that our our central focus at least in the first phase of that work is really on the public safety piece of of the dam and dyke. uh that is the pro uh part of the project that we have funding
for. We have state funds and we have some town funds to really look at uh the condition of the dam and dyke. Um, I I have gotten some questions about some of the other possible phases up there, including dredging and uh beach
improvements and trail improvements, and Aaron and I are working with a number of other staff and and our consultants on some of that work, but that is a number of years down the road. Um the the hope is that we can do a number of phases up at Puffer Pond to improve that resource
both ecologically but also for recreation and uh you know uh uh community u uh community purposes. So um it is a cooling center for the town and many thousands of people use it throughout the year. Uh but phase one is
really looking at the safety of the dam and the dyke. Um so that is one project update. Um we also this in 2025 we did some modest improvements up at Mount Pollock. I wanted to you know call your attention to that. We did um
improvements to the parking lot there. We we replaced the guard rail, expanded the parking lot very modestly and then did a a modest ADA trail up to a lookout and a and a bench. And one of the things we did not have time to move forward
with is really the work that uh was brought to you back in 25 um by uh a neighbor of Mount Pollock, Thomas Johnston. And so I met with him recently and and uh we had a nice meeting and discussion about um getting uh refocused
on the observatory the the the work that we talked about with regard to outreach around the geologic history and the importance of of that view and and what you can see from that almost 360 degree view up at Mount Pollock. So that
included a sign at the summit and then some information uh on the new kiosk that we'll put in in the spring and then uh Thomas has developed a very nice website to go along with that. So there'll be a QR code uh with that uh
information as well. So you'll hear more about that in the spring. Our target is to put up that new kiosk and have the new signage up in April or May of this year. >> Good. >> Thank you. I think those are the two quick updates. There's other things happening, but I know you have a full
agenda. Happy to take questions now or you can email me. I know one or two members of the commission have emailed me or called me in the last week and apologies about not getting back, but it's been a little bit of a busy period, but I will get back to you on certain other topics. Okay.
>> So, any questions from the commissioners for Dave on e these items or something else that you can do quickly? All right. [clears throat] So, now we're going to have land management updates. Um,
and let's see. January 28th is going to be a special meeting focused on the conservation, land use policy, and regulation work. and we're going to essentially take the whole session with some minor exceptions for us to bring to
closure um as much as we can uh to look at this um very large document that at least I I'm the only one who was on the subcommittee who's still on the commission. Um, but we do want to have an in-depth discussion about that. And
please between now and a week from today, if you have a chance to look at the document again or some part of it you haven't seen, make comments or uh bring them with you to the the session
on the 28th. and we want to cover uh things other than just pure copy edit editing which could be done by others. So any questions about our purpose of the January 28th meeting be only about
this topic and we're going to spend an hour hour and a half working on that. Okay. Um, updates from Aaron and the conservation agent. Unless Erin, you'd rather I just read them from your notes here. Keep
your voice at a minimum. >> I don't think there's really any need to read it. I think those are more just sort of reminders. >> Okay. Well, I just want to emphasize that the town attorney has advised us that based on seasonal conditions and
drought, we have as a commission the discretion not to approve wetland delineations on new and pending projects until the spring. And of course, the spring is a malleable notion. So, we're going to keep paying attention to this in the
context of drought, freezing, snow, etc. And we'll try to be consistent about this until we really have the conditions that allow the staff and the applicants and and where relevant for the
commissioners to get out on the field and see in in place what's there. Um there are two hearings tonight that will be both of which are continued to February 11th to give us the next meeting January 28th uh to be a a work
session. And then a very quick reminder of the approach we take to hearings even though these will be relatively short. Um there's five minutes presentation by the applicant if they are here and if uh
five minutes if Aaron has anything to add as the staff and five minutes for public comment if unless there's more then there's two minutes per person and five minutes for conservation commissioners. The most important thing is the thing in
yellow that you see on your screen, which is whatever the applicants want us to consider need to be to Aaron by the end of the day, the Wednesday before the meeting, meaning a week ahead so that she has time to put it in our packets.
We have time to read it to be as informed as we can be. Uh, presenters, please clearly state your name, address, and project, who you represent, members of the public, and if any of the people on the call have preferred pronouns they
would like us to know, please state them. I'm going to facilitate these discussions as best I can. And as I said earlier, we've got a number of people are not feeling that well. So, let's try to be succinct and and clear uh and stay
within our time as much as we can. So Erin, we're four minutes ahead of our thing. Are there things at the end of the agenda that if we work backwards, is there something we could do in four
minutes? >> Yes. Um, [clears throat] >> okay. >> There, if we start with the last certificate of compliance, which is 958 East Pleasant Street. >> Yes. Um it's a very simple one and so if
we can just get it off the list right now. Um it is a uh notice of intent for a single family home. Um it may have been associated with a subdivision, but what I can tell you is that this particular property does not have any wetlands on it. So if it was part of the
subdivision, it was recorded on the property. And this is really a administrative release because there's there are no wetlands that were mapped on the site. Um, [snorts] so all we just need is a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance.
>> So do we have a motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance for D number 089-387? >> So moved. >> Second. >> That was Jason on the motion and Andre on the second.
Um, and so I'll ask for a vote. Sarah. >> Yep. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, good. >> Jason, >> hi. >> Tina,
>> hi. >> Dave. Oh, wrong person. Andre, sorry. >> Hi. >> And Carol. >> Hi. >> Okay. Um. [clears throat] All right. It's uh we can do one more I
think one more easy one um which is let's talk about the possible dates for commissioners to take the solar sighting training. Um, so, uh, uh, we had an inquiry from one of the commissioners at a previous meeting
about having our town attorney conduct a, um, a solar sighting training for conservation commission members and it was also opened up to the zoning board of appeals. Um, in March, uh, the town
attorney is willing to put on a training. Um we don't necessarily need to pin down a date per se right at this moment, but um maybe if while we're meeting this evening, folks could look at their calendars and see if there's
any dates that stand out for them as being um feasible for a presentation. Um and yeah, I'm just trying to get a sense. I can also do a doodle poll, but I wanted to see if there was any dates, for example, folks weren't available or
dates that people that worked better for people. >> Keeping in mind that March 11th is a meeting for of the commission. >> Yep. The 11th and the 25th. Yep. >> Is this during the day or in the
evening? >> Um, that's a great question. Um, it's going to be well I don't I don't necessarily have a preference one way or the other. I think previously it was done as an evening meeting uh for this zoning board
if I'm not mistaken. Um, but if commissioners are available during the day, that's an option or early evening or evening >> and approximately how long does it take? >> Um, I imagine it'll be a couple hours. >> Okay.
Evening would be preferable for me because March is pretty busy. >> Okay. Um it does seem like we'll need to do a poll, but let's try some evenings and then um add a couple of daytime ones in there to see what we get.
>> Is >> Andre? >> Yeah. Uh is there any um is there any school vacation during that time that uh we might need to uh be aware of or take into account?
>> There's a string of half days um March 11, 12, and 13th. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> Jason. Otherwise, I'm pretty open. >> Okay, Jason. >> Yeah, I was just gonna say this. I'm
pretty open, but it would most it would have to be evening for me just because of working during the day. >> Okay, Sarah. >> Yeah, [clears throat] I'd really like to attend and if it's going to be during the day, Fridays are the only day that I
>> Okay, so maybe Erin, take that what the information you have now, do a poll around that eliminates the ones that are not good. See what we get and we'll we'll pick a time. >> Okay. >> Okay. It Yeah, go ahead. All right. So, it is 7:16. Let's go back
to the hearings. And we're hearing number one. This is a notice of intent. Stonefield Engineering and Design on behalf of Amir Mitchi and of Fort River LLC for the proposed construction of a mixeduse structure,
housing, and commercial with proposed parking, storm water, and associated site work and landscaping at 126, 140, and 148 Southeast Street. and 43 Belturetown Road Map 15C lot 78 9 and
48. So this has been on our docket before and we want to uh we've it's been it's clear that a continuence is needed for this but at the same time we wanted to if there are the applicants are here and
would like to speak. I'd like to give them five minutes just to describe their their perspective about where we are and then we'll hear from Aaron. you've all of us have had a chance to read her her report so we know in in a fair amount of
detail kind of where we are but let's hear it verbally and then also see if there are any um public comments. So if there are if the people who if there's someone here uh who wants to speak on behalf of the applicant or the
applicant themselves if they could raise their hands so that Aaron can bring them in. Yes, we're here. Josh Klein, Stonefield Engineering and Design. >> All right, Josh. >> Okay, >> thank you. Um, so I think, you know, we
understand we're we're on a time limit. So, I think our really our goal tonight is to get some some feedback from the commission on the application. And you know, I think the big highlight of our of the last meeting was Aaron kind of went through four questions to this commission, you know, speaking to the
application and kind of um the commission's, you know, comfortability to allow the application to move forward. So, I kind of wanted to highlight at least three of them that I think we're looking for feedback, you know, from. So, there was the discussion of no significant adverse impact on the
resource area. will the application will it not harm the resource area and the values protected by the by the bylaw and then or the resource area values documented as severely degraded. So I think what we're looking for is and we
did you know at the first meeting get a tiny bit of feedback um but is is some feedback from this commission on on kind of what are their major concerns or what are they looking for that might help them you know get a little bit more comfortable in reviewing the application
and I think you know Aeron's report I don't know if the staff report is different than Aaron the the comments you sent us but I think you know you did touch on some of those items from your perspective which was helpful. Um, so that's really what we're here for tonight is kind of to give the commission a chance to provide some
direct kind of comments and feedback, you know, on the application, um, you know, for us to include in our resubmission. So, you know, our intent is to kind of make updates and provide supporting documentation to resubmit for the commission to review at the next meeting.
>> Okay. Erin, can you uh point us to the things in your report that are specifically uh that Josh is asking for most more specifically?
>> Um well, I think um I it's hard for me to tease apart the more important parts of my um memo. I mean, I think there was a number of things that um
for me were uh pieces of information that would be important. Um one of them is uh the site on the Belchtown roadside um was um prior to 1970 owned by Texico. I know
it's been in a sort of auto salvage um uh business use for decades now. And um for a time there was no pavement on the site. At some point in time it was paved. Um and I
am curious about whether any soil testing andor groundwater evaluation has been done to determine if there's any presence of um materials in the soil that would need to be remediated. Um that's sort of one question. Um there
was also a soils report that indicated that um the site had >> um soil issues for infiltration and I think uh the the proposed system um doesn't [clears throat] really seem to be consistent with the recommendations
in the soil report or the conclusions in the soil report. Um and having met with DPW, um the town engineer as well as the um environmental scientists at DPW were
all sort of feeling like a um third party peer review of the engineering would be necessary. Um >> there's also comments from Rachel who couldn't be here tonight and her comment was that we should have um a hydraologist look at the site. We had a couple public comments that came in um
which are in the public packet um which indicate that there are flooding issues on some properties that neighbor Colonial Village um ground one groundwater issue where water's coming into someone's basement and another where there's um [clears throat] uh observed flood waters in their on their
property. So, >> okay. >> Um, those are sort of the the top tier items, but there was a number of issues in the in the um >> report. >> Okay. >> And I I know we um you know, through through Bruce, we have a limited amount
of time. So, I my hope would not be to, you know, kind of go to talk about, you know, we haven't had a chance to address the comments we got from Aaron. We're really here tonight. We have a limited amount of time. you know, we want to give the commission an opportunity if they have comments or feedback or concerns with the application
>> and and we're going to do that. >> Yeah. And just to clarify, I think Erin Rachel's email was a reference to a public comment that was made from someone that's lives at the address of 43 on 43 Bletcher Road, but I haven't
received a copy of that public comment. So, that wasn't Rachel's comment that a hydraologist um it was, you know, she made comment that there was a public comment that referenced it. I haven't seen that. I did receive the two public comments that were uploaded today. So, I just don't want that. >> Okay. Well, let's
>> that's that's the public comment. The I think it was 97 Belchtown Road. Um >> right. >> That's that's >> they didn't use that terminology in their public comment. >> All right. Well, let's let's sort that out offline. Um my understanding of Rachel's suggestion is about a
hydraologist. that was not the public comment suggestion. So, um let's would encourage you to look at Rachel's the detail of her the detail of Erin's um multifaceted report, but let's see if
any of the other um commissioners have a comment or a question, a quick question that you could answer in the vein of in the spirit of trying to give the applicant um some guidance on the the top tier issues that we're concerned about.
All right. Uh, let's see, Tina. >> Um, yeah, I think when I look at this application as a new commission member, I read the town bylaw side by side and the 20% number jumps out at me and I think it would be helpful for me to know
what's been the norm on the commission side for allowing over that 20%. And then my second thought there is, is it possible in these cases to turn the parking lot into something that is permeable? Does that further satisfy the
bylaw? >> Okay. Uh Erin, can you quickly address this the 20% the history of the 20% and just give Tina some guidance? Um, again, things we all need to research a little more offline, but just so she sees the
path and it helps Josh to see it, too. >> Yes. So, as far as the 20%, I think the the biggest project that we've permitted over 20% has been 13% over. So, it would have been >> 33
>> 33%. Um, and that would have been, I believe, the 47 Olympia Drive project. Um and there was a pretty substantial um inli they they um
uh mitigated basically every square inch of buffer zone that wasn't building space. Um and their park they didn't have parking on site because their parking lot was was offsite outside of resource area. But that was the largest
one that has been permitted um since that bylaw came into effect to my knowledge. That's that's useful. >> There have been other No, >> sorry. >> There have been other projects, but they've they've mitigated on site. So, that's the largest one. It was mitigated
on-site with the addition of offsite in >> Luffy. Uh Jason, >> yeah, I just want to comment that I I'm fully in agreement that hydraologist needs to look at this site with the high
groundwater table. Um also I as far as I my thoughts regarding the 20% and potential waiver. I understand that there is some I'll
call it mitigation or planting of plants where currently it's parking lot but um the whole that whole Belchuretown property road is just being used as parking lot and then uh underground detention
um and most of that is is in the buffer zone. So, I just have I have an issue with us potentially setting precedent for parking. It's not livable space. Like, it's not commercial. It's not
livable. It's just a parking lot. >> And to have a a very large um exceedence of the 20% rule for parking really doesn't sit well with me. Um, if
it were a building, if it were livable space, I would be far more open to it. Um, that's not to say that I'm necessarily I'm not saying that I am not open to it now, but I have very big
reservations about such a large exceedence for just parking. [clears throat] >> Okay. Let me just note on the parking question and then I'll go to Andre, but in the uh in Aerin's report, there's a section that talks about discussions
with the planning department having to do with options available to reduce the amount of parking. And there were several options that she listed in her her memo. So um that's something that I assume that um the applicant has seen and if not maybe Erin be sure they do
see that particular part section K of the um has to do with options for fewer parking places and the it relates to the permeability side of this question. So Andre
>> uh thank you. Um, you know, I uh my suggestion is to uh Josh for you to take a good hard look at the conservation agent report and um
and consider those uh the suggestions uh there. Um, I'll also [snorts] say that uh I think we're we're kind of at a lack of uh information where we we we really do need some hydra some hydraology uh
uh study as well as um uh I' I'd like to find out or hear a little bit more about how these uh uh how the uh the we're going to get that water to go down below the surface. surface um because it does it doesn't
look like uh your what you're proposing is is is going to be working very well. So uh you know if you can address uh those issues as uh as you go uh as we move forward um I think we'll have a lot
better uh chance to give you um give you uh more meaningful suggestions uh on how uh on what how you can proceed. >> Any other conservation commission
um comments? I I skipped over what I should have done was to ask the public first and I didn't do that. So now we'll see if there's any public comment um on this question on this particular hearing. I don't see anyone putting their hand up
for that. >> Carol, you you want to weigh in here? Well, just um I see Erin's comment about uh storm water filtration and needing more information on it and also that
there's no budget uh amount given for that. So, it just sounds like we need more information there. >> Okay. All right. Um any other last thoughts before I seek a motion? Yeah, I mean I think I think getting a a
third party peer review of the storm water would be beneficial for the commission. I know it was noted in the in the DBW. So is that something that, you know, the commission would need to, you know, vote to allow Aaron to kind of get the proposals and get moving? Obviously a peer review, you know, takes
time. So that would be something we would like to, you know, kind of get started with. >> That's a it's a good question. What's the process, Aaron? Well, um we we certainly could consider that tonight. Consider um
hiring an outside consultant under chapter 44 section 53G. Um I guess from where I sit um I think there might well I I guess it comes down to the applicant. Um, you know, there there's a number of comments that align
between between conservation and the Department of Public Works, and a lot of that comes down to reducing parking. Um, and so if you're going to be changing your design, my preference would be for us to change the design before we have a
consultant look at it. I'd rather not hire a consultant and have the plan change drastically in the course of review because I think that's going to take more of the commission's time and um going through multiple iterations of revisions. I'd rather sort of get closer in terms of a a plan the commission is
comfortable with um and would be more um willing to consider approval of. And if we could if we could get a plan that that the commission felt a little more comfortable with like maybe reducing some of the pvious surface within the buffer zone, maybe a little more
mitigation, those types of things, I think then having somebody look at it at that point and kind of do a final check of it with suggestions would be great. Um, but we can go either route. It's just a matter of how much time and money is spent on a peer reviewer.
>> Yeah, I I would agree. We wouldn't want the peer reviewer to review anything before a submission, but we just would want to make sure, I guess, the right people are empowered to get the the proposal and be able to start the process because we wouldn't want to then have to go to the commission, then, you
know, get whoever needs to be authorized to request it, have to wait another two weeks to get the proposals back, and then, you know, unfortunately, some peer reviewers can take, you know, 6 to 12 weeks and then wait an additional, you know, 6 to 12 weeks. Well, usually a peer reviewer wants to see the plan they're reviewing when they give you a a
quote. Um, so typically like when you're seeking quotes, they'll say, "Let me look at the application before I provide the [gasps] the quote to you of how much the estimate of how much it's going to be to review it." So, um, [clears throat] but again, I'm happy to start the process and and get that going and
explain to them sort of where we're at. Um, and share with them where we are, but say that the plans could change significantly from what we're seeing right now. Um, so if you're comfortable with that, I'm I'm willing to to move forward. >> Part of Josh's question, Erin, I think
was, does it need a formal vote of this commission for you to start the process? >> Yes, it would. >> Okay. So, can you tell us the precise language of such a motion? >> Um, so it's a little um difficult to do
on the fly, but it would basically I'll come back in a second. >> Sure. Go ahead. Oh, you're gonna type while Sarah talks. That's a good idea, Sarah. >> Oh, I just have a really quick question. Who pays for the peer review? >> The applicant.
>> Okay. >> But the applicant basically what happens is the the town um seeks a a quote or quotes from vendors, selects a vendor, and then the um applicant provides a check to the town. The town sets up a
contract with said vendor. Um, the vendor works for the town and the town pays the vendor with the funds. Um, so they're not working for the vendor, they're working for the town of Ammerst. Yeah, >> maybe. That's fine. I just just wanted to be sure because it
>> No, this is these are good because um I can remember having questions like that when I was [laughter] early in my tenure and I didn't raise my hand and ask them. So, thank you for for doing that. Um, it's this is a big learning curve and
thank you. Okay. So, um Erin's typing a motion. I can see it. Tap tap. Um and then we're going to see it and then we'll seek a motion. There actually two motions here. One for the vendor and one for the continuation.
So, just for my clarification, um, as I'm drafting this motion, um, is this for strictly for, um, uh, storm water peerreview or do you want to have a hydraologist look at the information as well for, um,
>> groundwater? >> Uh, I would like, uh, I would like there to be a vote for each. >> Okay, Josh, a clarification. Yeah, I would just like to confirm, I guess, Erin, with the hydraologists what the the scope of work they'd be looking
at and and maybe if there's other applications this commission has requested that for. It's not a typical professional that's requested. You know, we we are subject to a storm water permit. Um, typically this is done by a qualified engineer and a peer reviewer.
So, I just want to understand, I guess, what they'd be looking at and maybe what sections of, you know, the commission's perview, I guess, they would be reviewing. Um, you know, a storm water peerreview I think is very um relatable.
I just that would be the only thing on that side of things. >> Yeah. So, um the the suggestion for hydraologist was only made this evening to me. So, I have not been able to fully prepare a scope
of work for a hydraologist. Um, this is kind of on the fly. Um, I think the concern that was raised by Rachel, um, who's a conservation commission member who couldn't be here tonight was relative to, um, looking at groundwater
and, um, uh, I know there was a suggestion made by an abutter to to install a groundwater monitoring well for during construction and after construction to see the the depth of um, of groundwater. I think the concern from Rachel was movement of groundwater and how
construction of a project can change how groundwater moves and how it impacts others. So um to be completely honest with you I I don't have a scope of work worked out but those are sort of the details that had been discussed by others members of the public and the um
the other commissioner who made the suggestion. Um, so I think it might be some combination of evaluating groundwater levels maybe on and in the immediate vicinity of the site um to try to assess how the proposed project might
impact groundwater andor if there's any mitigation strategies. Um, I don't know if you guys have done any evaluation of groundwater at all relative to the site to try to see since there's high groundwater here, um, what the impacts
might be of the proposed project that that that said hydraologist could look at or if you know if there's information beyond what's been submitted to us, I guess, is what I'm getting at. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we we we did prepare geotechnical report. I guess I would say I'm
uncomfortable with the idea of of voting on that without further information. I I think it might be something that maybe we would want to discuss with you on what the scope of work is and and what they're looking at. It does feel like it would be putting a a little bit of an unfair burden on this this applicant. Um
>> and in in fairness to Rachel, she's not here to describe her suggestion either. So, >> um let's see. I guess I think it's I think Sarah has her hand up and I don't I think Josh and Erin just have their
little things going. Sarah. >> Yeah. I just was trying to sort of um sort of reiterate a little bit what uh Erin was saying that I I mean I don't
I'm not I'm not totally familiar with with the process, but it it does seem like it it um is worth being sure about what we're moving forward with before we have a peer review. um especially since
I reviewed the you know last meeting and there it wasn't clear that the commission was comfortable moving forward with the waiverss that are being requested which might mean that in order for the plan to go forward it would need to be changed. So it seems like it might
be a little I'm just reiterating what I heard Aaron say might be a little early to be uh starting with a peer review before we're absolutely sure what we're reviewing. Is that not right? >> Yeah, I don't I don't disagree. I guess
the other the other piece is, you know, the commission the commission does not have to act or not act tonight based on the applicant. So, for example, if the commission felt like it was important for us to take this vote tonight, they could take that vote whether it's for
storm water or hydrarology. if they want to hold off and wait until February 11th when there's a revision available, the commission can do that, too. We we don't have to act tonight. Um it's it's really completely at your discretion.
>> Okay. So, let's let's look at the motion you wrote for storm water. I propose we set the hydrarology question aside until the the February meeting. allow Rachel a chance to to get be part of the discussion and let's see what we get in
terms of people's view on this question of of at least starting the process. >> Uh it's kind of in draft. I'm still drafting it to be honest with you. >> That's all right. Well, >> we can continue to to work on this. I
mean, I think it's just moved to hire a third party peer reviewer under chapter 4, section 53G to conduct a third party review of the uh >> storm water >> of the storm water. I mean, I think this is where the details matter because what
are we having them review? We're having them review the storm water management plan, which we haven't even received all of the pieces of the storm water management plan yet. [laughter] >> Well, how about a review of a future storm water management plan? Okay, let's see what Jason and Andre
think we should do in this situation. >> Um, I would I I would I would tend to air on the side of do well or I'll ask the question. We need to can we just make a motion to
allow them to start the process of at at the very least going out for bid or putting bids together knowing that the plans aren't >> we don't know what they're going to like to tell them to actually review >> as far as like there's nothing really to review right now.
>> Yeah. >> Is that a true statement? >> So the applicant doesn't put the bid out. It would be the town doing that. Um so just to make that clear to everyone. Um, and um, yeah, I for me as staff, I'd feel more
comfortable if I could put together a more comprehensive scope for the services that we're seeking. Um, if you'd like to authorize me to put together a scope of work for that, I'd be more than happy to do that. Um, I could even start soliciting quotes on
your behalf and then I could share those quotes with you at an upcoming meeting, share the the scope of services with you at an upcoming meeting and then at that point you could vote to authorize me to hire one of the consultants. Um, that's a possibility. >> Do we need a motion to do that or just a
a sense of the meeting? Uh >> um I think you could make a motion to authorize staff to um construct a scope of work for both >> okay >> storm water and hydrarology peerre
um and to seek out quotes prior to the next meeting and then I can um [snorts] >> we have them ready for you to make a motion to to authorize the peer review. >> Andre and then Sarah and I want to bring this to closure. So Andre,
>> yeah, I'll pass. Thank you. >> Okay, Sarah, >> I just want to sorry, but make absolutely sure these quotes that you're seeking are quotes that have no plan attached to them or they would have the current plan attached to them subject to
possible change. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay, >> Carol, >> um, you mentioned about new new members and I'm one. I didn't come into this knowing a lot about storm water and um
I' I'd sure like more information and and I'm going to put a a plug in for the fact that the MACC does have courses such as one in storm water requirements for wetland protection. And I think
that's a, you know, a good reason why people like me could really benefit from courses like that. >> Okay, fair enough. So, I want to have a motion to to see
whether we are going to vote to enable Aaron to move forward in the way she described. Um, Jason is >> Go ahead. >> I'm preparing I'm preparing to make a motion. Ah, very good. Please do.
>> I would like to move that we allow Aaron to put a scope of work together and to begin soliciting bids for review of future storm water plans as well as hydraology and hydraulics on site
so that we're able to vote on this at the next meeting or when ready. I'll second that. >> Okay. Um, we have Jason on a motion that he has
described and which has been recorded and um, Andre with a second. Is there any uh, reason not just go ahead and vote and then we'll see. So Sarah, >> it sorry, but it's my understanding that
you're not actually putting they're not being I thought there would I'm still confused. I'm sorry. I thought that >> it's working out. >> What Aaron said she would do. She needed the plans to attach to put it out to bid. Jason, your motion is just to draft
something that has no plan attached so it'll be ready to So we'll vote again next time once the plans are final. Is that correct? We're sort of doing a pre-authorization as it were. >> My intention is that she starts the process, she puts the scope together. I
think Aaron probably has a good idea roughly of what the scope is going to be and that she can then once she receives the plans, she can take those plans and she can attach them to the scope and send it out to any potential biders as a
bid package. She doesn't have to wait for the next meeting then for us to vote to authorize that. giving her the ability to start the process. >> Once all the plans are in, she can just shoot them off and doesn't need anything from us. >> Yep. Fair enough.
>> Got it. Thank you. Sarah, >> do you want to hold your vote or [laughter] >> Okay, Carol. >> Yes. >> Andre, >> hi. >> Tina, >> hi. >> And I am an I. Checking.
>> I'm an I as well, Bruce. >> Oh, and Jason. Sorry. >> Hi. So, um I let's I just Jos is your hand up again or still >> it's it's it's up again. I I think um >> just very briefly because we want to may do the continuence now.
>> No, I understand. Aaron, maybe we can set up a meeting. I I just think it's appropriate that the scope be reviewed with the applicant as well. Um, you know, usually we would see the the scope be approved by the commission so we'd be able to hear it, but we can set up a a meeting this week or next week to
discuss. >> Yeah, I don't agree. That's that that's not uh you you don't get to control this the scope of that. Uh, Josh, um, >> I think we're we're able to to hear it though and the commission votes on the
scope of work. Uh, no, I don't believe so. >> Can help us with this distinction. >> So, I the commission wouldn't actually authorize the peer review to move forward until they had votes to that
were presented before them. Um, so I I would draft the scope. Um, I'm happy to share the scope with the applicant. Um if there's an objection to the scope then we can stop the process and come to the commission meeting next time around.
Um there you know they could also say if they don't want to proceed they're welcome to withdraw. Um that's another option. Um it's you know there I think there's multiple sort of >> steps in the process where we can work
together to try to move it along. So I Andre seems to be agreeing with that. Um Josh and Aaron will get together offline and work on the next small incremental steps with the understanding that anything significant is going to come back to us for a
further vote. Now, I would like to hear a motion to continue the public hearing for D number 0890765 to February 11th, 2:25 at 7:15 p.m.
>> So moved. >> Andre with a motion. >> I'll second motion. >> Jason with a second. >> Uh Sarah, >> hi. >> Carol, I >> Tina. >> Hi, >> Jason. I
>> Andre >> I >> and I'm an I. Okay. Thank you Josh. >> Appreciate your help. Okay. >> Okay. It is 7:49 and we're moving on to hearing number two. a notice of intent with Goddard
Consulting LLC on behalf of Roxana and Dakota Freeman for the proposed construction of a new single family home with associated shed, utilities, driveway, and associated mitigation within the buffer zone of bordering and isolated vegetative vegetated wetland at
750 West Street, map 222B, lot one. And let's see, is there anyone in the public who representing the applicant or the applicant themselves who wishes to speak? And
if not, then we'll see if there's anything else we should discuss before we have a motion. >> Mark Rubin from Goddard is here. >> Okay. Yeah. Hello. >> All right.
All right. Um yeah, thank you very much. >> Okay, welcome. >> So, um so for uh compared to last time, um so we don't have any new proposed changes. Um you know, I understand that the commission wants to wait until the spring to approve the wetland boundary
for um you know, before and we uh uh discuss approving the project. Um, so we're happy to wait until the spring. Um, you know, I would and uh, you know, do a sitewalk to confirm the wetland boundary. Then, um, you would also like to invite the commission to join us on
that in addition to Aaron. I think, you know, seeing the sites, you know, I mean, we did have an earlier sitewalk where I believe it was Carol and Tina were there. Um, but, you know, we didn't really go beyond the limit of work. So, I think it would be helpful if the commission was able to join us for that
and were able to see the see the site. It might help further discussion. Um, but as far as today goes, I was hoping to just get some, you know, additional feedback and, you know, clarification from the commission about any kind of uh concerns they have about the project
beyond just the uh confirming the boundaries. Um, so if I can just share my screen and, you know, just kind of give a, you know, give a brief summary of the project, you know, just to, you know, make sure everyone uh, >> yeah,
>> on the same page. >> Yeah. In this case, I think pretty brief because we've been we've seen it several times. So, >> yeah, I'll keep it I'll keep >> it's helpful to go back over it. I'm not saying that. >> Yeah. Um, you see my screen. Okay. Here.
>> I see. Uh yeah. Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Uh perfect. So um so yeah, so as you know remember I'm sure um we have you know this existing well we have this existing gravel road here um that's within a cleared area
here. Um and we are you know still proposing to extend the gravel driveway just a small bit to add a parking area. Um, we, you know, proposing the house right here within the existing clearing as well as
a shed. Um, you know, all the utilities, you know, with the exception of this area here that's between the road and the house, we're trying to tuck the utilities underneath the roadway, the existing driveway. I mean, um, as much as possible. You know, we would require
a small amount of cutting here. just, you know, the client, the applicant wants to avoid that, but I, you know, we just don't see any other way to connect the utilities to the existing sewer line that's here. Um, so that's kind of necessary, but it would be replanted afterwards. Um, and then all these
shaded areas here, you would be uh replanted. So in total um we have I have the numbers here about um so the permanent proposed impact that we're um that would be involved is only
about 2,690 square ft. Um the total mitigation with the form of plantings that we're offering is 33,756 square feet. So that's ratio of 12 and a half to1. Um, and you know, one thing
that I was hoping to get some clarification on is, um, you last time we met, the commission gave that tenative vote, um, about the about whether they'd consider granting a waiver for the 50 foot um, BBW buffer
and the 100 foot IBW buffer impact. Um, and based off of uh the commission's feedback there, Aaron suggested potentially moving the house from this area here to this cleared area
here. Um, and my my concern with that is, you know, if we kept the house the same size that it is and included a shed as the applicant would like, um, we would have to clear some additional trees here, which, you know, I know would not I know the applicant does not
want and I don't think that would be in the best interest of um of the uh the bylaw or the wetlands protection act. Um, you know, I think we would much rather keep the house here within this area that's already cleared. Um,
particularly since, you know, these two isolated wetlands here are fairly subtle. Um, [clears throat] especially this one here, the bigger one G. um you know they really kind of barely function as
wetlands I'd say where as compared to this BBW here is is very much a wetland and very much serves the functions that um that are s that the wetlands protection act seeks to protect. Um, so I would be more comfortable, especially since we don't need to cut trees, I
would definitely be more comfortable leaving the house here and, you know, avoiding any cutting of trees and keeping it farther from wetlands in general. >> Okay. Um, Erin, does
is Josh does he need to take himself out of the meeting and going back to the public or are you doing that because he's there at least? >> Um, yeah. I unfortunately there's not
really a great way for us to remove participants. They >> I don't I'm asking what's the the mechanical >> if I remove him, he'll be removed entirely from the >> I don't want that. So, >> yeah, >> Josh, if if you're hearing me, if you could go back to the the public group,
that would be helpful. So, let's um go back to the map. Can you put the map up again, please? >> Yep. So Erin's report had a fair number of comments and as um Mark has noted, these
are things that they're working on and there's relatively little we can do until we get the delineation worked out in the spring. Um it's it's helpful to see the map again. I haven't been there so and I know a number of people have not. So, I think there'll be a
commitment to go on the site visit as many of us as can make it when that happens. Uh, let's see if there's any um anything that you want to highlight um Aaron before we ask you for public comment.
Well, I mean, I Okay, so just going back in history on this, um, when I initially was made aware of this project, um, I did meet with the owners and expressed concern about potent the
potential developability of this lot. Um, sort of expressing that it's very marginal and difficult to develop. Um, so you know that I have sort of led with that and and when I met with Goddard initially that was another thing that I
led with. I think that my from my perspective as your staff my goal is always to reduce impacts to wetlands that are protected under our bylaw and under wetland protection act. um just by virtue of the length of this driveway,
the length of disturbance that's being created, the linear disturbance that's bicting this whole wetland system, and the number of square feet of disturbance within this buffer zone to create this very, very private home set back way
deep in the property. I I think pulling it closer to the roadway, remediating or mitigating the the impacts that have already been created by the driveway is going to be
much less of an impact under our bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act than what is proposed before you. Um I I heard the commission loud and clear that they weren't willing to consider a
waiver of the isolated wetland um uh setbacks and that was what my recom those those are the um professional elements that >> directed my guidance to the applicant here.
>> Okay. Uh let's see if there's any member of the public that would like to comment on this. I don't see any hands for that. So uh commissioner comments >> Carol.
Um, so I did go to the site and along with Tina and um know what Darren's talking about with this long driveway. Um, I'm I'm aware that the owners are very
concerned about trees, but our regulations that we're here to look at are wetlands, not so much trees. So I I I think the idea of oh well we don't want to take more trees down therefore we don't want to change society of the home is is not
very convincing to me. >> Okay. Um I have a just a a hypothetical question um because I haven't been there and I I just looking at the map. My question is
why is there an a if if the issue is to get the um sewer connected with a major sewer line and the sewer line goes under the driveway, why can't you simply have the sewer line go under the driveway and
connect under the driveway? Now I from an engineering point of view it entirely possible that I'm totally wrong and it's a crazy idea but I I offer it as something to consider. Um but that doesn't negate um the other comments that the other commissioners
have had. Uh we welcome Rachel Leler to the meeting. Welcome. Um could I uh could I respond to those comments before uh before we move on to >> very quickly because we just we know that this is going to get continued into a chance for a much bigger discussion
later on but go ahead very quickly. >> Yes. Um so like about Erin's concern about the distance. Could I just clarify exactly what you mean by that? Erin, are you referring specifically from for the distance between the end of the existing driveway and the house? Is that what
you're referring to about that? When you're talking about the distance the you're not referring to the existing driveway itself, are you? >> Yeah, I am referring to the existing driveway. So, I'll just I'll just do a little markup. If your if your driveway
comes in and you have a house, let's say a house footprint here and a driveway here, you only have this limited pocket of disturbance that's that's right here within the buffer zone. If we add, if we look at this, we we're adding
I mean, this is existing, but you you've got all this plus you're proposed down here, which could all be eliminated by just putting it closer to the roadway. So, it's a significant amount
more disturbance in the entire buffer zone on the site to put the house way into the lot than it is to just put it close to, you know, closer to the driveway entrance. And then you could mitigate all of this these existing driveway impacts that have already
happened on the site. And I think that that would probably I mean, I think the commission would be more willing to consider that based on their their previous vote. >> Okay. All right, let's just see if there are any other commissioner comments.
>> Um well well the other comment that I was hoping to respond to um yeah Carol mentions you know concern about tree cutting versus um versus like wetland impact specifically. Oh and and uh your comment Bruce about
the sewer line connectivity. Um so you know >> you can in addition >> in addition to uh tree cutting yeah you know this putting a house here would you know cause impact closer to a wetland. Um it would be different wetland but you know overall we would be having closer
impact to wetlands than if we were to place it out here. Um as far as the sewer line goes you know I this is not my areas of expertise but my understanding. So there is an existing um connection option here. Oh, >> and that's you know otherwise I think
we'd be happy to put the you know connected to the sewer line right here and avoid any cutting. Um but that's >> well that may be something for a different department then. >> Okay. So our goal here was to help Mark get additional information and and feedback. Um we're going to have uh se
at least one more major uh take at this in a site visit and a future meeting when we actually can do um much clearer delineation of the different weapons we're talking about. Um any other questions or comments from the
commission members? Then I would like to hear a motion to continue the public hearing for DP number 0890766 to February 11th, 2025 at 7:20 p.m. >> So moved.
>> That's Jason on the is the primary motion. >> Second. [clears throat] >> That was Tina. >> I'm learning the voices. Uh Rachel >> I >> uh Tina >> I
>> Carol >> I >> Sarah >> hi >> Andre >> I >> and Jason >> I >> and I'm an I okay thank you Mark
>> we'll be discussing further in future >> thank you >> okay um we're going to move expedition iously here. So, the next thing on the agenda is other business and it's a request for a certificate of
compliance for 169 Meadow Street and uh Aaron has let uh has told us that the start of this one was before she got here. So, that's a piece of the the puzzle. And her proposal is that we
consider a partial certificate of compliance with the understanding that um the requirements for um particularly monitoring logs would be
continued for uh 3 years uh into the future to and that these logs were not provided um by the requirement in the asked. So, let's see if there's anything that
um Aaron would like us to know that isn't just already on the page here. And then let's see if there are any questions for her by the commissioners based on what you've read there. >> So, um
that was a great intro, Bruce. The permit was permitted prior to my arrival with the town. it was under construction andor completed before I arrived. Um, they requested the company went out of business. They're trying to sell the property. Um, they requested the certificate of compliance, but they
didn't have any documentation that they had ever maintained the storm water system over the last six and a half years. Um, they did submit a moni one monitoring log um for 2024. Um but the order of conditions had
a condition requiring that they have three years of monitoring logs in order to get a certificate of compliance. Um there was a number of issues with compliance on this one. Um there were no monitoring um reports submitted to me
during construction. um uh you know, but the the long and the short of it is they're still on the hook for ongoing conditions and they're still on the hook for some remaining conditions, but they're trying to get the certificate of compliance so that they can transfer the title of the
property. And so to try to meet in the middle, I'm suggesting a partial certificate of compliance um mainly because it's sort of a hardship circumstance. Um so that we still require the operation and maintenance logs for the for the um storm water
system um but that we grant a partial so that they can move forward with their sale. >> Um let's see if any of the commissioners have questions for Aaron and then um in deference to people's health and as my
um offering my gift to you I am going to read this entire thing. So that we can have a motion. >> I have >> All right, let's take let's be serious and take questions now. >> Um, who is responsible for the monitoring once it sells? The new owner
or the people who've been under um, you know, who've owned it, >> the new owner. It would transfer to the new owner, the responsibility. >> So that would go with the title somehow. >> Correct. Yeah. So yeah, it would be
recorded on the deed and then um it would be included on the document that's recorded. >> Okay. >> Are there questions or comments before I read this monster? Bruce, I have a question.
>> Please. Um, Aaron, is this [clears throat] do we know is the does is the new owner required to keep these BMPs in place or I assume they have the option if they're going to come in and demo it and build something
brand new, then that voids all of this. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So, if that happens, they would need to file a new notice of intent because they're partially within Riverfront and there's also BVW issues here. So, there'd be some buffer zone. Um they also have a a mitigation area
that was associated with this which there is when when a mitigation area is constructed as you guys all know it's in perpetuity. Um so there there are some limitations but yeah they'd have to come back with a new notice of intent and this at that point would need to be cleared. So if there was a new notice of
intent we would probably clear out the old order of conditions once a new project was constructed. And do they does the new is there already a buyer lined up and do they if so do they understand all of their
requirements under this? >> Right. That's a great question. Um so my understanding is that there is a buyer lined up and they know who's going to be responsible for this going into the future. That that name was provided to me. Um and it is it is in in the motion
the last line is that the um order applies to every successor with interest in the property. So it will automatically transfer to the new owner when it falls under new ownership. >> But you're going to record it before the
transfer, right? Before the [clears throat] >> correct. Yep. >> Other questions, comments before we have a motion. Okay. >> All right. >> Bear with me. >> I'll read it if you want.
>> Sure. Get an offer like that. >> I I move to issue a partial certificate of compliance for D number 089-0619 with the following ongoing conditions. WPA condition 19 C and G. Note, first
ON&M log was first submitted and filled out in 2024. Three years of maintenance logs required for complete certification. WPA special conditions. No inspection reports were submitted per SC number 16. It is noted that the
restoration mitigation area on the site shall be maintained without alteration in perpetuity. SC number 18 ongoing maintenance of storm water BMPs per O andM log required in perpetuity. SC number 28 owner remains responsible for
ongoing operation and maintenance and still must identify for the commission in writing which party will be responsible. SC number 29 proper disposal of sediment clean from storm water structures is required. SC number 30 owner has responsibility for ongoing
maintenance and repair of all storm water and drainage systems on site. SC number 32, dumping is prohibited in wetlands and streams. SC number 33, additional alteration prohibited without approval. TOA special condition number
15, order applies to every successor with interest in the property. >> And with that is the all-time record for the longest motion almost certainly. [clears throat] Do we have a second?
I second it without having to repeat it. >> No, you don't have to read it again. [laughter] All right. Uh, Carol, >> I >> Rachel, >> I have to abstain. >> Okay. Um, Andre
>> I, >> uh, let's see. Tina, >> I >> um Jason already No, you need to vote. That's right. Go ahead. And did I miss anybody?
>> I guess not. And I'm an I. So, thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is are two requests for minor administrative changes to orders of conditions. The and when to make it clear, these are
projects where the applicant is the town. One is Sweet Alice bog bridging and temporary timber mat crossing. And I think um we'd like to try to have a motion to do both of them. So let Erin, if you
could show the pictures very quickly so people know what it is that's being requested visually, I think that would help. >> Yes, bear with me. I will pull those up. Um I see Dave on. He might give a quick
um he might want to present This Sorry, lots of screens. Here we go. [clears throat] >> I'm happy to follow your your lead on this if you want. >> Sure. Okay. So, um this is an area
beside um Plumbrook Pond. Um you can see the pond in the side. Um the commission issued an order of conditions for a um this bog bridge which is currently in existence. Um the problem that we are encountering is this is a vehicle access
for both maintenance of the trail system. Um that might be um a tractor needs to get through here. A pickup truck um a mower and um it's it's basically like a sort of it looks like a water bar, but basically there's a wetland on the left hand side and then
the ponds on the right hand side and there is a um a channel that moves through it and water flows intermittently um across this path. Um it it has caused vehicle access has caused ruting. You can actually sort of
see the rut on the left hand side in the leaves um from a vehicle attempting to get through here and it's just damaging the wetland causing vehicle access over it. We have gone through a lot of discussions of what to do here.
Um and it's just it's such a small area that we don't really think construction of like a vehicle maintenance bridge is like a permanent one is really necessary. So, the town does have some of these temporary um timber mats which
um are available and our thinking was to put the timber mats across here. Again, no ground disturbance, no digging. It's basically laying them down and putting some decking across with a small um gravel approach on
either side um so that a vehicle can go over this um drainage without damaging it, compacting it, causing ruting in the in the adjacent wetland. Um so that is one
of the pieces and then the other piece is just as time is going by and this trail is becoming more popular um there are areas of the trail that are becoming um damaged from from foot traffic. Um
and uh this map just shows the um locations of proposed um so in pink here you can see this is the loop trail. The Kestrel headquarters is located here. The little bridge we were just looking at is here. Um and so these locations
here in pink and right here. And we just recently installed the the bog bridging or the um boardwalk. Um so this is basically on a trail that leads to that. Um, and it's just very simple bog bridging, putting down a couple um,
timbers uh, side by side to create a um, a stable surface for people who are walking on the trail. Um, overall, I think that, you know, we're we're trying to solve problems with these. Um, they're intended to be sort of temporary
temporary, not any digging or permanent alteration happening as a result of their install. Um, so that's that's the proposal. >> This this is in cooperation with Kestrel, even though this is the town's trail. Um, >> correct. They're helping us with paying
for the construction of these items. Yep. >> Okay. Any questions about this one? Okay. And then the second one is the Hickory Ridge Pump House. Yes. >> And there's pictures for that, too.
Yes. And um Becky Bud from um Connecticut River Conservancy is here. Is it okay if I pull her in so she can talk about that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> And I can pull up the figure while she's joining. >> Just to reiterate how appreciative the
town is of being able to work with nonprofits on various projects like Hickory Ridge, Sweet Alice, there a number of others. Um, but this is how we get work done beyond what we could do just by ourselves. >> Maybe I could do a a quick intro to
this. >> Please do. >> So, I I think Erin, you probably included some images, but um so the pump house at at Hickory Ridge is one of the last kind of vestigages of of the golf operation there. Uh the the this pump
station was for the irrigation system which sent water all throughout the 150 acres to the 18hole golf course and it happens to be right on the banks of the Fort River. I think some of you are familiar with it. It's pretty subtle. Most people don't even know it's there,
but it's a fairly small structure illustrated in this uh image that Aaron has shown. Uh there's electrical connections and then there's uh um a decent sized pipe that goes down to the uh to the Fort River which extracted water and then was sent out through the
system. Our simple goal here is to remove all of this built structure in one fell swoop in one one initiative and then restore the area both where the pump house is and also restore the bank uh where you can see uh the bank has
kind of blown out where that water was extracted from the fort river. So, it's both to remove permanently remove the structure and then repair the damage done over time from the pumping activity. And I'm sure Becky and or
Aaron have things to add. >> Yeah, Becky, anything to add? I don't have that much to add, but I am um pleased to say that we have been granted a cooperative agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service um which
will offer funding for this project and I've been >> marvelous. >> What's that? >> Marvelous. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So, we're still working. We've we've had um a member of SMCO team look at it and give us some insight into like
costs and that's how we developed the application and I think um pending permitting it's it's all you know moving forward very nicely. So thanks for considering >> Sure. Um has the grant been awarded and
has it flowed? >> It has. >> Amazing. >> I know. >> Okay. All right. Any questions for any of the presenters here by the commission members? >> I've got a question. Um >> yeah, Andre
>> just uh wondering what uh what program uh just out of personal curiosity uh the Fish and Wildlife Service uh uh granted you the uh uh the funds through? That's an
excellent question. Usually Dave Sean, who's our partner working on the project, is representing the um partners for fish and wildlife program, but he has two hats and I can't remember the other one right now, but I think I think it's the partners program. Aaron, do you
remember if it's different? >> I think it's uh in the past when we've worked with him, we've had like a a cooperative agreement essentially. um and they they've provided the the labor. So in this case it's actually funding.
So I I'm not not quite sure. >> I think he is also going to be you know providing some assistance in addition to the the actual funds but the funds are coming through CRC. So that's how they
can actually give us money instead of just you know inind or labor. Bruce, if I could add, you know, you just put an exclamation point on on collaboration and partners. CRC has been a great partner. US Fish and Wildlife Service. I can't say enough about Dave Sean and his
team, >> you know, um given all that US Fish has been going through over the last many months. We are so happy to have them uh here with us. And frankly, you know, uh, short of the cooperation and collaboration, that pump house might sit
there for many, many years because this is not, I will honestly say it is not high on the capital list for the town of Ammeris to remove that pump house. So, getting it out of there, repairing the the uh the banks of the Fort River, uh, the damage that was done through pumping
over 60 odd years is huge. So, this is a really exciting project and and it does speak to the collaboration and and and sharing costs. US Fish also helped with a number of um covert uh removals,
right, as uh Becky uh hinted at uh downstream of here. So, really excited to get it done in 26. So I'd entertain a motion to approve the minor administrative change for Sweet Alice bog bridging and temporary timber
mat crossing and Hickory Ridge pump house removal and demolition of pump house and restoration and planting within its footprint. Do I have a motion? >> So move >> Andre with the with the motion.
Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Sarah. >> Second. [clears throat] >> Uh Carol. >> Hi. >> Um Tina. >> Hi. >> Andre. >> Hi. >> Uh Rachel.
>> Hi. For the pump house. I have to abstain with sweet Alice because I'm a neighbor. But >> okay. Um and let's see who else. And part of the issue is I can't get all of you on my screen at once. Uh, let's see. Who have I left out? >> Sarah is an I.
>> Sarah and Jason. >> I'm an I. >> And I'm an I. And so for the Hickory Ridge is Rachel abstains. Okay. Um, >> sorry for >> the Kestrel. I have to abstain. I I walk
the trails every day. They're beautiful. >> Yes. And let's that that would be for the Sweet Alice project. Castro lives there, but remember the town owns all the land around it, >> right? >> Just a reminder. >> Well, missions are free to to to abstain
if they feel it's appropriate. Um Dave, can I ask too very quick, not to delay our potential closing of the meeting, but can you comment on the um that large building that is still near the road?
Looks like a storage shed or something as to what its future is. Uh it would be west of the former clubhouse. And secondly, do we have a prospective date for the grand opening? Um, so in terms of buildings, there are
actually three in let's move on from the club from the pump house because that's going to disappear. There are three buildings remaining on the property. One that Bruce referenced on the on the frontage of of um West Palmory Lane. That building is staying for now. Uh
it's a very solid building. It's in really good shape. This town needs extra storage, so we will probably keep that for a while. And then there are two other buildings uh east of there uh Morton buildings. One we hope will come down because it's in very sad shape and
again the other building is likely to stay for storage. Um we will be doing and and certainly the commission will be invited to these meetings. We will be doing some conceptual vis visioning. I think I've mentioned this before about
the frontage the large potentially buildable frontage on Hickory Ridge. Uh, right. There are certainly town members and and community members and committees and boards that would like us to look for alternative uses for where the clubhouse was. >> Sure. Thank you. And do we have a date
for the grand opening? >> We don't have a date yet, but uh I am told that uh uh uh bidding for the bridge uh crossing over the Fort River is going out any day now. And so that's kind of a major piece before we open up
the land. They've got to get that bridge across the Fort River and we need to work with Pure Sky to help them get to the finish line. >> Actually, turn the thing on, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so Erin, is there anything you
want to say about the monitoring reports other than there's a whole mess of them? >> Um, no. But Bruce, we did miss one of the um requests for certificate of compliance for 30 Castro Lane. That's okay. Uh, it wasn't on the
I don't think it's on the the It was on the agenda, but not on the the um >> it's it's hiding um >> slides. >> Yeah, there was there was two requests for certificate of compliance pages. The
169 Meadow Street and then the there was an additional page. >> Well, let's do it because I don't see it. So, let's do it. >> Sure. Sure. Um so um okay this is a um an application that that came in for
a um a small sort of lean to on the side of somebody's house um to store a boat and it was later amended to add a small treehouse in the back of their property. Um
the commission at the time required um planting of um some blueberry bushes uh as a mitigation measure for the initial boat structure and also wanted
the applicant to remove three autumn olive bushes from the middle of the wetland. um and to plant some holly berry bushes in place of the autumn olive trees that were cut.
So the applicant has come today asking for a request for certificate of compliance. Um but they have asked the commission to reconsider one of the conditions on this permit. Um so they they basically don't want to go into the
wetland to remove the autumn olive trees. They um submitted a narrative explanation of why. Um they hired a landscaper to try to do the work and the landscaper was very squeamish about driving into the wetland to cut these down and remove the root systems andor
um they felt uncomfortable doing um uh herbicide treatments uh close to their home um and they have small children and they just felt uncomfortable with it. So, and the other component of this was they were concerned if they got cut that they
would just respout. The wetland itself is full of autumn olive trees and their feeling was what is the removal of these three autumn olive trees really going to benefit? It's going to have more impact than it will benefit. Um, so they I was
out there. They did plant the blueberry bushes. [cough] Excuse me. Um, but the nine winterberry holl were not planted because they were proposed to go where the autumn olive trees were. So, they're basically asking the commission to grant the certificate
of compliance um with uh basically waving this condition that was required by the board as a mitigation measure for the um the little boat storage area and the um playhouse.
as staff. Um I personally am okay with the the the autumn olive trees not coming out. I was a little concerned um honestly when it was initially approved that it was could
have more impact than benefit. Um and I I'm okay with it not going through. So I'm losing my voice. Here it is before you. Um, >> okay. >> If you want to still require the holly
berries somewhere else, that's fine. If you want to excuse me, require complete or partial, that's up to you. >> Okay, let's let's take this away from Erin. Um, are there any comments or
questions from Well, first of all, is the applicant here? No. Okay. Are there any comments or questions from the commissioners about this motion? Which this time I am going to read it. >> I got a uh comment. I think it does make
sense that um that you know if they were to go in there with any kind of machinery or even uh uh manually remove these uh autumn olives. Uh, apparently there's a whole bunch more uh
surrounding the uh the wetland and it it it it doesn't make sense. Now, I would uh hold them to uh the uh plantings that they uh were required to uh to make perhaps not obviously not in the same
exact spot, but I would uh I would like to see those plantings made. >> Any other comments? I guess the one thing I would add is that as an amendment would be the idea that they could go ahead and use uh do
all of the number of plantings but do them all in blueberries. Um that's an option. So I think Andre is agreeing with that in up and down. Okay. So let's see. Going back to reading it again. I got to go.
Sorry I have to find it. I'm sorry. Can I say one more thing before you guys make the motion? >> If you're able. Yes. >> Sorry. Um, you should make a determination as to whether you're willing to grant a complete certification
>> and it sounds like Andre would still like the holly berries planted. So then it would be a partial if that's the case. So partial verse complete in the motion. You may want to change it depending on what you decide on that. Anyone
um in favor of simply going ahead with a a full certification and encouraging them to complete the job on their own or give a partial now and ask them to come back to demonstrate that the uh holly and blueberries have survived for three
years. Any thoughts on that? I'm in favor of granting a complete uh waiver and trusting that they're going >> not a waiver compa certificate or compliance. Yeah, sorry.
>> That they will do what we ask them to do. >> Yeah, Andre, >> I'm in agreement with that too. Uh I don't think that uh we need to occupy uh more more of our time if uh >> okay, >> they seem willing to to do it. Okay. Any
other comments before I read this? Seeing none, I'm going to read. I move to issue a full certification with ongoing conditions for D number 0890708. WPA special condition number seven, no additional buffer zone alteration.
Standard condition number seven, no dumping. Number eight, additional alteration prohibited. Number nine, conditions applied to subsequent owners. The TOA special conditions seven, no additional buffer zone alteration. Standard condition number seven, no
dumping. Number eight, additional alteration prohibited. Number nine, conditions applied to subsequent owners. [snorts] Um, TOA special conditions, number seven, no additional buffer zone alteration. TOA standard conditions post construction number one and number one.
I'm not sure why those that's duplicated. the plantings required by the the uh 20 the sorry February 7, 2024 nine winterbyari and eight blueberries or
uh 17 blueberries or some combination thereof um must be completed and must be at least 50% successful over the next three years. Play structure cannot be used for storage of equipment or gasoline. I have I have moved I I can't make a
motion. So I need as the chair. Do I have a motion? >> Jason with the motion. >> A second. >> That's Rachel. >> That was Rachel, I think. Uh okay. Jason. >> Hi. >> Rachel. >> Hi.
>> Uh Sarah. >> Hi. >> Carol. Carol. >> Hi. >> Oh. And Andre. I >> Tina >> I >> and I'm an I. There we did it. Okay. And
we'll we'll make sure that the motion is revised in the way that I read it. Okay. Um now, do we have any other questions at the end of the agenda? Monitoring reports. Um, I if people have
time to look at the amazingly long list of monitoring reports that Aaron manages and is juggling every week, I I think we should all at least be aware of them. And the other thing I would urge people to do is if you're driving around in
town and you know that there's a particular site, just take a look. Just and that you if you see something, let Aaron know because she can't manage. She can't see them all. there's dozens and dozens of them. So, please help her in that kind of eyes on the on the
situation uh way. Any other last comments? Any other last public comments? Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Move to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> Uh Rachel. Hi >> Sarah. >> Hi >> Tina. >> Hi >> Carol. >> Is Carol there? >> She's muted. >> Yes, she says I >> She says I Okay, Jason.
>> Hi. >> And And Andre, >> hi. >> Thank you to our staff for staying with us this this evening. Um remember, please look Sorry. Are you are you and I >> I am. Therefore, we're technically
adjourned. But I also want to remind you to look at the um rules and regulations for the conservation lands document if you haven't seen it the whole thing or you have you want to re refresh your memory before our meeting two weeks from tonight which is a working session to
try to bring that project to closure. So with that I bid you ado. >> Good night everyone. Night everyone.