Hello and welcome to the Emmeris Conservation Commission meeting. It is June 25th, 2025. Uh the time is 74. We have members present um Andre, Rachel, Bruce, and myself. And missing
is Laura and Alex for the time being. And Jason. Um okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Jason Jason did message me and I believe he's not going to be here. Uh sorry I forgot about that. Okay. Um all right.
So first up chair's report. So I just want to remind everyone that we have a special meeting on July 30th or a month from now at 700 p.m. to discuss the uh rules and regulations specifically for hunting. So, just a reminder to please
read the materials so we can make progress on this. So, we're gonna keep it under two hours hopefully. Um, and since it's an additional night meeting, hopefully we can do it in an hour and a half, but we can only do that if everyone comes having read all of our
materials. Um, let's see. Okay. Yeah, I was hoping Alex would be here for the next announcement. Um but he specifically had requested that we
address uh wetlands protection, town of Ammeris, general bylaws and regulations um discussing an approach to revisions. So me and Erin discussed uh an outline for that procedure. So here it is. So,
um, please review the current d our current bylaw regulations and if you need those, I guess they're online, but you could contact Aaron. Erin, is online are they sort of by a section or is
there a full PDF that can be downloaded? Yeah, if you go to the Town of Ammeris Conservation Commission web page um and you scroll down there's a um uh a
option for selecting um the I think it's rules and regulations and if you click on that um it has links to everything and there's a link to the regulations and it's the entire document. Okay. Our bylaw document the whole thing. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay.
So, please review that um and send like bullet. We're not going to make track changes to the document this time. So um I'm asking to for you to list any comments or suggestions or topics by
section in an email to Aaron and Aaron has offered to coate those into a single document which we will then discuss as a commission either in a special meeting or during a regularly scheduled meeting I guess depending on um the extent of
that. So um those after our discussion we'll post the clean version track changes version and we'll hold a public meeting to discuss any of the changes. So any comments that you might have could be minor modifications or clarity
changes. is I think everybody's been working with this long enough to know where maybe some sticking points arise that um we could maybe be clearer for applicants or just you know things that you've noticed that um you want to bring
up so or big changes. Okay. So again make the reviews itemize them for Aaron by section and we're going to go from there. Um, so please do that within two weeks and we're going to give Aaron two weeks for review and she's going to need
uh one week prior to posting and then we'll have our meeting. So we're looking at 5 to 6 week window and if we're having a a con meeting for this, it's probably going to be in August either the 13th or the 27th. So that's a fairly
ambitious timeline, but that's what we're going to hope for. So, I see Dave's hand up. Yeah, thanks, Michelle. Um, I guess my only I don't want to presume I I don't know any of
you know any thoughts about what people might be considering with regard to revisions to those. But I did just want to caution the um commission and again we'll see what comes in from commission members but um having such an aggressive
timeline in the dead of summer and then proposing say you know again I would just caution against proposing a public hearing on those revisions in August. August is a challenging time. A lot of people are on vacation. A lot of people are away. So, I just want to make sure
we're not kind of rushing through that process. Fall is a much better time when people are more engaged. So, if there's discussion of it and all that, I would just advocate that we look at those during the the fall for the public
meeting, any kind of public discussions or public hearings, etc., etc. Sure. I mean, I'm fine with that. I guess I was just trying to um make it happen, keep us to a timeline. And and I also want to point out that we're not looking to do an overhaul of this document. This is Yeah,
I don't know what what might come in from the commission. Um like minor modifications. Yep. Go ahead, Andre. Yeah, I mean that's exactly what I was uh the question that I have. You said you don't know what kind of modifications uh we're going to be looking for.
I just don't, you know, I know that Alex proposed looking at them to review them, but is there anything that kind of comes to mind that needs to be pecked at or I mean, we did this two years ago, right?
Or three? I think we did it in 2021. Um, the yeargo we did it for a number of years leading up to when they were approved in June of 2022. Um, so they've been in effect since June of 2022. Um, a lot of
the things that I would like to fix would be, um, there's a couple inconsistencies with resource area descriptions and a couple sections, um, that have been discovered since the document was, uh, you know, approved, the final version. Um, there's also, um,
nothing in there for fines for enforcement or fees for enforcement, and I think that's something that we should incorporate. um uh there just sharpening up sort of the mitigation section. I know we've talked a lot about the mitigation um
requirements for sort of standardizing that and so that might be a place, you know, um an opportunity for us to integrate some additional language into the regulations that would um be a little more specific relative to mitigation. So, those are just a couple examples, but it's it's it's really like
just sort of refining a couple areas to improve it. All right, great. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I mean, maybe you won't have anything and that is totally fine. Yeah. No, and if folks can uh can
Yeah, just whatever. I'll look for uh the comments. Excuse me. Okay. And I did I did propose two weeks and I understand that's ambitious, but if there's anybody that is going to be, for example, on vacation for a week and thinks that's un unattainable,
then I don't bring that up now, I guess, and we can move it. I just I just want to have a a timeline to um aim for mostly. Okay. Um Okay. Then second,
maybe I should have done that one first. I want to just check in on everybody's schedule for August. Um, we often have to cancel a meeting because of forum issues in August. And maybe it would be good to know that now. Um, there's two meetings, the 13th and the 27th. Does
anyone know right now if they will not be able to attend on either the 13th or the 17th? Okay. It would also be helpful to know for July as well um just for quorum considerations since we're losing a member and it might take a little while
to get a new appointment. Okay. So, our dates for July are uh the 9th and the 23rd and it's shaping up to be a very busy month in July. Okay, I'm seeing no issues from folks.
Okay. Well, it looks like we'll be able to maintain those meetings. Okay. Um, all right, Dave, on to you and director support. Thanks, Michelle. I'll be uh quick as usual. Um, lots of work going
on up up at Buffers Pond. Um, as you know, and you probably follow our website, we're doing the weekly testing as as we do every year from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Um, I I don't want to jinx anything, but um, you know, bacteria
levels there do seem to be um, at a fairly level um, state right now. Again, we've got these warm temperatures and then some rain coming in over the weekend. So, again, we do the testing early in the week, Monday or Tuesday. It takes about 24 hours to culture. So, we
typically get the uh the results on Wednesday or Thursday. In addition to that, as I've mentioned before, we're doing some additional testing around the pond at different locations, not every week, but periodically throughout the summer. And then we're we're also going upstream in
the Kushman Brook um collecting data up there as well on uh on water quality. Um, I've reached out to some researchers at UMass and and I think we've we've u we've got some interest from folks at UMass to help us a little bit and guide
us. So, uh, and offer their expertise. So, um, we're planning to have a meeting uh, with with staff and and those folks from UMass in the in the next couple of weeks. Um, we're also moving forward on the grant that we got up at at Puffers
for the Dam and Dyke uh um work uh engineering studies, bethimemetry studies. Those are well underway. So, those will be happening throughout the summer. Um some people saw a boat on the on the pond a week or so ago and called
in and that was our bethimemetry work uh going on up there. So, um that's exciting to have happening. Um, let's see. At the same time, there's also, you know, the town is working with some partners, including the Fort River
Watershed Association on on some water quality testing in the Fort River. So, it's kind of nice. It's it's something that I've been thinking about and kind of working on for years and and after many years, we've got traction kind of both happening in South Ammerst and
beyond and North Ammerst and and points north and east. So, it's kind of nice to be looking at both the major rivers in Ammerst and the water quality to see what we can do to improve that for for the ecosystem, but also for for uh recreation for fishing and swimming and
and boating and and waiting and all those good things that people do in those two watersheds. So, that's kind of exciting. Um the CPA committee met this um last week. I was unable to make that meeting. It was mostly an organizational meeting. Jason, I believe, is still the
liaison to the CPA. Is that right, Michelle? Um, yeah, I think he's still in that ter. This was mostly an organizing meeting. Um, deadline for proposals will be similar to last year. It'll be during the month of September, um, which is early for staff to pull
things together, but um, Erin and I will have a preview for for what we're thinking, uh, might come in from conservation. will have recreation proposals, affordable housing proposals, and historic preservation proposals coming in in in September. Um, and then lastly,
the the town council did approve the the town budget and the school budget, uh, which again was a many many month process, and they recently did that. So, the conservation department as well as all other departments in town have their FY26 operating budget. Ours is um, you
know, um, fairly unchanged. Um it is not dramatically increased because budgets of course are tight. Um but I'm happy to just uh get through that process with the council. We also got um some items in our capital budget. Um
there were some additional funds for some replacement equipment, things like brush cutters and and mowers and um um what else is in there? uh actually some equipment to support uh redoing and
improving some of our accessible trails uh was in the capital budget. So, it's nice to get some of that equipment. Um mind you, many people might say, "Well, can't you just borrow from DPW?" And this has come up before and we have a good working relationship with DPW, but
oftentimes during the summer months, our short construction summer, they're working, we're working, and um it's hard to share things like rollers or or uh chippers and things like that because they're using them as well. Uh Brad
Borderweek, our land manager, does have a a really good relationship with Allan Snow. is a who's a division director in um DPW and he takes care of his staff uh cares for our parks, recreation areas, and commons as well as our public shade
trees. So, they have a very good working relationship and we do share staff and we also share equipment. But, um we're getting a little pulse of of equipment money to help us out and and replenish things like chainsaws break and and they
last for years and and then you need to replace them. So, those are some of the kinds of things we're we're up to. Trail projects will really start in July. As I said before, we will be doing some some um pretty basic bog bridge work and then
we'll be working on the ADA trails starting at Hickory Ridge. The trail, the new trail at Hickory needs some work with the goal of opening that in the fall. So, that's kind of where we are. Um there's more going on, but I want to be respectful of of your full agenda.
Oh, thank you. Thanks, Dave. Okay, we have a few minutes for our first hearing. Um, let's talk about 20 214 Pomeroy. Um, so if you recall,
commissioners, I think Bruce, do you have the date? May 9th. We Yes. Yes. We met with the land owner of this uh property. Um the subject of the it was a special meeting and the subject was a
non-compliance issue and there was mowing um outside of the approved area under the NOI and we talked about uh well we requested a formal amendment to
bring that land into the the current plan for the property and we requested a different frequency of monitoring. ing reports. Um, we haven't heard from the land owner and um, Aaron is going to be
sending a letter of non-compliance and a request for a formal amendment. So, I'd like to discuss with you a timeline for suggesting to do this and just revisit our request um that we are asking for a
bianual rather than annual monitoring report submitted to Erin. Alex, I see your hand up. Is it Do you want to talk? Remind me where on the agenda we're going to talk about uh process for updating our regulations.
Yeah, we did. So, um, you sorry, it was in my director's report. I mean, sorry, commissioner of chair report. Um, so we're asking people to review the current bylaws and submit comments to Aaron in an email like
bullet point with reference to section numbers within the next two weeks. After that, she'll coate it. We'll have a meeting and once we discuss that we'll get it on an agenda either for a special meeting or a standing agenda either in
August or September depending on content. So is that the sum of the process that we're going to use? That is the sum of the process. Well, we'll have to have a public they will have a public meeting um you know just with the concom to sort
of go through page by page what the edits are um in terms of you know before it goes to hearing. Once we get all of those edits that we want to take to the hearing agreed upon, I'll set up a web page where we have the existing
document, the edited document, um a document and track changes so people can see what those changes look like. And then we'll schedule a public hearing um and Dave had suggested in September so that we have um attendance from the wider community to be able to um
participate and um hopefully have a hearing in September to um discuss the full edits of the document. So, I'm not quite clear on the process. It uh I don't see where
commission discussion takes place. I'm sorry that I missed your report. I had a hell of a time getting on the concom web webinar. Sure. So, I'll just try and backtrack then. So um
once you submit once we've all submitted comments to Aaron and we're looking at a twoe window to do that she's going to collate it into a single document which will then we'll discuss during a meeting a public meeting and at that point we will discuss the changes and make our
final edits. Those final edits will be presented on the website in a clean and track change documents and then we'll have a a hearing to approve them. So, two meetings, one for commissioner discussion and one for the public
hearing for the final. Um, just for clarification, you said two meetings. Are they separate from con regular concom meetings on a Wednesday or are we going to squeeze them into the existing committee meeting? That's to be determined. I mean, it's looking likely
that we'll need a special meeting for it given the agenda items for the next month. Yeah. So, had I been present when you were talking about this, I was going to suggest that we carve out 30 minutes at the beginnings like we were supposed
to do tonight to talk about process. And my feeling was we had time for the whole commission to talk about this rather than the chair telling us what's going to happen. and then in the future have time allocated at every meeting so that we
don't have to have a special meeting and give us a half an hour to go through things whether it's errands collated document or whatever and uh just do that every time we meet as a commission for one half hour that's it
I see this going better if everybody submits their personal comments to Aaron. She includes it in a document so we can all see what people suggested, have time to think about that on our own, come back and then discuss it. How long we spend on it is also to be
determined and probably dependent on what people have submitted to us. Um, I'm not going to put a timeline on it and I don't think we need to meet every time for 30 minutes. I'm envisioning more of a single meeting where we discuss it and finalize our
recommendations. So, I didn't speak against submitting comments. Um, I I did ask that people submit comments on the hunting alternatives document also, and I haven't I wasn't around if that was part of your report,
but um I thought how to proceed was going to be a commission decision. I don't think it would be very productive to make it a commission disc decision, but I did ask for people's input and I didn't get any feedback to suggest otherwise. I mean, we did
discuss a timeline for it. I mean, if you want to review the recording, then go ahead and maybe you can better understand the discussion that happened. Bruce, I'll move aside. So just one thing that might happen is that we'll find one or two issues that are going to
take more time and then maybe some in a specific way at a meeting it we could put 30 or 45 minutes to talk about X whatever X is um because it seems like it's plausible there's two parts there's the the whole document and there's
fine-tuning and making sure things aren't working across purposes and then there may be one or two bigger things. They're going to take more targeted effort. Yeah, I agree that that's a likely outcome and I think we won't know that until we see what everybody's
comments are. So, I I want to establish some kind of timeline and structure for this and then we can go from there. So, we'll start with two weeks for comments, see what they look like, and then we'll start planning meetings to discuss it. I'm not going to limit it to one meeting, but it's hard to say what this
is going to look like until we have it in hand. So, just to close out, as somebody who chaired the subcommittee on land use regulations, which was like a second job, probably more work than being a commissioner,
um there was always an extra meeting. And I want to speak my piece about avoiding extra meetings and somehow making time within the existing commission meeting, even if it takes seven or eight meetings to avoid extra
meetings. That's okay. I'm done. Okay. All right. I would like to address 214 Pomeroy within our next four minutes. Um, does anyone have any questions or need any reminders about this one?
Okay. Erin, you were specifically looking for basically support or confirmation from the commission to send the formal amendment request and notice of or enforcement. We'll just update the
commission that on the fact that we haven't received any correspondence or or um permits. So, I don't know where things stand and I don't know um what the status of the submission is if if there's any intention to submit it. So, I think um it's important for us to
follow up at this point and and say the commission is expecting a submission by set date. Um the other the other piece of it was um there was a requirement for an environmental monitor report on an annual basis and the first report in
2023 was submitted. the report for 2024 wasn't submitted when this violation was identified. Um the applicant was made aware of the fact that they um didn't submit the 2024 report. And so what what
we received was like a three bullet um list of things from the landowner and then a report from right builders who built the barn um on what had been completed relative to the barn. And um I think that they kind of missed the mark
on the um environmental report for 2024, which um whether the commission wants that resubmitted um by an environmental um party or if the commission wants to say we'll accept the 2024 report, but we
expect 2025 to be an actual environmental assessment and not um just a um sort of thrown together bulleted list. Um, so I think yeah, I just want to follow up on that one because we discussed it at length today and you had
suggested that you didn't have any problems with the current state even though the monitoring report didn't conform to our expectations. But I think going forward we can be clear that we expect it to be a professional report. But I do want to focus on getting the formal amendment from the landowner at
this point and then giving guidance about our clear expectations about the monitoring report. Yes. So, I mean, I think if we set a deadline for the submission of the amendment, that that would be a great first step. As far as um the issues with
the in um monitoring report, we can refine that in an amended order of conditions to provide more detail in terms of what our expectations are andor change the frequency of the um submissions as well. So, uh you know, just wanted to throw that out there.
Thanks. Okay, so we're looking for timeline suggestions. Anything else? I don't know who had their hand up first, but Andre or Yeah. Um, are we going to be sending a notice of non-compliance? Is that what the uh the
idea is? Yeah. Good. All right. Well, I'm I'm completely in favor of that. It's uh it has been a while. Um and um I think that the um the land the land
owners have been hiding behind uh not knowing or stating that they didn't know what was going on. They didn't understand the uh uh the initial uh permit and so on. Um so I think that we it's time for us to hold them to use of um professional
services rather than um uh their own um their own uh ideas and so on. Um so yeah there we are. I think Andre, do you have a suggestion for timeline given that our special
meeting was May 9th and we did not provide a timeline at that point, but more of an expectation that we would be receiving that I I would look by the end of July. I mean, this is uh they should have uh given this to us before. Uh I
think it's a very I think giving them a month to get it from here on uh is reasonable. Thank you, Bruce. Okay. So, we have a suggestion of July 31st for
um a formal amendment. Rachel, would this require a survey? Interesting question. They already have a survey um from the previous um submission and order of conditions.
So, I think if they modify that plan, it wouldn't require reserveying the whole property. Okay, cool. Cuz if they had to get a survey, they would probably need more time. But yeah, if they already have a survey. Yeah, they have a survey of the property boundary, but I don't know about the
like specific use areas within the property, but I think we've been using GIS maps with markup so far. So, I don't know what a standard would be, if that's sufficient. Um, okay. Well, so I have July 31st.
Does anyone have any other comments about that? Bruce, I was just thinking about the survey. I think we should try not to put additional obstacles in the way of them complying. It didn't when the site visit, it didn't seem that complicated. So, okay. Thank
you for the context. Okay. So, do you have what you need, Erin, for the next steps? Okay. Yes. Thank you. All right. Um, our first hearing is a notice of intent for Wendle Wetland Services on behalf of Taylor Davis
Landscaping Company for maintenance and repair of storm water management systems and wetland restoration removal of materials from wetlands at 71 West Primary Lane. Map 19D lots 12 proposed work is it within BBB and buffer zone. Bruce, were you going to remind me about
the hearing structure? I was. Yes. Thank you. And each uh hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda. Five minutes from staff, five minutes from the applicant, five minutes for public comment, or two minutes per person, five minutes from commissioners. The
commissioners require all submitted and revised material to be submitted by Wednesday, the week prior to the meeting at close of business. Thank you, Erin. Uh, yes. And for all members of the public speaking, please state your name,
address, um, preferred pronouns and who you're representing. It's funny, your version's different than mine. Um, okay. So, our notice of intent for Wendle Wetland Services on behalf of Taylor
Davis Landscaping Company is going to be continued. Um, do we need to pull anyone in for this, Erin, or is this Okay, great. Bruce, are you do you still have your hand up or is that before? Okay, so we're looking for a
motion to continue Window Wetland Services on behalf of Taylor Davis. I move. Go ahead. I think we I think we need the whole thing. Rachel, the date. Sorry. I move to continue the public hearing for D
number 0890751 to July 9th, 2025 at 7:50 p.m. Second. Rachel on the motion. Bruce on the second. Andre I. Alex. I. Rachel I.
Bruce I. And I'm an I. Okay. Next up, we're a minute early. Oh, there we go. Amended notice of intent for Pure Sky requesting the installation of a battery energy storage system trenching for auxiliary electrical service and a culvert replacement. Proposed work
includes board work and bordering vegetated bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area, bank, land underwater, bodies and waterways and buffer zone at 191 West Pomeray Lane, map 19D and lot 10. Good evening, Tom. Good evening. Is Is
Lawrence here with us today? Lawrence is here. Okay, great. All right, Erin, would you mind giving us an update? Sure. Um, so we received a letter from an LSP that had been requested by
Rachel. Um and um there was gosh, sorry, uh there was some additional information um submitted to us as well. And why am I drawing a blank on what it is? Um HSP, thank you. An HSP approval also
came through. So, I drafted an order of conditions um which is in the public folder and also in the commission folder um and sort of tried to um just
there like the first condition that I added was a condition relative to the CMP which um I had been requesting some reports on the the turtle monitoring relative to the CMP. So, it's basically just so that I can establish that that's
been complied with. Um, and then there's a series of additional conditions associated with that. uh as far as adjusting erosion and sediment controls, making sure that we have a pre-construction meeting prior to the um
trenching work and the uh covert replacement project taking place and also making sure that we have a biologist on site uh for the uh movement of the turtle um exclusion barrier which also serves as our erosion control
barrier. So, um because it's being the the barrier is being adjusted in order to um expand the work area, uh I think it's going to be important that we have somebody on site to to monitor during the movement of that barrier. Um
so, yeah, I've I tried to um fashion something tonight that I thought would get us through the finish line and um yeah, that's where it's at. I did send this out a little bit late this afternoon and my apologies on that. It was very fast and furious day. So, um,
the applicant may have some comments on the on the suggested conditions and that's all I have. Thanks, Aaron. Tom, Lawrence, any comments, questions? We'll keep it we'll keep it really simple. We're fine with it and we'd appreciate the order issued this evening. Great.
Thanks. Um, any public comment on this? Please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none any questions or comments from commissioners? Alex, sorry if I'm not up to speed on what I'm going to ask about because it may be the
answer may be right under my nose and I don't know it, but where does fixing the fence so that it's x number of inches off the ground fit into the long-term plan? Aaron or Tom, I think that I can I can
respond to that. The uh the defense work and the correction to make sure that it was lifted has been completed already. Oh, sorry, Lawrence. I haven't been out there for a while. Yeah, no, that's fine. Any other questions from commissioners?
Okay. Looking for a motion to close and issue the order of conditions. Can I ask Erin a question? Sure. Erin, have you looked at the fence fix? Um, have I specifically been out there
to inspect that it was fixed? No, I have not. Um, but I would give the applicant the benefit of the doubt on it. And we we still have three certificates of compliance that will need to be issued on this site. Um, because we have one. Well, actually, we have four, don't we?
We have four. So, we have we have quite a bit of leverage to um make sure that it's completed if it's not. Thank you. Again, my apologies if I'm not up on that.
All right. Is is anybody looking at the motion or do you want me to read it? Okay, there we go. Thank you, Erin. I'll move to close the public hearing and approve an order of conditions for
DP number 089-0728 pursuant to wetlands protection town of Ammeris general bylaw article 3.31 in regulations and the wetlands protection act with boilerplate conditions under the both the wetlands protection act and the town of Ammeris general bylaw with
noted special conditions as discussed second Andre on the motion Rachel on the second Rachel Hi, Alex. Hi, Andre. Hi, Bruce. Hi. And I'm an I. All right. Thank you very
much. Thank you. So, just just one question for Erin. Uh the pre-construction meeting. Do you want one for each individual amendment or did you want one that we can kind of do it all all the things at the same time? I'd like one
for the trenching and the the covert preferably. And um but I you know I'm open if you want to separate them out into two separate if it timing wise per is preferred. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for working us with us guys. Good night.
Always a pleasure. Thank good night. Okay. Um next up 74. Wow. We're on time. Notice of intent for GZA Geo Environmental Incorporated on behalf of Archipelago Investment LLC and Hampshire
College for proposed mixeduse residential development at 0 West Bay Road, map 25B, lots 52 and 0 West Street, map 25B, lot 58. Proposed work includes construction of three mixeduse residential structures with associated parking, storm water remediation, and
landscaping, portions of which are located within buffer zones to bordering vegetated wetlands. D number 0890752. Bruce version says hold on opening until 750. Not sure why, but that's what it says.
Oh, yeah. The applicant had a um had a conflict and I see his representative is here but Kyle was not able to be here until at least 7:50. So he asked and I figured we had two hearings. We'll probably be fine but we burned through those pretty quick. So
yeah. All right. I'll have to read that one again, I guess. Okay. So pause for eight minutes. Thank you, Bruce. I'm always looking at the the paper agenda. Um all right. So Erin, can you in the meantime just give us an update on
Olympia Drive? Yes. Monitoring? Yeah. So, um I've been doing some some spot checks on projects, big projects around town, um just to see where where things stand, what things look like. Um,
and one of the spots I was concerned about was um, 47 Olympia Drive because we had previously um, had a dewatering operation that was dewatered over the erosion controls into the wetland buffer and ultimately into the
wetland. Um, which was they were issued a notice of non-compliance and the the situation was cleaned up. But I wanted to just pop out there and see what it was looking like because there was some issues with the monitoring reports that looked a little suspicious. So I went out and took a
look and what I observed is that the they have a temporary storm water BMP at the low point of the site which is a sort of a sediment for bay um for settling out turbid water um that falls
on the site inside the erosion control barrier. And what's happening is um there's no berm on that uh for bay. And so when it uh exceeds the height of the erosion controls, it is either going under or over the controls and washing
into the the buffer and it's following a stream channel right down into the wetland. Um, so I spoke to the uh the uh super on the site and I said I'd like to have this
addressed to add an additional um check dam and some additional erosion controls and um they said that they were going to work on that. I haven't had an opportunity to follow up yet with them to make sure that that was completed. But um yeah, so that's just one example
from an ongoing monitoring issue that um I've been trying to keep on top of of and we have a number of sites open. So, and then the other um site, just to let you know, I just got noticed this week that that
um the hydro seating was completed at Hickory Ridge. So, that was a long a long wait, but it got done um thankfully. And uh I'm really hopeful that we get some growth on the um graded
areas there. And yeah, those are the two larger um sites. I still have to go take a look at Fort River. Um the monitoring reports at Fort River look really good, so um not as worried about Fort River at this point.
Thanks, Aaron. Um, okay. We still have five minutes. Alex, uh, before you arrived, we were discussing whether or not we had quorums through July and August. Um, do you expect, are you going to be on vacation
for any of those? That would preclude you from meeting in July or August? Both. Uh, from August. Let's see. The latter.
So the dates would be the third the 13th and the 27th in August. And yeah, I'm out of town from August 10 through the 23rd.
Okay. So Erin, Alex and I won't be here on August 13th, which might still be fine, but Okay. Okay. I is Does is this have to do with uh regular regular meetings? Yeah, we're just we often have to cancel a
meeting in August because people are on vacation and we don't have a quorum. So, we're just trying to get ahead of that scheduling, but it looks like we're in good shape unless Jason I may be able to um attend dur during that period August
10 to 23. I'm just out of town. I I still have a laptop. Okay, good to know. All right. Um, do we have any are are the applicants here as far as you can see? I see Mark
we're done with our other business. So, if anyone has any questions that we might take four minutes, we're kind of just killing time. Okay. So, in terms of my availability in July, I told Aaron in an email that I may
resend my availability for July 30. And the reason for that is that I've had an invitation to attend a genuine luau in Hawaii with family members. I have not decided whether to accept that or
not. Um, I wouldn't even put some odds on it. And if I had to make a decision tonight, I don't know what I'd say. So, um, these are when they said genuine, it's, um, that's exactly what they meant. So,
I'll try to be here on July 30 because we have an extended meeting, but I may not be able to hear. So, okay. Thank you. I'll know I'll know within plenty of time on what's going to
happen there. Okay. On excusable absence, I guess. Um I have a question for Dave Zomeck. He's there. No, it's not there. He's He's here. Oh. Um
is there recruitment for a new member underway? Yes. Oops. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Typically, you know, it's a town manager appointment. So, the town manager's office organizes
interviews based on the um citizen activity forms, the CAFs, calfs as they call them that have come in with people expressing interest in joining the commission. So, I believe interviews uh
will begin next week and um Michelle and Aaron attend those. I occasionally will attend those as well, but um it would be town manager, uh the chair, staff, one staff person, and then there is a member
of Oh boy, Michelle, I'm not going to get it. There's a citizen advisory committee that sits in on those and advises the town manager as part of that process and I I am blanking on the exact name of
that committee but yes short answer it is underway. Okay. Okay. How 7:50 on my clock. I don't know what your clock's saying. Okay. Mine says 749, so I'm just gonna
reread it. Okay, so uh 750 notice of intent GZA Geo Environmental Incorporated on behalf of Archipelago Investments LLC and Hampshire College for proposed mixeduse residential development at 0 West Bay
Road, map 25B, lots 52, and 0 West Street, map 25B, lots 58. Proposed work includes construction of three mixeduse residential structures with associated parking, storm water remediation and landscaping portions of which are located within buffer zones to bordering
vegetated wetland DP number 0890752. Welcome Mark. Good evening. Um has Kyle joined? Kyle has not joined yet. meeting needed there because he's still on our um he had a presentation to give
you. Um all right, Kyle, if you are here with some other name, please raise your hand so we can get you in. I mean, another option might be if if Kyle's not here, um,
our next hearing is scheduled for 7:45, so we could push this to the last item on the agenda and just keep moving through if that's preferred. Um, I believe that's what Kyle was requesting was to be moved to the last um item on
the agenda in his email. Yeah. Okay. I thought you asked to move to 750. Okay. Um so we'll we'll do that then. So um stay posted Mark and we'll put you at the end
now. Thank you. Okay. So for audience members, we are moving on to the next two hearings and then this one will be at the end. So, I can't remove um Mark and Tom as
panelists. Usually, I can like remove ability to talk. I I guess they're just going to be there um sort of floating in the room if that's okay. Go out and come back. Okay. I'm not sure. I'll try it and then
if I I've done it before and come back in as a panelist. So, I'll try it and then we'll see what happens. I don't want to remove you because if I do, you're not able to get back in, I'm afraid. Um, so I'll leave. Bruce is kicking me out, so I'm gonna leave.
Okay. Um, all right. We're we're on uh notice of intent for a town of Ammerst. So, I think I saw Beth in there. You want to bring her in? So, this is Town of Ammerst for the construction of a roundabout and realignment of an intersection of Amity Street and University Drive. Proposed work is
located in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. Map 13B, lot 21, 2, and 18. Hi, Beth. Good evening. Hello. Okay, Erin, would you like to give us
our update on this? Yes. So, um, Beth sent along, um, some updated materials yesterday, which I forwarded on to the commission and put into the packets. Um, I attempted a, uh, very fast and furious
list of special conditions, um, which I uploaded very late today to the packet, sent to Beth, and also uploaded to the public packet for the commission to consider tonight. Um and yeah, I think that the only thing that was sort of
outstanding was the letter from an engineer which um Beth was not able to obtain. So, but um the other items that were requested were submitted to us. So, that's what I have. Thanks, Aaron. Beth,
please go ahead. Um yeah, as Erin said, we I uh responded to all of her comments and I I think you guys have seen that I provided the um grading plan with the elevations of the infrastructure and the proposed grading
um an on andm plan um individual standalone document. Um so yeah, I did reach out to Fuss O'Neal and they basically said that they legally liabilitywise can't actually sign a statement. um stating that what they've
designed uh you know would would would would not increase post construction flow like they would have to do the calculations to sign a statement but they certainly agreed with everything that I had said in the notice of intent that um the proposed infrastructure based on the
storage capacity of the um the 4ft sumps um just by themsel without even considering the volume of the storm septer and the additional manholes um just the nine new 4 foot sumps um will
hold more than an inch of rain over the new imperous square footage. Um, so I even did a little calculation of that which I think I I think I sent that to Aaron and I could show it to you. But just a basic calculation of an inch of
rain over the proposed additional impervious um you know the the cubic feet of that change is less than what just those nine new 4 foot um sumps are going to provide. So basically it's the
whole design of infrastructure is going to have much more storage capacity um than there is now and will provide more than enough for the increased impervious um and there's going to be treatment through the storm septer. So
that's my story. Thanks Beth. If there's any public comment please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, commissioners, Rachel, thanks for the grading plan. That was super helpful to see kind of the limit of work and how the grades are being
changed. Um, and also it looks like you're going to reuse a lot of the existing pipe infrastructure. Um there were you able to scope the lines just to make sure that they are still functional um before the work. Can you talk a
little bit about that? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they they came most of those lines because um in fact I know they did. Um we are replacing one which is very deteriorated which is actually the biggest one that takes all the drainage from um Amity Street I think almost from
Blue Hills down. Um, and it's currently a 24 inch corrugated metal that's pretty deteriorated. We're replacing I want to say like 220 linear feet. It's on the plans with um a 30-in concrete pipe and
then adding a a new concrete pipe actually. But all the other lines um they came and they they're still in good enough condition to not have to be replaced. That's great. And um I had I had a question too about you you said the cost
of the storm water report um that you're trying the town's trying to save money. Do we know what that number is? Is that I storm water reports I'm going to say between 15 to 20,000. Okay. Um and
you know I previous NOIs that have come to the commission that are town projects um like Mil Lane for example we put two storm scepters in there and there was no uh storm water report you know submitted. It's it's that do you spend
the $15,000 on a storm water report or do you spend it on a storm sector? And I I guess I'm more in favor of, you know, spending it on the actual infrastructure. Um, our engineering department doesn't have um hydroad. So
we we you know we can do a lot of our own engineering drawings and we we do a really good job I think not me personally but some of our our engineers do with AutoCAD and stuff but um we don't have the capability to do uh storm
water calculations unfortunately I I I I feel really torn about this because I I want to support the town. I don't want to create burdens, but I also am concerned about just the amount of water that's coming through this area
from ups slope. Um, and that, you know, the property at 422 at Gamdy Street is within, you know, 10 to 15 ft of the outfall of some of this water. So, um I just saying it would I think it this
is a public piece of infrastructure that is going to have a bigger footprint um that's highly used by pedestrians and vehicles. It's right next to the resource area and it could impact um other people's properties. So, I would advocate for the storm water report.
Thanks, Rachel. Bruce. Um, I went on the site visit. It all seems reasonably straightforward. Um, I understand the needs of the town to really try to move things along and I'm in favor of
that. Um, but I also am on this commission, I'm the advocate uh for getting things to the conservation staff a week ahead of time. And I haven't had a chance to look at what uh Aaron wrote
because it came all so late. So um I don't I think the town has to try and I think Beth tries, but we have to all try to hold to the same standard that we ask of the general public and the the public advocates. So applicants.
So let's keep working on it. I it's I'll just keep advocating for a week ahead of time. Thanks, Bruce. Andre, I'll second uh Bruce's uh sentiment. I wasn't able to uh read the whole thing. I read some of
it. Um it's like we're coming here and we're not we don't have all the information if uh if we don't get it in time. Thanks, Andre. Um, so I'm I'm hearing
reservations uh because of the lack of time to review the materials. And then to Rachel's comment, I mean, are we looking at all or nothing for storm water calculations? Is there something doable that is not a $20,000 storm water
report, but would satisfy, Rachel, your concerns to some effect? I don't know what that is, but I I guess I'm asking you guys if there's some kind of inter intermediate information or study or calculation that's not a
full-on storm water that can be done. Darren, well, I was just going to say um I know we have engineers in DPW um and I know fuss you said it was Fuss and O'Neal, right? Um Beth. Yeah. Would
somebody in the Department of Public Works be willing to sign a letter um asserting the um uh postdevelopment flows would be a decrease um from
existing or not an increase rather that that the proposed development isn't going to be increasing postdevelopment flows. I know that's not a question you can really answer, but I guess I'm just wondering if Uh that might be a possibility.
Um I mean we can we can look into that. So um I mean all we need to show this is a little to address I guess Rachel looking at more the the overall general flows that come to this location. All storm
waters, all storm water reports or all the regulations require is that you are proving that you know the difference between pre and post you're able to actually either infiltrate or or treat any kind of an increase in um what might
be coming off the site and just as like I was saying sort of a simple calculation of what the increase in impervious is and you're looking at say an inch of rain and then you compare that to the volume of the the deep sump catch basins that
we're installing. I mean, I I did the calculation. I can show it to you. And the the volume we're proposing can hold easily more than what the increase in flow due to the impervious increase is. So,
in a way, I feel like that's all that needs to necessarily be proven. Um, and it just seems like it's pretty obvious thing. The other thing that we can do, and we were we're going to need to do this anyway, um is talk to the
storm scepter folks, which we've already started talking to them about sizing for the storm septer. Um and we can very easily get from them um something stating that the storm scepter will be able to treat the u the volume of water that comes through there because they
need that information to size it. That's something we can provide that um doesn't need an engineer's storm water study. That's I think something that was provided for Mil Lane.
Paul did that. Rachel. Yeah, I think I think it also the storm water assessment can can flag if there's an issue um with our current rainfall event. So if a system has been designed
for the 1960s and is going to sirch charge at, you know, a 4 in rain event, um that's something that you could know, you know, you would learn from in the stormwater report specifically because
the building at 422 is right where that concrete abutment is and that pipe is coming out. Um so you know if you're increasing the pipe size and capacity for conveyance going from the 24 to 30 and if that's full you know are you then
we don't are you flooding out 422 with with the with the increased flow capacity and storage. So that's that's the question. Um, but that possible. Yeah. But I but I guess I'm wondering, you know, are you talking about is it flooding right now with
current conditions or how is this project going to change um the conditions? Because the only this project's only changing the conditions by increasing impervious by 7,540 square ft. Besides that, it's it's not changing anything else. So, all we're
really saying is that the change that we're we're making, which is 7,540 square feet of new impervious, what's the volume that would come off of that? And is and is the infrastructure we're providing going to deal with with the change and and it's pretty obvious that
what we're providing is going to deal with the change and more. So, we're going to actually improve the current situation. Um, and that's all that's that makes all I have for backup, I guess. You know, that makes sense. I
I'm just thinking about if you're up if you have a pipe that has been crushed or compromised, that's our existing condition. So, the water coming through there today is less than what it is in theory. Um, and then you're going to you're going to fix it. So in theory more water is
coming through than what's happening today just by the nature of the UPS slope condition. Um and so that that's the question. Um we've we've gone through that process on some projects and it has been um really eye opening to just to know know what what the impacts
are especially in that in the context of increased rainfalls and changing climate and things like that. Bruce, is it correct that, and I sort of am asking this from Rachel, but it it it
seems like by your description, it's not the amount of water that comes through, it's how fast it comes through. As if the existing pipe is slightly injured in some way, it slows the water down as it goes past that place where it's injured.
Whereas, when once you fix it, it zooms down, right? And so it isn't the volume. Am I correct? It's not the volume. It's the speed with which it arrives at the bottom. Yeah, I that's part of the the deep sump
and all the storage capacity is that's another thing it deals with is it it it takes the storm water holds it for a longer period of time to slow the flows because it compared to Right now,
I understand that you're complying with what you have to comply with, which showing the pre and post. And then Rachel's concern is sort of different, which is, is this property going to be affected by the new system um in an unanticipated way and let's say we move
forward with the current plan and the property is affected um by the bigger pipe. Is there what can be done to remediate that if anything or I mean is is there an after the-act fix if in if
indeed there's a problem with the bigger pipe and greater flows. Is there anything well that that line is where the storm scepter is going to go. It's going to go along that line somewhere before um the head wall. Um,
so I think in that scenario, we could um, you know, we could put in some kind of a a man manhole that diverts and new new pipe. If it really becomes a situation where there's too much coming through there, what would probably
happen is it would it would over compensate the storm septer. So, um, again, when we're sizing the storm scepter, which is happening in the next few weeks, we'll have some information on some of these things, um, that we can
provide to you guys. Um, but yeah, I know there's fixes with just with that idea with with an additional manhole that could end piping that could take the water possibly to the to the other outfall. There's the two outfalls. There's also the sizing of the storm
scepter. Okay. I'm I'm Rachel, did you have a question? I'm seeing Aaron putting her clock up, so I'm was Go ahead. And I think then we'll probably just see if people are ready to move on this tonight or if we're looking at a continuation.
Go ahead. Or could the pipe be extended further so it doesn't terminate right next to the middle of the building? um that head wall situation, could that be continued past the building so it doesn't pro
present a safety issue? Um so Barry's Roberts project is putting in the head wall. Um we're doing the trenching and replacing the pipe and we're working with them and they're and doing the head wall. So that that would
start um you know getting into his project a bit because I think downstream of that is where you guys have put in a box coververt right Erin downstream of there you you're requiring a box coververt so
um you know I don't we could pipe it completely you could get rid of the box cover and we'll just pipe it to the other side of there but it's yeah in the daylights unfortunately Ely, it's it's the way that it um being in a sort of
channel-like configuration with a hydraologic gradient, you get a situation where it's it's mimicking a stream. And so to do that is basically uh you're you're putting an intermittent stream or perennial stream underground.
And so to do that is a lot more of a regulatory challenge than you might think. Um, I mean, one thing I will say about that, um, uh, swale, wetland, waterway area where
that new pipe, uh, upgraded pipe size is going to be discharging is that that location is going to be looking significantly different from what it looks like now in terms of having an actual head wall. Like right now, it's like a pipe that just pops out um, from
the ground. And so with the proposed plan at 422, we're going to have an actual covert head wall where that discharge point is and there's going to be armoring in terms of stone and um some reconstruction of that feature so that it actually functions a little bit
more like a a waterway or um a conveyance of water. Um and also with the increased covert size, water will move through that area a little bit better. Right now we have like a I want to say it's like a 20in um covert and
it's so it's damning up right at that discharge point. So um I think your point is totally valid. Uh Rachel, completely valid. I just think that um it's tough. I mean it's like to envision it the way it is now. It will look very
different once 422 goes in. Okay. So, um, I'd like to see hands from commissioners. Who is ready to move on this tonight? Andre, I don't I don't have your camera.
Andre, are you there? Okay. I see I see two hands up. I can't see if we have a majority. Um, I don't know where Andre went, Alex. Um, all right. Well, I
Yeah, then I guess if if you are ready, I suggest making a motion. I because I can't see Andre. So, I hope he pops in. I can't see what I can't see the screen. That would be red.
I'll read it. I got it. I move I move to close the public hearing and approve an order of condition for D number 089-0755 pursuant to wetlands protection town of Ammeris general bylaw article 3.31 and
regulations and the wetlands protection act with boilerplate conditions under both the wetlands protection act and the town of Ammeris general bylaw with the noted special conditions as discussed. Second Bruce on the motion. Alex on the second.
Bruce I Rachel? No. Alex I Andre. Okay. I I think I'm in favor of more information about the storm scepter. Um,
I think given that we had a uh late submission and there are people that didn't have enough time to look at it and we have some remaining questions. Um, that's what I'd like to see. So, um, a no. So, we don't have an quorum to move forward. Erin,
um, so under the circumstances, I just want to make sure Beth has really clear direction of what the commission will need in order to move forward um, at the next meeting. Um, one of the things that I uh hope
might bridge the gap here is to get uh a signed letter from maybe from Jason um that asserts the you know improved storm water benefits at the um roundabout. And then um maybe if that data or the information is available from the
special uh from the hydrodnamic separator um that might also help. Um, but if we're not approving tonight then and we're not there was no vote approved to close the public hearing, then I
think we're going to have to have a motion to continue in order to allow Beth to um to get the additional items that the commission's looking for here. Um, so I have an 805 slot on July 9th uh as a as
an option if somebody wants to make a motion to continue. Before we do that, um, I just want to So Erin listed some things off. Um, is there anything else from commissioners that we want to relay to Beth before we make that motion?
Okay, seeing none, um we'll go with Aaron's list and July 9th and a motion to continue 8:05 p.m. All right. Um I move to continue the uh public hearing
for D number 089-0755 [Music] to uh is it July 9th? Yes, at 8:05. at 8:05 p.m. Under the motion, Rachel in a second. Bruce, hi. Rachel, hi. Alex, I Andre,
hi. I'm okay. Sorry we couldn't move that forward, Beth, but we'll we'll see you July 9th. Yep. I'll see what I I can pull together. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Okay. Um, next up,
this is a abbreviated notice of intent for resource area delineation. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands and most as most recently amended in article 3.31 wetlands
protection under the town of Ammeris general bylaws. This is an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation Bacon Wilson PC on behalf of Colonial Village Development LLC for the confirmation of isolated vegetated wetland boundaries under wetlands protection town of Ammeris General
bylaws and regulations at 162 Southeast Street and 81 Belturetown Road map 15C lots 80 and 66. Hello. Um could you please introduce yourself and provide your name? David Cameron, Fleetwood Environmental
Solutions LLC, and I'm also here with Tom Rei, Bacon Wilson, PC. Welcome. Um, Erin, could you give us a fiveminute introduction to this, please? Sure. Um, so there's a a limited study
area that's associated with this ANRAD, which is a a section of the lawn area um at Colonial Village, and we uh they're they're looking to confirm um our under our local bylaw only for um the the wetlands that are within that study
area. We did have a um a site visit on gosh, what day was that? The 24th, the hottest day of the year. Um it was it was pretty toasty out there. Um and uh I uh sort of did a a
spot check throughout the study area um with um soil augur. There were some areas where I I felt like uh you know I felt like there I had confidence in the the boundary um particularly the one
that's up against Southeast Street. Um the areas that were in the back um sort of uh between the between Belchtown Road and Southeast Street, I had less um
sort of confidence in the in the boundary. Um not not because of the applicant's experience or competence, but more because it's a very tricky site. Um it's uh previous development. There's obviously been fill placed
there. So the soils are um really tricky and um so we're going off of uh a lot of off hydraology and the area is is a mode field. So um the vegetation is has been
maintained as lawn. So there's areas where you can see some you know rushes and sedges popping up. Um and there's areas where it's just lawn. And then there was a couple locations sort of in the middle of the site where there was low-lying areas clearly with some
hydrarology and some high groundwater. Um where I did see some sort of oxidized ryospheres in the in the soil um which told me that there was some evidence of of long-term saturation
there. Um, so I mean I guess where I'm coming from as staff on this one is I as it stands right now with the delineation I feel um the characteristics of the site are complicated enough that I don't feel
confident in the boundary. Um I would feel more comfortable having a third party look at it, somebody who's really really experienced with soils and wetlands. Um but that's that's just my thought looking at it at at first pass. Um other the commissioners who attended
may feel differently um from the sitewalk. Um and I know that there was one potential area that uh Dave was going to look at to adjust the flagging. Not sure if flags were moved or if there was an issue with the um accuracy where it was wetter this time than the when it
was actually flagged. That's all I have. Sarin, um, would the applicant like to provide an introduction? Um, I think Erin did a good job characterizing what we all saw at the
sitewalk yesterday. Um, I did agree that there was, um, what looked to be an expanded groundwater seepage into what we flagged as wetland two, which is the one closest to Belchuretown Road. And I think it makes sense to hang some
additional flags there. Um, and we're happy to do that. I think, um, the two other areas that I think Erin uh asked us to take a closer look at, tried to match what her notes were on her plan with with my field copy of the plan. Um,
looked distinctly different yesterday than every single of the time that I've been there. And these um these wetlands were flagged by two different firms. Um and we we came we we all I think agree that it's a very difficult site. The
soils are disturbed. Um we went from an excessive drought when I started looking at the at the property late last fall to um an excessively wet spring. and the urbaceous plant community, meaning the grasses and the wild flowers, often
respond very quickly to such extreme fluctuations in precipitation. So, I think that may explain some of what what we saw yesterday. So, I think we're willing to take a closer look at those other two areas, Aaron, that you pointed out. Um, I'm I
feel comfortable hanging some additional flags at Wetland 2 at the location that we I think agreed on. Um, so I I guess we would ask for a continuence eventually here. Um, but I I want to
just also note that a big part of this filing is to um get confirmation from the commission that these are just town wetlands and not resource areas subject to the the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. there is a an apparent
boring vegetated wetland to the west on the opposite side of Southeast Street that's on Ammeris College property. We show the the buffer zone projection onto the study area that's the subject of this ANRAD. Um but the wetlands that
we've delineated and the wet spots, the additional wet spots that we saw yesterday that may or may not end up getting flagged um appear to be just low spots in a lawn. Um, one of them is
connected to um, a subsurface drainage system that's several hundred, if not maybe over a thousand linear feet of below grade piping, but none of them appear to meet the um, the definition of BBW because none of them are touching
the water body. That's something we actually didn't discuss in the field yesterday, probably because it was so hot and we were trying to keep things moving. Um, Erin, is this I was just gonna say if we do end up doing a continuence, one of the things that I think would be
really super helpful for me is if there's any historic asbuilt records or anything like that that define particularly that larger basin area at the center of the property as a storm water structure because to me it has a
very distinct um basin with a berm and then there's like a spillway at the outlet and I would like to to know or andor verify if that was actually an engineered system which would give me a lot more
confidence in that low-lying area at the center of the property. So if if there's going to be a continuence um to allow the applicant to kind of give those areas a second look, I would ask if that could be looked into. Okay. If there's any public comment,
please raise your hand. Seeing none, I'm going to go to the commissioners. Um I'd love to hear from people who are out on the site, but um any questions or comments? I was on the site visit. Uh it's pretty
much as um Mr. Cameron and Aaron described. I could see the virtue of trying to understand the historic construction or storm water or whatever the is causing these uh low-lying areas to be wet or
wetter than everything around it. Um, it would be good to know that I I understand Erin's um interest in having a third party review, but it strikes me that we have two of the most talented people on this
topic in the room already. And between Aaron and Fleetwood Solutions, I think they could come to come to terms with what's needed. I personally wouldn't be in favor of of uh adding yet another person in there, but
thanks Bruce. Anyone else? Alex, I joined Bruce and I joined Aaron and um Flewood Environmental Solutions on that hot day in that field with no shade. And um I echo everything that Aaron said
and uh that has been said about how complicated the rolling uh uh the rolling ground is. And I would support Erin if she thinks a
third party review is warranted. Um uh the purpose of this meeting I think is to just determine jurisdiction without uh I think that's what we're doing and um if there's a continuence
uh I'd let Aaron and and Fleetwood environmental uh work out what needs to get done during that period. Thanks Alex. Just want to say I'm really flattered, Bruce, that you'd put me in the category with Dave Cameron. Um I don't think that
I have the soil chops to evaluate this site. Um that's why I made the recommendation of possibly um having a third party look at it. Um but we lost you, Erin. Sorry. More than
willing to give it a shot to try to work something out. Um, just uh I don't necessarily feel like I'm uh as sharpened a a wetland scientist to to dispute the wetland boundaries on
this one. So Erin, if if there I mean I I know the area and I agree there's like a structure that is extremely reminiscent of some kind of basin that looks constructed. Um if it comes to light that that was in was some kind of
constructed storm water storage um would would that uh reduce your interest or need for a third party review if there is that kind of explanation to the hydraology of the site.
Um, I'm more than willing to take a look at uh what whatever's available and also give Dave an opportunity to look at the areas that um look so distinctly different this time than when it was originally delineated. Um and then and
then have another look at it. I think um uh it was a very hot day, so I felt like we were in a real rush. So having a second site visit uh when it's a little more bearable after he's had a chance to look at it might make me feel a little
more comfortable. But um that's fine uh on my end if if we want to go that route. Anything else from commissioners? Okay. I'm I'm sort of inclined um to agree with Bruce that uh maybe we can move forward without the third party
with a a secondary site visit and maybe some more information about site history. Um so I guess we're looking to continue this at at today. Um Erin's queuing us up. I've got it in front of me.
Okay. And so this will depend on a second site visit um and hopefully confirmation and agreement um on the flagging. Is that sufficient for moving forward with this
from your perspective? Yeah. Okay. Hearing no objections. Looking for a motion. Oh, Alex, I as we move to continue, I don't want to imply that we're eliminating the possibility
of a third party review uh by what goes forward. And if so, I I just want to I just want to make sure we're not canceling that out, but rather reserve that for a later
decision. Yeah, I think that could be also an outcome of this second site visit. So, yeah, I agree. I'll move to continue the public hearing for D number 089-756
to July 9th, 2025 at 8:00 p.m. I second. Andre on the motion. Rachel on the second. Bruce, hi Rachel. Hi, Alex. Hi, Andre. Hi. I'm an eye.
Okay. Thank you and good evening. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. So, we're back to GZA. Um, and for the third time, notice of intent
for GZA Geo Environmental Incorporated on behalf of Archipelago Investments LLC. Wait, before I do this, Aaron, is Kyle here. Yes. Okay. uh GZA Geo Environmental on behalf of Archipelago Investments LLC and Hampshire College for proposed mixeduse
residential development at Zero West Bay Road, map 25B, lot 52 and 0 West Street, map 25B, lot 58. Proposed work includes construction of three mixed use residential structures with associated parking, storm water remediation, and landscaping portions of which are located within the buffer zones to
bordering vegetated wetlands DP number 0890752. Good evening. Good evening. Hi. Okay, I see Mark and Steve are open as well. Thank you. So, if Hey Mark, how are you? Hi, Steve.
So, if we're uh all set, we are all set. Um, if you guys have everyone here, so I'm gonna give it to Erin for a fivem minute update and then to you and public comment and commissioners. Yes. So, um, I haven't received any revised materials, but I'm aware that
the applicant would like to present a plan, conceptual plan, um, that's just in sort of concept at this point. Um, I just wanted to share with the commission that I did upload some documents um to the the folder and also to the public folder um regarding some notes from a
conversation I had with D. I've been getting a lot of public comments um with questions about the soil remediation. And so I had a conversation um with the uh section chief for the uh
Bureau of Waste Management um to get a sense of uh the requirements for uh the soil removal or soil remediation uh on this site. And um so that those documents are available for anybody to read and those might sort of shed some
light on um what the the rules and regulations are relative to former orchard contamination that was caused by normal herbicide and pesticide applications. Thanks Aaron. Okay, Kyle, so we understand you have a presentation for
us tonight. I do. All right. Thank you for your time. Um I'll try to share the screen here. I just put in a request. Sure. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Okay.
Can everybody see my screen? Yes. Uh so, uh again, thank you for your time tonight. Didn't mean to do that. Thank you for your time tonight. Uh we this was the plan we discussed at the
last meeting. Um this was our uh proposed iteration to try to think about moving the wound uh further away from the wetland uh while keeping the three building uh setup. And we have uh we appreciated the comments and the
feedback um and have been working quite hard to uh come up with uh an option to present to you that we think might allow this very important project to move forward. Um and uh so I'd like to show
it to you. Um the uh let's see here. That is what I was looking for. Sorry about that. I believe this one. Here we are.
Okay. So, uh I'll start over. This was the original plan that we uh have submitted, right? And this shows the three buildings and uh the wounderf uh adjacent to the wetlands and uh uh the parking next to the buffer on land and lane. Uh this is what we showed last
week which showed the wounderf moving away from the buffer and began the conversation of remediation. uh mitigation and what we'd be doing in 0 to 50 and what we'd be doing in 50 to 100. Uh took your feedback and have been working. This is just process stuff, but
I just wanted to show you guys that we're uh really trying to come up with something that would allow us to develop this site, would allow Hampshire to uh realize the value for this site and would bring as much housing as we can to this important parcel. So, what we're looking at here is just some quick
sketches that I want to show you through this is the existing plan. This is the red is the fence. The dark green is the 100 foot buffer. The highlighter yellow is all the parking and walkways such and the scribble pink are the buildings. Here's a quick sketch showing how the if
the wounderf starts to move away from the wetland. If that building one starts to move away from the wounderf, what starts to happen to some of the amenity spaces for the outdoor space for the tenants. Uh this is another iteration where the three building scheme started to look like a two building scheme. And
you see all my scribbles and notes and stuff on here. So, uh, uh, but just this is us working through how we could start to, uh, come up with something that we think might, uh, uh, balance all the competing objectives that are on the site. Uh, this was a crazy idea to think
about a U-shaped building that would allow for just a portion of that 0 to 50 foot buffer to be impacted and then turn the parking. Doesn't work with grade. Doesn't work in a lot of ways. Uh this was another scheme where we started to push the uh buildings out to the corner.
Try to do a zig and zag on the wounder to again to remove to reduce the amount of impact to the buffer. Uh tried to move the parking on the landing side uh off off out of the buffer as well. Another one where again a zig and zag on the wounderf. This two buildings turned
into a T-shaped building. Again trying to preserve the limited space that we have available where we can actually put in underground storm water. uh that would work. Uh and then we started to look at a single building uh that was effectively on uh or near the 75 ft no
build uh around the wetland uh the buffer uh parking at the corner of Bay and Gould and then a single building uh against the buffer on the landed side with uh parking to the east. Uh here's another iteration where it
becomes a little more curved looking at different parking options. starting to think of the zero to 50 foot buffer a little differently than the 50 to 100 foot buffer based on some of our conversations last week. I'll get through this quick just a couple sketches to again thinking about how we could start to deal with all the
competing objectives of the hammerhead and fire department access and planning board requirements and uh soil remediation etc. Um and then some sketches on how this could start to work out if we're uh starting to head in this direction. Um, and then this is a more
refined set that starts to show these two uh curved buildings, uh, robust planted 0 to 50 ft buffer, a fence uh, along the wetland, and then pushing uh, the amenity space into the 50 to 100 foot buffer, and getting rid of the wound. Um, and here's some additional
sketches over that to look at some other options on how the grades work. We have a big long building. If we take those two buildings and make them into one, we still have 280 feet uh uh height on the Golden Landon side and 292. So there's 12 foot grade change across that first
floor building. And uh and then here's the plan that we wanted to present tonight. So this is the conceptual plan. So uh this is from Modus uh working with the architects, working with uh GZA u we're doing a lot of iteration to try to come up with something that we think
might work. Um this is the first floor of the building. This is the second floor of the buildings and this is the upper floor of the buildings. So going back to the ground floor, uh what we're looking to do is stay outside of the 0 to 50 ft buffer. Uh curve the building
so we have enough room for parking along Gould and Bay. That's going to be sufficient. Uh push the building on Lannon uh this building closer uh to the buffer with parking uh along West Street. As you can see, um, uh, this
results in fewer units. Uh, it's not at the one the 200 that we were looking for, the 188 or the 140 we've submitted. It's down now below 130. Um, and, um, and that's based on the pink being the retail, and the, uh, green being, uh,
lobby access. And so, as you come up, you would move through the building. We'd have uh, again two buildings rather than three. Uh, a reduced number of units. And again, we'd be eliminating the WERF um and pushing the parking, which is not shown on this, but pushing the parking to the Bay Road and the
Gould Way uh area. And then up above, because we're still looking to have four stories on both of these buildings, uh we'd pull back the uh and because the ground floor on the east side of this building is at the 280 uh uh elevation and this building's at 292, we'd have
one floor of residential that goes above and we'd have a green roof uh rooftop amenity uh facing east and then four stories uh facing this way. So, we would eliminate the drive-thru. Uh we the the Winon Earth drive-thru uh we would um
push the parking to Bay Road and Gway and uh we would look to remove the soil uh in the 0 to 50 foot buffer. Uh replace the soil in the 0 to foot 0 to 50 foot buffer. Uh plant it as a buffer
uh as best we can and then use uh as much as we can in the 50 to 100 foot buffer as nonpaved uh amenity space for tenants. Um in we'd like to in place of the wounderf uh we haven't reviewed this with planning board obviously yet. We
haven't reviewed this with uh fire department uh yet for life safety. But in place of the wounderf what we'd like to consider is something like brass pave um for fire department access if that's going to be required if the fire department wants to retain this or DPW or both want to retain the hammerhead
and be able to access this building uh for life safety. There might be some impacts on this unless we can kind of try to pull that building out, still get the parking that we need along Bay Road and Cool and Gould, which we may be able to. We just haven't been able to spend enough time on that yet. Um,
but uh uh it's a it's a very different approach. Obviously, it's um a lot of work that it would take for us to shift gears and head in this direction. Um, I think what I was taking from previous conversations with the commission was that uh it was very difficult to get
around the imposition of the wounderf in the buffer. Uh, and it was confounding our ability to have a clear conversation about how best to remediate a contaminated site. Um so um what we wanted to do tonight was to present this conceptually to to the
conservation commission uh see if uh this approach which would obviously greatly reduce the impacts on the buffer uh would be something that would uh the commission would think uh would lead us in the right direction. Um if so then we could come back in a couple weeks with
more detail on this. uh and if we were able to do that and still be heading in the right direction, then we would look to go back to planning and see if the planning board uh also thought favorably of this revised approach. So with that, I know there's a lot of questions about soil remediation and uh lead arsenic
removal and fencing and things like that. And uh want to just uh open that to to questions. Thank you, Kyle. That was um all right. So, we have to go to public comment first and then we'll go back to the commission for questions.
So, if there's any public comment, please raise your hand. Michelle, can you handle this? I'm going to put you as co-host. Sure. And I'm because I'm going to do the timer. All right. I have Maria.
Um Oops. Okay. So, I'm seeing promote panelists and I'm not seeing allowed to talk. Is there a reason for that? Oh, there we go. Got it. All right, Maria, go ahead. Great. Maria Kapiki, South Ammerst, um 65 Country Corners Road. So,
you know, it's kind of hard to react to this in real time. I'm sure the commissioners are experiencing the same thing. Uh yes, appreciate getting out of the buffer zone. Still haven't accomplished that. Don't know if the parking is going
to fit into this or not. It's really I mean, I don't know. I think y'all need to read the um and when I say y'all, I mean I'm referring to archipelago. Um uh the mass D communications
um this whole idea of taking away soil doesn't seem like a runner. Um and nor is the fencing. So I don't know. I don't know what you guys are going to do with this. Um but this obviously needs a lot
more digesting. It's not a fully formed plan. Um, uh, yeah, I don't know. Stay out of the buffer zone. That's my big takehome here. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. Um, I have Carol.
Hi, this is I'm Carol McNary at 115 Spencer Drive. And and this is I think probably the third time I've you know had something to say. I just want you to know I've been coming to I've been coming to these meetings for a while.
I'm not just a wonder person. Um the thing that I continue to worry about is how this development um approaches the goal of a village center which which enhances the
community. And what what bothers me is that um I really appreciate the fact that archipel coming up with these different versions of designs trying to meet their
um the absolute criteria of of not going in beyond the buffers. But the problem has always been the size and scope of this project. So, you know, the the goal
being to get the most apartments on this difficult site um to basically make the most profit over the long run. And um you know, we've had different things put
before us from meeting to meeting. It's not really a wetland. It's a there arsenic in the soil. It's degraded site. So, it really uh has comes under different regulations. Um, and I I I think it's
still important to look at whether or not this this project fits in with the community, the idea that's been um not just the apartments, but the environment, you know, how this works
best. It's an idea that's gone back for a long time. Thank you, Carol. Um, okay. Sorry, Kelly, you ran out of time. So, next up is Sherry. Okay, I'm Sherry Wilson for Macintosh
Drive. I'm very glad to see that uh archipelago is trying to accommodate the wetlands uh which is the jurisdiction of the conservation commission.
Um, it does not appear that they are trying to accommodate the community's concerns about size, but that is not the main concern of the conservation
commission. Um, I really can't respond to very clearly to quick um pictures of
um new proposals. Um, but I'm willing to listen to what Archipelago would like to do in terms of the community and especially in terms of the
wetlands and the wildlife and the community. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Sherry. Um, I'm not seeing any more hands, so last call for public comment. Okay. Um,
all right. Commissioners, questions, comments. Andre, thank you, Michelle. Um, Kyle, it looks like you've uh you guys have uh done quite a bit of uh work trying to find ways to kind of make those pieces of the puzzle
fit. Um I do wonder uh about the question that uh Maria Capikia asked uh she or the statement she made. She said stay out of the uh stay out of the wetlands. Um,
what is it that you can do uh to stay out of that uh 100 ft buffer on um on your curved um uh building proposal there, the one that's uh on the bay road side? Is there some way you can take
that curve and make that go on the outside of the uh 100 foot buffer and still have your building? Uh thank you for the question. Uh we've looked at it. Uh I think what starts to happen is the uh parking gets pushed
extremely close to Bay Road. Um and because we have to fill there in order to make the below ground storm water work, uh it's also going to be a retaining wall that then is getting pushed close to the road. And um without the wounderf as the pedestrian walkway
from Applewood or upper Orchard or uh Rambling Road to come over, then all pedestrian access will go on the sidewalk along Bay Road uh and down. So I think that what ends up happening is is to preserve the buffer we really
start to impose on the street. Um and uh it's it's going to be a balancing act. Um, so I think, you know, as we've shown, it curves in um at the very end, gets tight to that buffer. It get it imposes on the 100 foot buffer. I think
we could probably open that up a little bit. I'm, you know, the architects are freaking out a little bit about a curved building and cost and ability to build it effectively and and all that. So, we're trying to maintain a constant curve instead of, you know, kind of chunking it up a bit. Um, I think we
could absolutely push it out. I don't know if I can get all the way to the hundred. I think we can get, you know, to the 75 and I think some of that is going to would come back to fire department requirements and how much space do they want if they still want to come off this hammerhead and try to have access to the south side of the
building. How much space would they want between the building and that? So, um, obviously what we're presenting is not fully fleshed out. It's a concept. Um, I don't think I could say, hey, the whole building is going to be outside the hundred. I think I can get it, you know, almost as you could see if I sharing my
screen again, the you know, the vast majority of it's outside the 100 and then it turns in uh at the end. And if I if I was if I could show my screen again, I would show you that what we're also trying to preserve is the drive aisle that comes out of Atkins parking. We're trying to line that up so that it
it works and so it's not off by a bit and create some weird and so to do that again that's putting pressure to have the building a little bit closer to the existing hammerhead there. So, I think that what we could do is really try to focus our impacts, make them as many temporary as we could on the hammerhead
area of that where obviously there's existing uh uh fire hydrants and water lines and curbs and storm drainage and all that stuff and try to keep, you know, as much of our impact as as would be needed as close to that little hammerhead as possible and then get out of that buffer as soon as we could.
Well, I do appreciate your uh your explanation and I appreciate the uh the efforts in trying to find a way to to kind of minimize the impact on the uh buffer. I do uh recommend uh and would look for you to minimize it even more.
Um do everything you can to get out of that and that for and after that you don't have uh us to worry about. I mean that what you're really doing is you're looking for uh permission to in essence uh violate without violating the uh
law, right? I mean, well, that's what a that's what a uh you know, these types of variances and these types of uh what you're looking for is permission. So, I I do uh appreciate what you're doing. I would look for you to uh maybe straighten it out like you're saying and
whatever you can do to uh uh to minimize uh encroachment even on the uh town's uh bylaw buffer of 100 ft. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Andre. Um
I don't see any other commissioner hands. I have some questions. Okay. Um so I'll go ahead. Um, thank you for the minimization measures and showing us the efforts that you went to to come up with that creatively. Um, I guess in, you
know, I I don't know if you did it already, but have you calculated any buffer like proportion impacts 75? We have not yet. We're still waiting for the updated survey with the new flag
locations. Okay. So, no ballparks. I don't know how much those pushed it out. Okay. So, there's the 75 but no build and then there's the 100 foot and then we have our 20% and 100 foot buffer. So, I think those are metrics to pay attention to
when we're talking about impacts. Um I had a question about the in within the buffer um the 100 foot you mentioned a non-paved residential amenity. What what is that or some examples of that? Uh well I on the previous scheme on the
current scheme obviously the residential outdoor amenity is on the north side of the building in between the building and Bay Road. Um and that was the benefit of bringing the Hunerf through. Um if we're pushing the building out and the parking out to Bay Road, then what we'd be looking for is someplace where tenants
could uh be outside, someplace where tenants could enjoy the outdoors. There's a place to sit. There's a walking path. there's uh maybe a pergola uh things that are not uh paved but things that are occupiable um and I think that you know what I'm
what we're trying to do on this is is keep the 0 to50 as precious as we can uh come up with a plan for the lead arsenic remediation uh be able to remediate that and replant that and then work within the 50 to 100 to try to recognize you
know how we and try to, you know, put all the rest of the puzzle pieces together, which includes outdoor space for the tenants, potential grass pay for, uh, fire department, etc. So, there'd be a couple things that would be trying to, you know, overlap on that southside between fire and tenant
amenity. Thanks. Yeah. And so, just to be clear, when you're calculating the the impacts, it's not just building and impervious, but it would also be any kind of development, including um non-paved residential areas. So, just, I guess, keep that one in mind. Um,
what else? Yeah, I mean, I guess I I think we're probably all looking forward to seeing the updates on the the buffer impacts and seeing the buildings out of the 75 ft no build. Um,
and is I mean I think I'm excited about what you're coming to us with tonight. So, I want to hear from other commissioners um because we have an opportunity to give them some guidance right now uh as we move this forward. Alex,
Alex, you're muted. Thank you. I do want to express my appreciation for um the creative thinking that you're doing and I think that's all in the right direction. uh we're getting a little closer to uh
where we want to be. That's nice. Uh and some of the things, you know, there are things over which we have no jurisdiction such as how many stories there are. And um in your creative thinking of trying to move out of the 100 foot
buffer uh even in consideration of the 20% allowance uh you know um I presume you're going to have further dialogue with the planning board about uh things you might consider in
your new plan. So, I'm still uh keen on um not granting the waiverss that you requested, but in perfectly willing to uh entertain future proposals that seem
to be getting more and more creative, and I think that's just terrific. Thanks, Alex. Rachel. Yeah, thanks. Um I I know we've talked about the remediating the soils, not
remediating the soils. Um I'm curious if there is a way to leave the soils in the buffer zone untouched um to minimize further disturbance to the buffer zone um in in these new schemes. Um, and then also curious about
um, and GCA may want to weigh in on this too about grass pavers are amazing, but they they have to work. And so if groundwater is really high, um, you you can you might you might want to look at that approach. Technically, that may not
work with the high groundwater. Thanks, Rachel. Um yeah, and I I do want to just reiterate the question about the 50-foot um remediation. I think I I too had that question. So I just want to pay attention to it. And I think the guidance from D was that it wasn't ne
necessary and I'm sort of with Rachel on whether or not disturbance is better than leaving it as is. But anyway, go ahead Kyle. Thanks. So, uh, I talked to Aaron about the D, uh, uh, conversation. Uh, I think our
consultant and D are saying the same thing. So, I don't think there's conflict between what's being said. Um, I think that if you, you know, Applewood has an AUL that's based on cleanup of of lead arsenic soil. Uh, the Eric Carl
Museum has an AUL. They stripped almost the entire site in order to do that. Uh, I think D said there's a couple options. You can remove soil. you can also encapsulate it and start to put it under parking and and uh and kind of you know make it safe in that way and we've
talked about that and Mark and Steve know for years um and we've known about that and the issue there is that encapsulation requires processes that are difficult to pull off when you have very high groundwater which we have. So, um I I think in the in the zero, you
know, starting from the wetland boundary out, uh there's there's a couple options. We can remove soil or you can kind of cap it. Um so Aaron and I talked about could we bring in a bunch of soil and just put it on top of that potentially. Uh but we can't do that in
the wetland. And the wetland has lead arsenic in the wetland. And uh the D regs, you know, I'm we're not coming forward saying, "Hey, we'd really like to put a fence here." Uh we're coming forward saying our understanding of D regs are if you can't remediate the
soil, you have to prevent children from getting to it. And uh the way to do that in a wetland where you can't remove the soil or you can't cover it is to fence it. So we're only proposing that because we understand that to be a requirement. And then our proposed remediation would
be to remove the soil from the wetland as close to the wetland as we could outward because it's lead arsenic contaminated soil and that's suboptimal on many fronts. Um and we wouldn't want to put the investment of of of of this new project and leave contaminated soil
next to the project. Um and I think if we were looking at placing soil on top of that, you know, this buffer is downgradient of the wetland, right? This isn't a situation where our buffer is tilting into the wetland. The wetland is above this buffer. So if we build up
soil here, we're creating effectively some very different hydraology in and around that area. So um our preferred approach is still to put a fence as close to the wetland as we could to uh uh secure that contaminated soil that's in the wetland and then to remove as
much lead arsenic soil as we possibly could outside of that. Um, I don't see a viable option where we instead of putting the fence next to the wetland, we put the fence 50 feet out or 100 feet out because that just creates, you know, a massive unused area that is, you know,
not a very it takes up a massive amount of the site and doesn't remediate the lead arsenic soil and doesn't create a place that people can can use and support uh development on this on this site. So we we'd very much like to continue to pursue the remove the soil, bring in new
fill and plant it and then talk with uh the commission about how we you know do as much of that as we can the 0 to 50 and then uh how to balance that with mitigation from 50 to 100. Thanks Kyle. I mean I think to be clear we're not looking at the 0 to 50 as
usable space as part of the development. We're looking at that at no touch buffer. So it sounds like Yeah, I am I am too. Sorry to interrupt, but I we are too. I I just don't want that to be a place that we just leave arsenic soil. I I'd rather collectively recognize that
this is our opportunity to remediate that. And if we did it and put it back, put new soil in and planted it as a buffer even if there's a fence behind it, it's much improved condition from current state. Okay, Dave Zack. Yeah, thanks Michelle. I'll be very
brief. I just wanted to echo some of the the commission's comments, appreciating Kyle and his team coming in with with um you know, new ideas, a new essentially a new plan, new concepts, I should say. And um you know, I I also appreciate you
know, the way Kyle is kind of coming to you all and and working with Aaron to say, "Give me feedback. Give me feedback." Uh you know, we're they're working this they're working this site and they're working the the project. So, just wanted to appreciate that and echo some of the supportive comments that
I've heard from the commission about moving this forward and coming back in a couple of weeks uh with with a concept that might be more well-developed. Thanks. Thanks, Dave. Okay. Um, so it sounds like you don't
want to put a fence at the 50ft and you'd prefer, I guess, design and livability to have that be in the zero. Um, which puts us in the consideration of some temporary impacts in the 0 to 50
and I see that you have a planting plan for that. So I guess that's just something for commissioners to consider. it's not, you know, impervious, but it's going to be an impact to consider. Um, and I do just, you know, as per Alex
what he said, we're still looking at trying to keep this not looking at a waiver, but looking at within our jurisdiction and our um current limits of 20%. So, that would include all of the development, including the non-paid residential area. So, I'm looking
forward to seeing what those final numbers are. And I think we'd more quickly move forward with if they are very close to 20 and under. So could I ask a question about that? Yeah. Um I understand your perview is 20. I also understand your perview allows for more than 20 if it's a site like this. Is
that uh is there is there agreement on that? I so I think what you are referring to is whether or not this is a um impacted site or a degraded site or redevelopment which I think we got into last uh meeting. So per our bylaws, I
don't think that would this would qualify as those. Those those would be already built sites. Um something with a footprint, a redevelopment of a road. And you know, while this I agree is um impacted by previous land use and
agriculture, I don't think it is specifically covered under those. I mean, we still have discretion to extend the 20%, but um I wouldn't personally interpret our bylaws to say that this was a redevelopment site, if that's what
you're asking. Well, what if about severely degraded and that the entire site's covered with contaminated lead arsenic soil? So, that the rationale to that would be that the lead arsenic soil is impacting the wetlands and the water quality. I mean, I guess we'd have to
tie those things together. And I don't I don't see the direct connection um to those things or have evidence to suggest it, but if someone else interprets that differently, um go ahead and chime in. I mean, it's it's degraded in that soil
contamination, but as far as wetland function, habitat function, biodiversity, I don't know that those are connected to the arsenic. They could well be. I just Okay, Aeron's got our I mean, it it's it's an argument
you could make. I just don't see it right now. Well, my concern is that we continue to work on this project. We continue to to try to come up with something that balances all the competing objectives and we end up with 35% impact. And uh
we're trying to say, hey, you know, we'd like to get some credit for the work we've done in 0 to 50. and we're way down the road and we're saying look, you guys are saying look it's a if you're not at 19% this is a done deal. Um and if that's the case, it's just going to make you know with the existing
conditions as they are with the hammerhead as it is like somebody's going to have to be out there temporarily fixing that thing. Somebody we're going to have to handle fire department. Fire department may come in and say I want to come off that hammerhead or I don't like the project.
Um, and I'm cautious of I'm cautious of uh going down the road further and getting to a point where we have a you know an untenable position. So that's why I'm asking if if the commission thinks that if we continue to try to
make something work and uh and we're showing that effort and the commission says, you know, if if you do that and and uh we we like what you're doing, we'd be open to considering beyond 20% in the uh in the 50 to 100. If not, uh
that'd be really good information that would allow us to decide if we're going to move forward. Got it, Kyle. I see some hands up. Um, okay. I'll let Andre go. Thank you. Um, yeah. Uh, Kyle, it it it
so uh it seems that what you're what you're kind of asking us is is uh kind of like let's make a deal kind of thing here. Is that kind of my understanding this? In other words, what I'm uh so
so we're asking you to stay uh as much uh as far out of the 50 as possible. you're um what what you're asking is if is whether clearing some of the uh some of the
ground and I'm I'm asking you whether this is the the point or not whether clearing some of the ground would be uh something that could mitigate the uh encroachment into more than 20% of the uh 50 to 100 foot
buffer. Am I Am I getting that right correct? Okay. All right. I just wanted to get that right. I'm I'm I I can't quite buy that. Uh I it just seems to me like you need to clear that up no matter what
because that's what uh uh because people are going to be living there and you're presenting it as if it were um something uh that's being done kind of more of a mitigative uh type thing for for the wetlands issues. Um and just leave it at
that. But uh I do appreciate what you're you know what you're trying um I don't see it and the determination of whether or not um that falls uh uh that that falls uh as under mitigation or whether that is acceptable
or not or whether it's a fully degraded uh site or not. that that determination is up to uh the individual um uh commissioners. Uh if that helps you to clarify it for your uh purposes as
well. Yep. I I appreciate that. Um and I'm not looking to make a deal. I'm just I'm looking to uh look into the bylaw. Something's written in the bylaw that clearly recognizes that if there are, you know, unique conditions that
the commission has the ability to understand those unique conditions. If they're redevelopment, if they're urban, if it's degraded and recognize that those conditions in our town that has a lot, you know, the remaining developable land is a lot of it's under your
purview. Uh, allows projects to move forward. And I'm just trying to say it seems like you would put that into the bylaw for a reason and it seems like this site is a very good reason. Um it's the only BBC site remaining. It's clearly a site that the town has wanted
to develop for a very long time. And um in terms of removing the lead arsenic as a mitigation measure, the analogy I make is if we buy triple pain expensive windows from Germany for a 47 Olympia project, we get credit from passive house international. We get credit from
lead. We get credit from Energy Star. We get credit from the building code. And we get credit from the building officials. All of them recogni don't say, "Hey, just because you got credit for passive house, we're not giving you credit for that." They all recognize it's in it's it benefits each one of them. And our our take and it might have
been naive was that removing contaminated lead arsenic soil was a community benefit was a benefit to the commission. It's a benefit to the ecosystem. It's a benefit to the environment. Okay. Um, and and that's that's that was our our starting point and and I see that and it is a benefit
to uh to the community and such, but uh what you're you know, but that doesn't put back um wetlands that are being impacted. So So we're we're we're we need to be comparing apples to apples here, not apples to oranges. See, uh
your your examples anyway, I'm just saying it's not working right now. Um but, uh maybe it will. Okay. Uh, Alex. Yeah. I just Am I on mute? No, we can
hear you. Okay. So, I um again want to begin by uh respectfully saying we appreciate the creativity and all the work that you've had the architects do. I think if we continue along those lines, we'll find
something that works. But I don't think that there is a demonstrated requirement for your project to go beyond 20% into the 100t buffer. That's all a matter of design. So as I mentioned, uh we don't have any
jurisdiction over the height. Other other communities do, and if that made a difference to you, I assume you would pursue it. So I am not inclined to grant a waiver for it's without prejudice to
your project. We have a number of of places where the town has created development zones with a lot of wetlands. And so I'm concerned about the precedent of granting waiverss
uh to go beyond the 20%. Frankly, I would like to reduce the 20%. That's not in the works right now. So it doesn't influence my thinking about what I just said. Uh but we have other projects. The
town has a report that it expects to have something like 440 units built in the next four or five years. The number of lots in town for those are marginal. Many of them are marginal. So we're going to have wetland issues all over
the place over the next four or five years. And so I'm I'm not inclined to be granting waiverss because they all set precedent for people coming down the road that we're going to have to deal with. So I would encourage you to continue to
think, be creative, think out of the box and what you're doing now, I think it's terrific and see if we can't get to yes. But I I leave the conversation saying that I have a dim view of of granting
waiverss for the 50 foot and the 20%. And I I'm going to just probably stay right there. I I appreciate that. Would this be the first project to go beyond 20% as a precedent? Yeah, I want to talk about that. But um for a
non-redevelopment project under my So it's like 20% is a new number, Erin. So since it was um updated in 2022, we have not had a non-redevelopment project go over 20%. We have had redevelopment
projects go over 20%. And the next thing I want to say is that I don't think we have a definition of degraded in our bylaws. So that's open for interpretation for the commission. Um like I said, I you you're suggesting
Leic is a degraded state. It could be. I guess we we haven't clarified that there's other parts of this parcel that you know there a created storm water wetland. It's not um it's not pristine. I mean there's there's there's levels of
interpretation is what I'm saying um per bylaw. Go ahead Bruce. Yeah. Um early in the presentation u at the end of those many examples I think you said showed us something that was two buildings and I think you said 130
units which was down by some significant number from whatever the plan was a while back. Um what happens if you push that even further? two buildings down to a hundred or is would that enable some of these problems
to be more easily addressed? Uh absolutely. Um I and to just take an extreme example, if we put a single family home on each lot, that would be the easiest. Um and then between one unit and what we've got now is 130,
obviously we could, you know, be anywhere in that spectrum. Um but just let me augment one little bit because the discussion so far has been about housing units but there is retail in it.
Correct. Uh it's just not the driver obviously. Um uh we don't have a retail crisis. We got a housing crisis and that's what we're working toward. So I obviously we could make this 70 units, we could make it 60 units. Uh but at that point uh it doesn't support the the
site remediation uh cost. Um so it it's a it's a bit of a catch22 in terms and it doesn't absolutely wouldn't support the value that Hampshire uh is looking to uh uh see in in the project. So um
it's it's a balancing act. Of course we could make everything smaller and and get it away. We're just trying to say hey this is the last BBC parcel in South Ammeris. This seems like a really good place to do something creative and and get as much housing as you can. Obviously, we're shooting for 200 units
and it's a 130 at this point. Um, but yeah, if we made it smaller and smaller and smaller, we can uh everything becomes a lot easier. It just does less and less to get to the housing goals that our town also has that are going to get worse and worse going forward because there's so little land that's
zone left and so little land that's left that's also zoned for new multif family uh and mixeduse development. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're coming up um on 45 minutes
here. So, we're going to be looking to give Kyle some some more solid guidance before we go. Um, Erin, hey, I have my hand up. Yeah, I think I Erin hasn't talked, so
I'm going to give her a chance. Um, I I'll yield to Alex. Uh, I'll just go after him. Go ahead, Alex. So, Kyle, I just wanted to make a clarification on the need for housing. The state puts out a I'll call it a
requirement and if Dave's on he can correct me if I'm wrong but the state says that each town has to provide so much affordable housing and I'm not going to say what the amounts are cuz I'll probably be wrong.
But what I do know is that Ammerst has exceeded the amount of affordable housing that the state requires of it. So the the the mantra that there's a huge need for housing is there is a need for housing
but with regard to affordable housing Ammerst is ahead of what's required of it and in that regard I think it's doing very well. So I just wanted to put that out there that uh um we're doing great on some aspects of
housing. Sorry I know that's outside our jurisdiction. It's outside Yeah. Um, okay. I see multiple hands up. I before we go, I want to touch on the mitigation again. Um, Erin, go.
You're muted. I just wanted to um, you know, I feel like Kyle's gotten a lot of feedback. We're we're pushing 45 minutes for this hearing right now. I just think um, it might be helpful to let the applicant sort of digest some of the guidance that the commission's given
tonight. and um maybe uh allow you know offline discussions and questions to continue um while they continue to rework this plan. I just I I sort of feel like we're restating things that we've already stated. Um so just my
thought Dave. Yeah, again I'll be brief Michelle. um it is beyond the purview of the commission to really talk about you know the number of housing units you know built or needed or or affordable housing but I would encourage all commission members if you're interested to read the
updated housing production plan that the housing trust just put out and in fact um you know it points to the need for housing in all categories in in Ammerst the region and and Massachusetts. So uh we need more housing in all categories u where appropriate. Thanks.
Okay. So, so Kyle, well, Aaron said something about offline um discussions and guidance and I I have had that and I think that you have been communicated to by the staff regarding mitigation and maybe coming up with some more creative
proposals for that. I think um I I'm not hearing a lot of support from the commissioners about the 0 to 50 foot soil remediation is being considered mitigation. And I think we're looking for, you know, wetland function, habitat, biodiversity, and unless there's a a really good case that the
soil remediation has a big benefit to those things, then I yeah, I guess I'm not really considering that as a big lift for mitigation. So, we can't tell you what to do exactly, but you can come to us with proposals that um you know
may balance some of the variances that you're looking for if you can't stick to the 20%, obviously, it's going to be a lot easier of a time the closer you are to the 20%. But I guess I'm encouraging you to think creatively about that. Um
and certainly you can have further conversations offline about it. Thank you. Right. Is there any last further guidance from commissioners? Okay. Seeing none, I think we're ready
to continue this. I move to continue the public hearing for D number 089-70752 to July 9th, 2025 at 7:55 p.m. Second. Andre in the motion. Bruce on the second. Andre. Hi. Bruce. Hi. Rachel.
Hi. Alex. Hi. And I Okay. Thank you everyone. Have a good night. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Good night. Okay. So, I think we've covered all of our business. So, if there's any last
public comment, please raise your hand. Give you the floor. Okay, seeing none, I think we're ready for adjournment. Move to journ. Go ahead, Alex. Rachel, you got it. Andre in the motion. Rachel in a second.
Bruce, hi. Rachel, hi. Alex, I Andre, hi. And I'm an eye. All right. Hey, don't forget to look out your window, Erin. Check out this photo. I'm going to go look right now. Good night, everyone. Good night, guys.