Good evening. Uh this is Andre Gadera with the uh conservation commission for Ammerst. Um today is um the 13th of uh May uh 2026 and uh current time is 7:04.
Um today we've got I believe three uh three hearings. Um and then we're going to be uh discussing the uh uh conservation area regulations. Um
and policies. Uh and so that's what we're what the plan is for today. Um we do uh we do have a um a drought. We're in a drought condition and it's uh been upgraded to uh Erin,
could you remind me what the uh >> yes from mild to significant? >> Yeah, upgraded to significant. And um let's see. And um I wanted to share uh uh a su a
bit of a success uh story if you would. Um, we did have a uh an issue with um uh with a beaver pond. I think I mentioned this last time uh during the last meeting as well. Um where uh there was a
need for an emergency certification uh to uh draw down the water on uh on the pond and breach the uh uh breach the dam. Um things worked out uh really uh really
well where where um uh the conservation uh department uh Dave and um Dave and Aaron both got in touch with me um gave me the scoop on uh what the problem was. It happened to be an area I was pretty
familiar with um on the uh on the conserv on the um uh rail trail and um we went ahead and uh did the um did the emergency certification and uh today we'll be uh ratifying that. We also over
the last couple of weeks had a uh had another um uh another emergency certification and we'll be uh we'll be discussing that a little later on. Um, and I think that's about about it for me
for now. Um, and with that, I'll turn things over to, uh, uh, Dave for, uh, the director's report. Dave? >> Sure. Thanks, uh, Andre. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes.
>> Yes. Good. Um, yeah, I do have five or six quick updates for the commission. I may not uh I may not stay for the whole meeting tonight, but I will be here as long as I can. Um so, a few updates for you around
town. One, we are making progress on the Wentworth Farm bridge redecking. That's the big bridge at um at Wentworth Farm. I think Aaron may have some photos that I provided for you in the packet. I actually didn't look at the packet, but they may be there. But Brad and Anthony
have been out working just redecking that bridge. Um, our hope is once we redeck that bridge to move on to the next bridge, which is a smaller bridge closer to Old Farm Road. Um, this bridge
is uh receiving oak, new oak decking, so hopefully that'll last 10 to 15 years. Um, Mount Pollock at at some point we will be be getting the new kiosk. Uh, we do have kiosks in stock in in storage and
we'll be putting a new kiosk up at Mount Pollock with the geomorphology sign. Uh, with everything going on in town, that geomorphology uh project has uh languished a little bit. It's not been the highest priority list on our
highest priority project on our list, but we will get there. I've I've assured our friends of Mount Pollock that we will we will get it done. Um UMass, we've had two productive calls with Jason Vindiddi at UMass, Aaron and
myself. I've had one with Aaron and one by myself with UMass. Uh we've established regular meetings uh for the next um uh we'll be meeting every other month and we have two meetings, one in June and then one in August. So, we'll
be meeting with Jason Vindidi to just talk about any UMass projects coming down the line, what are they anticipating, uh what filings are they going to uh need, and just a chance to talk about upcoming projects uh be they
large or small. So, I'm feeling pretty good about that. Jason has been very consistent and a good contact for us at UMass. Um in terms of budget, as I reported last time, the budget is now out. The town budget is now out, the draft budget
to be uh acted upon by the town council in the next 45 days. That does include $5,000 in the FY27 budget for conservation commission training. So, I have no reason to believe that anyone would make
an adjustment to that small aspect of the larger town budget. So, uh I'm optimistic that as of July 1st, there will be $5,000 set aside for um uh training for each of you and future um
conservation commission members. So, that's uh good news. Um want to put it out there. I know we're all busy. It's a busy time of year, but one of the things that we don't do a lot is involve conservation commission members in volunteer projects. So, it's something
to talk about at a future meeting. Would you like to be involved with, you know, during the summer if there's a bog bridge project or a bridge reducking project or bluebird box uh installation, whatever it might be, we always could
use volunteers, uh, be it you individuals or family members, uh, friends. So, let's keep that in mind for maybe, you know, talking about this summer. There's always things to be done out there and volunteers are needed. Um, moving along Hampshire College, uh,
you're probably all following the the developments at Hampshire College. Uh, the town manager and and our leadership team is working, you know, quite quite diligently with with, uh, Hampshire College on on future plans for the campus. Um, I just mention it to you
because, uh, I presume some of you are are are keying into farmland preservation out there. Um there are about 692 acres of land in Ammerst, another 200 in Hadley. Um of that 692 or
or closer to 880 acres total. Um you know there's probably 400 acres of farmland, some of it prime. So uh I am in conversations with a number of conservation groups uh
that are actively working to preserve those those farm acres. I have every confidence that they will be preserved in the outcome of of what happens at Hampshire College. Hampshire College of course has a long history of of their farm center and CSA and and it is deeply
rooted the teaching and and working working agriculture is deeply rooted in their history. So, um, Kestrel Trust is around the table, a number of other conservation groups. So, have every confidence that whatever the outcome is at Hampshire, farmland will be protected
and hopefully farm operations will evolve and grow out of that. >> Uh, let's see what else. Yeah, >> Dave, on that point, may I >> would it be fair to say that no matter who ends up with the land that one of the very first tasks is to delineate the
wetlands? >> Uh uh whoever ends up with the with the whole campus or there's no guarantee plays out >> that the that the wetlands in that gigantic space have not been delineated.
And in order to have some idea of how you do a master plan or anything that one of the first steps is to delineate the wetlands. Is that a reasonable assumption? >> Uh I think first of all I don't I'm not confident
that one entity will end up with it. may be multiple entities and so depending on the project proposed by one entity or another for-profit nonprofit etc etc there will be delineations coming out of that
overall project whatever the ultimate outcome is I'm not sure if the farming operations continue on 400 plus or minus acres I'm not sure there'd be a delineation there but there certainly would be a delineation wherever there's proposed development or redevelopment
So yeah >> um there may be multiple I would presume there'd be multiple delineations of parcels and parts of parcels depending on what is u what is uh proposed there again you know the town's interests have
been articulated around housing the need for housing the hope that that uh development any new development can be clustered and centered in the core of the campus there's so many resources is there to take advantage of from the nonprofits to the pool, tennis academy,
pickleball courts, infrastructure, all all of that, water and sewer. It's a wonderful opportunity and and hopefully there's some housing and taxable outcomes there. So, lots of players around the table and the town is trying
to, you know, bring people together. Our role is could primarily be around zoning. What what does the town want to do with the zoning there? So, you'll hear more about that in the weeks and months ahead. Um, Fort River water monitor quality
monitor. >> Dave, Jason's got a question. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, I didn't see your hand. >> No worries. Um, speaking of zoning, is do you know that 400 plus or minus acres, is that all currently zoned educational?
>> Um, a a large portion of the Hampshire College campus is ed zoning. educational zoning. I believe some of the parcels may closer to the village center may have other um underlying zoning, but
much of the campus is ED zoning. There's also a farmland overlay district. You can see this all on the GIS if you uh turn on the zoning layer. So, uh, the the land closest to the, um, farm center on the north side of the campus has a,
uh, farmland overlay, um, on it, which which guides and limits, uh, how it can be developed. But again, I'm I'm very confident in the conservation uh, organizations that have rallied
around the farm. So, I'm I'm feeling very optimistic about a a conservation outcome for for a lot of that farmland. It's it's really some it's the last big block of farmland unprotected in Ammeris. So, um moving along, I I'm sensitive to
time. Um Fort River water quality monitoring. Um we are continuing to partner with DPW, Ammerst DBW, the Fort River Wershed Association, DP. Aaron is is involved in this at a level that a little bit more
than I am, but we are continuing to to to monitor and be part of summer monitoring of the water quality in the Fort River and its tributaries. So, that work will be going on this summer. And then covert assessment grant. Again, Bruce is uh has a pivotal role in that.
He may want to, you know, uh report out on that. I I know the work is progressing. I'm not as involved in that at that level. So maybe Bruce in a in a few minutes can give >> Yeah, go ahead. >> One sentence which is we've had two major meetings. We've gotten lots of
feedback. There was a town hall and then the sustainability fair. We have plans for three or four more tableablings at various events. Uh and the assessments are underway. >> Okay, great. Um what else? I will not be
at your next meeting. I will be on vacation so I will miss the meeting on 527. So that is just for your information. In terms of um Olympia Place 47 and 57 Olympia
Place, I know that Sarah had done some research. I wanted to give a a quick update on that. Dave, >> I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can we uh talk about Oh, you're going to be leaving later. >> Are you going to be leaving? >> Yes. at some point during the meeting. I may
not make the entire meeting. >> All right. Yeah, I was looking to talk about that in enforcement, but uh go uh if you want to talk about it now, that's good. >> Yeah. Very quickly, I think I can summarize. Um I've had two very productive conversations with the town attorney and the town manager. I've had
one call with DP. um briefly and and I may limit my discussion because we really don't know where where this is going to go in the future and frankly it may not go anywhere but you know I'm always a
little cautious if in the future there are any kind of legal outcomes or or next steps with these um situations. I I think it's important to kind of talk about what needs to be talked about and and let the town and staff and uh town
attorneys do do what they do. Um so the town is taking our role seriously. We've we've had uh we have the initial report from D which I think Sarah um uh provided. the town already had that report, but um that report was done uh
very close to if not on the day of or the day after the uh the actual event, the fire. Uh DP in that report essentially, you know, ended the report by saying no further action is needed at this time and that is an important
caveat. Um you know, I want to make it clear, no one knows whether there's contamination on the site or not. We're going to do our due diligence. There may be no further action needed at all. Um, and we'll see how that proceeds. Um, the
town attorney has advised us that we, as I, as I represented to you a couple of meetings ago, we the town, we are now a responsible party in this. We own the underlying feat of the conservation land. So, the owners of 47 and 57 are a
responsible party. We are a responsible party because we own the conservation land. Uh so we have some responsibility and next steps. Um I've contacted >> Dave. I'm sorry. Can you tell us where you came uh or just
>> at some point tell us where uh that where that was concluded from the where where you where the uh is who's determined that the town is a responsible party? Was that uh was that you or the attorney?
>> The attorney under state law indicated that we are a responsible party. We are one of the responsible parties. >> Would you share with us uh what uh what they base that on that decision on or that uh opinion on?
>> Help us help us understand as well. >> I will do the very best I can. Yes. Um, we are, um, I've been in contact with the owners of 47 and 57 and all future correspondents to them will go
through their attorneys so they're aware of this conversation tonight and and where we're headed. And I think what the town manager is wants to affirm or confirm with you is that, you know, the commission would like the town to pursue
next steps. and he asked me to ask you this evening. You want us to pursue next steps and pursue soil samples of the conservation land. And so that's kind of an action I'm looking for from you tonight. Is that something you would
like us to do? Um >> we can bring that to a vote in a few in a few minutes, Dave. That'd be great. Thank you for for that for that question from Paul. Thank him. Um, and we are prepared. If that is your
uh if that is your interest, we are prepared. We're seeking estimates for soil samples right now from uh various contractors. So, that's where we'll go. the town manager's office will kind of oversee
the process and correspondence between the town manager's office and and the owners will go through uh Paul Bachman's office. So that's kind of where we are. >> All right. Okay. >> Again, doing our due diligence. We're not making any assumptions. There may be
no reportable concentrations out on that site or there may be. >> Yep, that makes sense. Uh I I I'll have to say Dave that I'm highly concerned about the fact that it's been four months since this occurred and it's been uh and again I'll I'll repeat I'll
repeat I don't you know one more time that uh the owners of the property have not you know they they took a long time to respond and I think that uh this should have been we should have made a determination a long time ago because if
there is contamination then we're going going to be uh 4 months behind. Uh so I just want to put that out there and uh make sure that it's uh that it's clear. This isn't uh this is not ideal. Um this is far from it, but
we're we're going to get there. Thanks. Um Sarah, >> great. Sorry. Um yeah, thank you very much, Dave. Thanks for the um the followup. And um um I I think Erin, it probably since we're now being asked to
vote on something, I think it would probably be helpful if you forwarded both of my emails that I didn't send to the entire commission, but just sent to Dave and the town manager and Andre and you, Aaron, um as followup to the to the
report we got last week and my um you know, my questions about why the town council would have said that it was our respons respons the town's responsibility to do initial testing. So, um, if you could just forward that correspondence so everybody has the benefit of it. And then
>> I'm sorry if I could, sir. I'm sorry. I thought I thought all of that was in your packet. Is that not true? >> I don't know. Sorry if it is. >> Maybe you could ask Erin. I'm not sure what I thought I just Erin had said, what would you like me to put in the packet and I said whatever
correspondence. So, I thought >> Sorry, that's my bad. I didn't. No, I'm not. >> I could be I could be wrong. >> Would you mind uh Would you mind shedding some light on this? >> Yeah, I think I shared the latest correspondence from Sarah. I'm not sure
I the initial one was uploaded so I can upload that too. Sarah. >> Oh, that'd be great. Thanks. I thought I thought everything in there. I just wanted to but but Dave here's my question because what what I'm so I appreciate that the you know what
you guys are saying what the town council is saying about what the next step should be if the commission decide if the town decides they want to do testing. I understand what you're saying, but um I'm just wondering if we can get some more information
from be and we don't you know if you really want us to make a decision now that's fine but I still think it would be helpful to get some more information and what I'm concerned so the D report that was a firefighter that report that
called D when the fire was taking place so it wasn't actually the owner of the property it was a firefighter And the the guy that I spoke to at D explained mostly what they what they were looking for was an oil spill. And the guy went out and he visually looked and did not
see any visual signs of an oil spill. And he and the the conclusion was that if there was an there was oil that spilled from whatever was on the side, it would have burned because the fire was so intense. So they weren't actually, you know, that was at the fire
and they weren't looking for other things in particular. And and so what I'm what I would like I just would like personally think we should have a little bit more information. What did the property owner know about was what was on site at the time of the fire? cuz
that's important because if there was something on site that they knew might contaminate the neighboring property, they would have an obligation to report it. So, I'm just cur I'd like the property owner to say to us, to our knowledge, there was nothing on site
that could have caused contamination into, you know, we didn't know about anything that could have caused a problem. I'd like to kind of know what what they you know, what was on site. And then secondly, I'd like to kind of know the property owner to take us through what they did. What did you do?
Because one thing the guy at DP said is I'm very he said to me when I showed him the p I sent him the pictures and I expressed you know said we're concerned that there's not been any cleanup and the guy at D said I'm surprised that the
property owners insurance companies didn't require didn't do anything. They typically would would require this. So, it's it's just I think we need a little bit more information about what was on site prior to the fire and what has the property owner done since then. And if
they're now hiring a lawyer, I it's just a little weird. Like, we're just we're just trying to get a little bit more. I mean, it's fine, but we just need a little bit more information because right now we have a very severe s fire that was upgrade of town property. And
you can see from the pictures that all this stuff just washed onto the the town land and it hasn't been cleaned up. So I don't think it's it's you know u you know out of the realm to just get a little bit of information. Okay. Sorry.
>> Here here's my my quick my quick response is um I can't speak for the property owner. It's not my role to, but I I had a conversation with the property owner today and I don't think we're going to get any of that information about what was on site. We certainly
could as part of any LSP's work on the site. I I I believe that will be part of the site to look at what you know there was diesel in a crane, there was you know it was what was the what were the
fuel sources at um 57 and 47. So, I think a lot of that will come in that initial report, but I'm not expecting a lot more from the property owner at this point, but a lot more information will come out if we begin to test. The fire
department also has a lot of that information. And if we connect the LSP with the fire department, they will know what what chemicals, what uh liquids were on site. So, that's the best I can offer today.
>> Dave, um just real quick, what what makes you think that they won't um share anymore? >> I I would rather not, you know, the the owner is going to deal with the
town through their attorney. Period. That's what I was told today. So that is all I have to go on. So that's all I can share. >> Yeah. So they do have an attorney, right?
>> All I know is what I was told today, Andre, which is they will correspond with the town through their attorney. That's I I don't have any more information. >> Okay. No. Yeah. just I just didn't know uh if if aside from the fact that there
was an attorney if you had some knowledge that they would not want to be sharing what materials were in there. That was the question and you you answered that you don't believe that they're going to share it. So I was just wondering >> I believe there are other ways to you
know we know through building permits we know how the buildings were heated. We know you know that information is not difficult to find in other ways. The fire department did a full report on on the fire. The building commissioner has full reports on both buildings. So, I
I'm not I'm not feeling like the town won't be able to access that information. Was there gas, diesel, um you know, etc. on the property? So, I'm not feeling like that is information that will be hard to determine.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. So, uh, the town doesn't believe that we're going to get anything else, uh, any more information from them. >> We will we simply will correspond. The town will be writing to the owner and
requesting cooperation and we will see what that response is. That's the best I can do today. >> Yep. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Jason. Um, yeah. Somewhat I think to to Sarah's
point is how and and to the conversation here, if we're going to have somebody go out and test, if it's the town's responsibility to have somebody go out and take samples of the soil, we need to know what it is we're looking for other than petroleum products.
So how you know we need to make sure that we get some information or that there's you know right now right you don't you can't find what you don't if you're not looking for >> yeah it's a great question Jason we will
be working with these LSPs to create a scope of services that will cover what materials chemicals will be looked for in this in this testing So
I'd be happy to share that with you at a future meeting once we have that. But yes, that will be there will be a number of things we will be looking for. Um, >> and also >> as part of that,
>> you know, because there was so much water used, is there, and Dave, this is I'm just somewhat asking this rhetorically, but is isn't there a potential that some of this stuff has just been washed
downstream? Like, how far will this investigation actually go? meaning, you know, are we going to look 100 ft over the property line or are we going to go downstream two miles? >> I think these are all great questions,
Jason. I don't have the answers tonight. I think we will to some degree be talking with these people who do this for a living and are experts in in 21E situations and asking for their guidance. >> Okay. >> Um,
>> how far You're right. How far does an investigation like this go? There are streams, there are rivletes, there are subsurface water, etc. But again, I think right now it's just kind of very good questions and I will bring
those to the LSPs. So, uh just just to clarify for everyone, uh Dave, um the uh if we if we request it and uh Paul approves, then um
the town will hire one or more LSPs to uh take samples and then um what you're mentioning is that most likely the LSP will uh will work with uh the fire
department to and other entities to find out what really to test for and then they'll be going out there and testing. >> Yeah, I think that's uh I I don't know all the specifics of it, but I think that is generally the path forward for
us. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense that they uh try and find out everything that they could uh to address uh Jason's uh question, which is we don't know what to test for yet. So, okay. Thanks, Dave. Thanks,
Jason. Cara, we can't hear you. You're you're muted. I remember back in January starting to ask these kinds of questions and I I've read the emails that Sarah what
that went composed and I read about the legal framework and that the property owner is responsible a resp a responsible party. I mean perhaps the town I guess the town
is also but the property owner certainly is right and um they are responsible for reportable conditions including the threat of release which I guess goes to what Sarah brought up about wanting to
know what materials were on site that were possible contaminants. Is that correct? and secondly whether they were likely to exceed reporting thresholds. So um my my question is since we have as
as a commission repeatedly said we'd like to get some uh communication with the property owner. um where is the real focus on what their responsibilities are and the questions
that we are very legitimately asking as uh a a conservation commission. I mean, this is our job. And it it to me it it it's confusing or or not really satisfactory to be said
to be told, well, their their attorney will respond to the town. I mean, at what point did they respond to the con conservation commission and and at what point do our concerns get addressed?
Dave, thanks Carl. >> I I don't really have any response to that other than telling you what what I've already told you is there is this path forward. Uh Carol, I'm again I'm
not an expert on 21E, but I've talked to our attorneys a couple of times. I've also talked to D. Uh the responsible party definition I will tell you is very broad under 21E and we are it is crystal
clear to our attorneys we are now a responsible party >> and we own we own the land and and the owner of 47 and 57 is also our responsible party. So >> if, as I've outlined before, uh if if
there are reportable concentrations of uh and and that's a key piece, reportable concentrations, there may be things that migrated onto the town property that are not uh above reportable
concentrations. And until you test, you don't know that. We don't know that until you take samples and test those samples whether there are reportable concentrations of anything that is above a certain threshold that is reportable to DP. So right now and DP does not have
any authority uh as recently as this afternoon when I was talking to a staff member there uh to to enter this situation. So it's simply once samples are taken and those are analyzed there may be reportable concentrations and
then my understanding is you sort out the responsible parties and take action. So I think >> I'm not talking about D. I'm talking about the property owner. The property owner please please let me finish. Okay.
property owner has a responsibleility, as Sarah said, to to to give an accounting of what possible contaminants there were on site. I mean, I I don't see why that's not a question we could
expect an answer to. at at this point if the commission would like to do anything related to the the property owner uh you know I've provided all the answers I can with regard to what the
town's actions will be >> so I don't want to stand in your way if there are questions you have and you I I can't provide them I don't know the answers to them >> all right all right um one one second I think what uh Carol I think what Davis
is telling uh telling you and telling all of us here is that the town has uh the town has determined that they are a responsible party as well as uh we you know we know that the RP is also the uh uh the property
owner there. Um and uh he's also telling us that the town has its own attorney and that the property owners have their own attorney and that if we want to act our own on our own behalf, I think or what I'm what I'm reading out of this is
that the conservation commission is on its own with no attorney. That's why we need a budget more than just uh training. But, uh, that's that's where I'm seeing, uh, where I'm seeing us, uh, kind of stuck here.
So, I'll leave that open, Sarah. Um, so the guy that I spoke with at I don't know who you spoke with, Dave, but the the man that I spoke with at Mast, he was very helpful and wants to help the town and said that um he would be
happy he does think I mean he did say that he thought testing was a good idea and he said he'd be happy to I mean presumably whoever we would the town would hire knows what they're doing, but he said he'd be happy to if there are
questions about suggestions for what to do for initial sampling and also any questions about interpreting results he'd be happy to help with that so um mass D is you know potentially a resource for that to the extent that whoever you use and the other thing I
just wanted to say is it's it's unfortunate honestly that the property owner I think is hired counsel because that tends to just make it into a kind of a fight. But if you guys want, I'm
happy to try to um draft a letter requesting some information if um if the other commission members want to do that and and see what their response would be. I mean, my guess is that if a letter comes from the town conservation
commission to the property owner, even if it's going through their council, their council's not going to ignore it. they will respond. Um, and if there are questions that, you know, that we decide we'd like to ask, I can, um, you know, I
can draft that if the town doesn't want to for some reason, but that would that's another option, Dave, would be for the Yeah, I don't know. I don't I haven't spoken except for those emails to the town manager, but it's certainly within the prerogative of the town to
ask some questions of the property owner, but but I'm happy to draft something if the commission wants a letter to come from the commission. >> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I'll tell you what, let's chat about that a little bit uh when we come to enforcement. Um
because I think uh I think what Dave is saying uh what Dave has said is when I've asked um who the attorney is, they don't know. So there's no way and but but we can only communicate through the attorneys. So we as a commission can
send something to uh uh to the owner and they can just hand it right over to their attorney. That's how it's always worked for me. >> Yep. I'll tell you, I've worked oil spills before and the RPs, the people who uh the folk the companies that are
uh running the oil back and forth, they become RP uh uh RPs immediately. It's never been an issue for me in the past. So anyway, uh let's chat about that in a little bit. I think we're gonna need to uh keep moving on here.
>> Well, it just can I I one-s sentence question with a one sentence answer. Um Dave, technically who is the commission's attorney? >> I don't know. because the commission has committees and boards as far as I know
do not have their own attorney through staff through staff >> and through the town manager authorizing access to town attorneys at Copelman and Paige GP Law. Um that is
how committees and boards can gain access if they have legal questions to town attorneys. >> Okay. >> Commission itself doesn't have its own attorney through the town. >> Fair enough. I just wanted to have that in case we lost you before we get to the
enforcement discussion. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, basically, the attorney represents the town, but gives opinions. We're we're kind of working um on the same uh on the same page, so to
speak. Um but we don't need Huh. >> I honestly I I honestly think we're working in the same direction. I I think we're working in, you know, we're not working opposites. I think we're working in the same direction. And so just wanted to add that I think I think we're
>> I sorry I agree that we usually uh that we most of the times are but right now we're we're trying to find things out and we're not we're I think we're a little bit confused as to how we proceed on this Dave
because what you're telling us is that we don't do that or or what I'm kind of what I'm understanding is uh that you're asking us to kind of sit back and wait and let the town uh attorney talk to their attorney and so on. Is that what you're telling us? I just don't and I
don't I'm just looking for >> I think in short I I I think a process is is playing out here and I'm simply presenting the commission with that process that will happen through the town and the town manager's office to
communicate with the owner of the adjacent property to uh bring on uh a licensed site professional to do testing. So, I think I'm simply asking for, if you will, your patience to have
that process play out. >> All right. >> Thank appreciate it. It's been four months. We've been patient, but we'll be a little more patient.
Sarah. >> Yeah. Sorry. I just want to answer Bruce's question. So we're all we're town employees. So council, you know, the we're employees of the town, right? As commission members. Yeah. So okay.
And also um in terms of the I still think that you know if the town man it's the commission can do they we are responsible for we have a job we have a role to play in protecting and enforcing
the wetlands bylaws and you know the townland is within our sort of custody kind of. So, it's okay for us to send a letter. In my opinion, it's fine for us to send a letter asking, you know, getting some information. If it's not something, you know, initially that the
town manager or the conservation department wants to do, I think it's fine for the commission to do that. I think it might be, you know, helpful to get to try to get a little bit of information from them about what happened. And I was asked that by the mass D guy, what was the inventory on
site at the time? And I said, you know, I have no idea, but you know, it's it seems like a log. It seems logical to get some information if you guys want to do that. I think that would be perfectly fine. And it sounds the only thing now I have one more question for Dave cuz I thought initially Dave, you were saying
you wanted us to vote and ask for testing, but this last comment you had, it sounded like you guys were proceeding with hiring you. By you, I mean the town manager and you know with maybe collectively with you are proceeding to
get uh to hire a licensed site professional and you don't then need us to vote on it's not us. Can you just clarify that? Are you doing that anyway or do you need us to ask the town to do it? >> I actually never mentioned a vote. I
think what the town manager wanted to know was the general sense of the commission that you are supportive of the town proceeding in this way to do our due diligence that may result in no reportable concentrations and no further
action. uh you are supportive of the town proceeding with that path to um test to secure an LSP and test the town conservation land for any contaminants that may have resulted may have resulted
from the fire. >> Okay. So, you're trying to get >> I think we're not looking for a vote. A general sense of the commission would be fine. And I think that's all we need. >> Okay. >> All right. up a show a quick show of hands of uh who would like uh the town
to do u to do what Dave just said. I'll put my hand up. >> All right, Dave, there's your answer. >> Thank you. >> Wonderful. >> That's a quick one. All right. >> Thank you. >> Um topic. No. Okay. Um anything else, Dave?
from the uh director's report. We kind of took a side uh side avenue there because uh you're not going to be around later on, but uh >> No, thank you. I know you have applicants and hearings. >> All right. Well, thanks again, Dave.
Um uh with that, uh do we have any updates uh on land use? Uh Erin, >> none. No, no land use applications today. >> All righty. Well, um with that then we're going to move into our uh first
hearing. Um before we do that, um I'd like to uh give some general uh procedures for these hearings. Uh stick with me. I'm trying to read through some glasses that I usually
uh don't read with. Um uh each hearing has 20 minutes. Uh five the first five minutes are going to be for uh the uh for the um uh applicant or their representative. Um when uh the applicant
or representative uh comes up, please state your uh name, who you're working for, u and uh your preferred uh pronouns. And uh for any members of the public uh state your name, address, and um your preferred pronouns if you have them. So
5 minutes of a presentation um uh by the applicant, five minutes uh for the staff for town staff to comment. We'll have five minutes of uh public comment which uh will translate to two minutes per uh per person and uh five minutes for the
commissioners. Uh just as a reminder um uh any documents that uh you're going to submit uh for uh consideration need to be submitted by the Wednesday the week before the meeting at close of business.
Um one a couple last uh issues. Robert's rules of orders just everybody remain silent until uh until called. can al always raise your hand. Um, and I will
uh the chair will facilitate uh we'll we'll uh tell you when uh when it's the next person's turn. Um so with that said, we're going to move on to our very first uh hearing. Um
this public meeting is now called uh to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the commonwealth an act relative to protection of wetlands as most recently amended in article 3.31
wetlands protection under the town of Ammeris general bylaws. This is a request for uh determination, an RDA submitted by Tai and Bond on be behalf of Eversource uh to determine whether uh soil boring
and sampling activities uh at the former manufactured gas plant MSP uh on Pelum Road. Map 15A, lots 29, 56, 39, and 47 are subject to the Wetlands Protection
Act. uh and wetlands uh protection town of Ammeris bylaw article 3.31. So with all that said um do we have uh presenters uh coming in
for this inter? >> Yes, I will add them in as um >> I see Kate Wil >> presenters. If if anybody else wants to come in, please raise your hand. I see Tybon folks here.
>> Hello, Kate. Uh, welcome. Um, if are you alone tonight? >> Um, I believe Matt Wagner and Saskia from Eversource are probably both on the line. >> Okay, I see Matt's joined uh joined here now. And what what was the last name?
I'm sorry. Oh, Saskia. There we go. Well, welcome all. And uh you have five minutes for your presentation to us. Thanks for joining us. >> Wonderful. >> Thank you so much. Um, as stated, Kate Wilkins with Ty Bond, she her. Um, with
me is Matt Wagner, Ty Bond, um, he, him, and Saskia from Eversource, she, her. Also, um, uh, we're here, um, to discuss, uh, the RDA that was submitted for the, um,
Deanapple recovery evaluation at the former manufactured gas plant off of Pelum Road in Ammerst. Um, we're going to shorten manufactured gas plant to just MGP to keep words at a minimum. Um, so this area is located um just west of
the um of the Fort River right off of Pelum Road. Um I believe there's a the farm that's adjacent as well as a hair salon in that area. So um the site is located within jurisdictional resource areas. So
our proposed assessment activities um will take place within uh riverfront area bordering land subject to flooding the 100 foot buffer zone to bank and bordering vegetated wetlands um as well as the locally regulated 100 foot um no
disturb zone. Um this site was an old manufactured gas plant. So they actually manufactured gas at the site and delivered it to residents of the town of Ammerst. Um and it was decommissioned um quite a while ago. Um but there's some
residual contamination that's at the site that needs to be addressed and cleaned up. Um we've been in the process of or Eversource has been in the process of doing that for for quite a few years. Um and we're at the point now where we um need to do additional assessment. So
the the purpose of the proposed project that that we're presenting at the moment um is to perform additional assessment of the site to inform future remediation and risk characterization of the area. Um and the overall objective is to bring the northern portion of this site so
north of Pelum Road um uh port former MGP site to uh permanent solution and with conditions designation. Um, so we have a variety of activities that are going to take place. I don't know if it would be helpful to kind of talk about
more background. I know Aaron, you and I kind of discussed like is it would it be helpful for the commission to understand more of the background or should we just roll right into actual activities proposed in this application? >> Um, I mean, I don't know how confusing this will be for folks if they don't
know sort of the contamination element. We've got a couple new members. So, it might be helpful just to do like one or two sentences just explaining if you can >> the process and and how this issue came to be and why this is necessary
or Matt. >> Yeah. >> I jump in. >> Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> I Yeah. So, let me just jump in real quick. Um so the the gas plant operated
um for a short period ended you know almost 100 years ago. Um but um as part of the processes that were used to make the gas there was also wastes that were produced in particular um something called colar
um which is you know uh it's like a an oil kind of um material but it's or liquid but it's um it's heavier than water. So if it hit you know normally when oil hits the water table it sort of spreads out on the water table. This is
this this actually sinks through the water. Um so um Eversource has been working on this property since about 2002 and we've done a lot of removal of this colar um from the subsurface but
now we want to move on to um you know we've basically completed that work to the extent feasible and now we want to you know make next steps to you know um better define what remediation needs to
be done which would include things like removing some of the surficial soils that are impacted um as part of the operations. Um and that requires us to to do some additional assessment.
Is that helpful? Is there additional information? Yeah. Okay. So, why don't you Katie jump back in and tell you know what >> what we're planning to do? >> Um is it okay if I share my screen as well? Okay. >> Sure. Do you are you going to do it in about 3 minutes or so or do you need
more time? >> Um I I as I go through the list, it'll be helpful to point it out on the map so everybody understands where the locations are so I can do it right now if that's okay. >> Yeah. Meaning uh what I'm asking is uh how long will it be more or less
>> hopefully two minutes. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Uh it says it's disabled at the moment. So are you able to put it a request to share when you try to share it? just says disabled share host disabled
attendee screen sharing it just okay >> okay sorry about that try now that work >> wonderful thank you >> sorry it's never done that before okay so are we seeing the kind of
overall site plan here okay yes >> so uh as we stated the this first phase of the work and what this application is covering ing is really just um overall assessment. We're trying to figure out what's there and where it is and we're not planning to do any sort of removal
at this point in time or any sort of extensive excavation. Um so um first thing is assessment of um sediment area excavation area to delimmit the delineate the extent of sediment removal
required to mitigate the imminent hazard. Um so we have this assessment area here. This is all going to be done with hand borings. So an augur handborn into the ground. Um another area is down over here. This is a assessment of the
previously delineated delineated arsenic hotspot excavation area with evaluation of applicable soil disposal categories. So again this is just going to be done with hand borings. So there's a a known arsenic hotspot in this location here.
Um, again, just poking with hand, collecting some soil samples, sampling what's kind of there to then characterize soil disposal and what we need to do. Um, this larger box in here is the area um where there was some
potential subsurface structures. Um during the site visit, we kind of looked at a few and Erin probably shared some of the photos of there's some old concrete um um structures and features that have kind of been left from the old uh manufacturing building and accessory uh
pieces. So um there's not a real great idea of the the full extent of all of those. So, um, we did do some GPR surveys to get an idea of what the subsurface looks like, but based on there there's a fair bit of vegetation, just kind of smaller shrubs and brush.
So, um, GPR can't get a full assessment of that just because they can't run the equipment just straight across the ground in that in instance. So, um, there is going to be some, uh, test pitting using a small excavator. Um, there's a fence all around this property
right now. So, there is a fence entrance at the very um edge of Pelum Road. There's an existing pathway that a truck goes back and forth in. When we've been doing sampling and testing at the wells out here, um we've been using that. So, they'll be using that existing access
and cutting kind of smaller shrubs um and smaller saplings as necessary, but keeping with the existing pathways. So, um those areas will be kind of excavated out to kind of get an idea of the full extent. not planning to go down super far um and everything will be um
restored to grade upon completion and stabilized. Um we're not planning on removing any soil or digging anything out or um trying to reduce our ground disturbance to the extent possible. Um there's a few different existing groundwater wells kind of throughout. Um
a lot of these are all test locations and ground wells. Um so we'll be using um just standard equipment to sample water from the existing wells. No ground disturbance um associated with that. Um and then um surface water sampling along
a few portions of the Fort River. So again, it's just grabbing water from the surface of the river and bringing it back and testing it. And then the last bit will be um five transexs along a portion of the river pretty much in this northern section and then a little bit under the bridge and into the other
section of the river. Um uh to evaluate for the presence of colar within kind of a one foot of the sediment surface. Um this will be done by foot with a hand tool. Um and then sampling will be done during lower flow periods uh to the extent feasible. So
that's just making sure that we're checking that everything is here. We're checking off the boxes. Um going through the um everything that needs to be addressed and reviewed and asked for so that we can then pull together a larger assessment to figure out what's next for
the actual u remediation of the site to move it to the next phase of things. So um hopefully that was two minutes, three minutes, what was I at? >> Thank you Kate. Um, >> yeah. >> And the purpose of obviously of all of
this is because it's going to be there's going to be a cleanup. >> Um, or that's uh for a potential plan cleanup. Is that right, Kate? >> Yes. Yes, we're we're we're Yes, that's
you know um the ultimate purpose. >> Yeah. >> All right. and and when any of those larger features when any of the larger activities happen, we'll be coming back in front of the commission with more detailed plans on exact areas, BMPs, extent of work, so on so forth. So,
>> all right. Yeah, I just wanted to get uh kind of get an overall scope of it uh for us all to understand. Bruce, Bruce, did you have a question? >> Yeah. Um, is there a a plausible
scenario in which the testing of the river doesn't show any contamination and that uh less harm would be done by just letting it stay the way it is? Um to date um some sampling was done in
the river. Um you know earlier on um there was it was essentially ne negligible but the work we're doing now is just you know to some extent it's you know the surface water sampling is it's like you
know it's like getting a little check up on the river to make sure there isn't a change. Um, we also, like I said, we've done a lot of removal of this colar from the subsurface. So, you know, if there were things that could have impacted the
river, hopefully that there is less potential for that. But we're basically trying to get a a more current um uh assessment and making sure we're dotting all the eyes and crossing the tees so that when we submit something to mass D
they don't go back and say well you didn't look at the river. So that's essentially where we're or you didn't look at it enough or detailed enough. So very quickly, so in effect, this is phase two of the removal because I think you just said, well, we've already done
a lot of removal and so now this is a finer grain, fire, finer um opportunity to fine-tune the removal and it's driven in part, if not in large, by state legal requirements about
these kinds of circumstances. Yes, our work is is regulated by the Massachusetts contingency plan. That's that's what we're following. >> Um and the initial phase was uh the pumping of this this colar from the
subsurface and now we're moving on to um the additional step. So it is like a second phase. I think you're muted, Andre. >> That was great. I spoke for a little while. Um, so, uh, what we'll do is, uh, have, uh,
Rachel, uh, go ahead and ask, uh, ask your question, and then, um, uh, then we're going to move into the town's, um, recommendations and the, uh, public's comments, and then at the end, we'll be able to uh, ask uh, all the rest of our
questions. But in the meantime, uh Rachel, go ahead and and and ask what it what what you >> Yeah, in your report, I see that you're saying that there aren't uh priority habitat or rare species on the site. And I know, you know, just looking at Mass Mapper, it looks like they flagged the
property as being um priority habitat for rare species. I wondered if you could speak to that a little bit. Oh, I did not have that in my review. I'd have to go and look at that area
again. >> Okay. >> For rare species. I'm sorry about that. >> I I don't know if that designation may have changed since the time that you initially looked at looked at the area, but it's coming up on the mass mapper map as rare species habitat.
>> So, if that's the case, doesn't it uh don't you need to go to the to D with something extra or what what's that? I don't this is out of curiosity, Kate. >> That would be us reaching out to Natural Heritage and asking about the property.
>> It's a kind of a odd weird review when normally if it was an NOI, we can work through that process, but we would reach out to Natural Heritage. >> All right. Well, uh, with that then, um, Rachel, you is your question answered? >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks to you, Erin. Uh why
don't we uh go ahead with the town's um town's view on this, please? >> Yeah. No, I think that that was a an excellent catch. Rachel, I guess I have a question for for Kate in um in lie of that. Do you want us to hold off on
moving forward with this tonight considering the heritage issue? do need to um do a notification and checklist with them to move forward that we should include with this or I know I mean we would like to continue
moving forward with this and coordinate with natural heritage as well. Um, I know there's usually a pretty regular meeting between Eversource and Natural Heritage that we can maybe hop on to a conversation with. I don't know, Saskia, if that's uh something that you've dealt
with. I know licensing and permitting often has like a pretty regular meeting with them. >> I I can certainly reach out to somebody. Um I'm a little surprised because we've you know we did an N or an RDA like two
years ago maybe and um there's been prior NOIs as well. Um but those were a while ago. So um I'm a little surprised this is coming up. I mean, I guess these maps also change, but I can certainly um
>> yeah, ask, you know, somebody in licensing permitting to help out. >> Um, okay. >> So, I I guess just would we like a continuation tonight? I mean, does that make more sense for us to get heritage approval before we issue? Uh, I mean,
would you guys like to issue to request a continuation to be able to take care of that in advance? Yeah, we probably should. >> Yeah. Can be able uh go ahead. >> Yeah, I um I think that uh I think that's the best thing, you know, to at
least for due diligence uh um I don't want to make uh I'm not going to make that uh make a mistake without uh checking with them first. And I don't think that you folks want to do that as well. So, yeah, I think we we we we wouldn't
it wouldn't make sense for us to uh to go ahead and bring this up for a vote and uh vote po, you know, vote for you guys to go ahead with what you're doing without having uh some clarification on the uh uh natural heritage um status of
the of the property. >> Understood. So, um Erin, do you suggest continuing with your um with what with your recommendations and
so on and we'll continue with some questions and then um leave leave just one simple question uh left for um uh before we vote on you know vote on what we're going to do with this next
meeting. >> Yeah, I think that uh everything's queued up basically for approval. We just would want to have the um the conditions from heritage uh in hand so that we can you know include those as
conditions and have that as part of the the record. Um, so I would say that we should um move to continue the public hearing to May 27th at 7:15 and I'll ceue up a motion to that effect.
>> All right. I'll just check with the public too here uh real quick. Uh give them a chance to speak. I don't think they didn't that they we'll have much going on, but I'll do that and then we'll we'll uh we can we can um
>> can I ask a question? Uh yes, Carol, is it uh a question to the uh presenters or is it about >> Yeah, I'm just not familiar with natural heritage, that's all. >> Oh, natural heritage is the part of DP
that deals with endangered species and uh non I think it's a non-game species. >> Okay. >> Anyone correct me if if I'm a little off because I could be. Um, so, okay. Well, I'm going to check
uh let's check with the um with the public and see um anyone from the public uh if you have a question, please uh please raise your hand and we'll uh bring you in for your question. So far, I see none.
Okay. So, uh we've turned it over to uh to the uh commissioners. Um anyone have any questions to start out with? I see no questions. Um so, I think I think um you know, I I
I'll just say it once again. And I think it'll be a good idea to uh to check with Natural Heritage, make sure that uh that everything's um in in the clear for the uh for the next steps and um and then come back to us and uh uh we'll we'll
finish this up. Um, so what we're looking now for out of the commissioners is a motion to continue the public hearing to Feb uh for the Eversource MGPRDA to May 27th, 2025 at 7:15 p.m.
>> So moved. >> That was second and Jason with a second. Right, Jason? >> One uh one quick correction 2026. Sorry, it was 2025. >> Oh, I said 2025 or 2026.
Uh Jason, >> hi. >> Um Sarah, >> hi. >> Carol, >> hi. >> Bruce, >> hi. >> Rachel, >> hi. >> Tina,
>> I >> and I'm an I. So, um, thanks, uh, Matt, Saskia, and, um, is it Kate? >> Yep. >> Yep. And Kate, um, for, uh, joining us
tonight. Um, Rachel, that was a really good, uh, good catch on your part. And, um, so, thank you. And uh yeah, I think that's a good thing that uh Rachel found that because I don't think any of us wanted to be stuck in the middle of
something uh retro, you know, trying to turn time back. So, thanks a lot. Um and we'll see you at the next meeting. >> All right. Good luck finding out >> finding that out from uh NA NHSP.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll see you soon. All right. Um our next hearing, our second hearing. Uh let me come over to here. Uh second hearing. Um this public meeting is now called to order. The
meeting 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 wetlands as mostly most recently amended and article 3.31 wetlands protection under the town of
Ammeris general bylaws. This is a um a request for determination uh submitted by American Farmland Trust on behalf of Michael Sts and Reed Farm to determine whether the
activity of uh the activity of installation of a new sewer connection to the Russellville Road map 4B lot 5 m map 4D lot 17 is jurisdictional under both the wetlands protection act
uh wetlands protection act and the uh and wetlands protection town of Ammerst by general bylaw article 3.31. So um with that said if you don't mind raising your hands uh
to present um and you'll be brought into uh into our meeting. I see Lee Mlelen has a hand up. All right, we have Manuel Bas Gonzalez
and Lee Maylen here on behalf of the uh American uh or on behalf of Michael Stz. >> Hi there. >> Welcome. welcome and uh thanks for
joining us. Um you've got uh five minutes for uh for a presentation more or less. Um and uh from there we'll we'll we'll move on. Thanks for joining. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name is Lee Maylen. I'm a conservation
and agricultural technical specialist with American Farmland and Trust. I'm working on behalf of Michael Stoes of of Stokes Construction and uh um Cat and Peter Laznika who own Reed Farm LLC. Um
this concerns two parcels uh parcel 4B-5 and parcel 4D-17. These are two parcels opposite sides of um the road on Russellville Road near
the corner of Meadow Street. Um this is the former Queens Greens site um that was sold last year and purchased by Cat and Peter. Cat and Peter um own Reed Reed Farm which is based in Sunderland
and this is a satellite site um for them. Um they are um expanding their poultry operation and they are utilizing some of the field spaces and
uh tunnels at um mostly on parcel uh 4D17 which currently has a permitted and under construction um uh uh agricultural building that um
will be used to process poultry. Um this building requires a sewer line connection um which will uh initiate at um the building or proposed to initiate at the
building um on parcel um 4D17 and extend to a manhole cover that is on Meadow Street. Um uh that connection is approximately 775 ft and it does cross
into the 200 ft buffer area and 100 ft buffer area of the Swamp Brook Eastman Brook um um uh line and and bordering um vegetated
wetlands. Um most of the um connection will be um via directional boring. So we don't anticipate any surface disturbance
especially within that 200 ft buffer area. Um it will obviously be you know located um under frost line so it wouldn't impede any future uh use of the
farmland that is currently on um uh 4B5. Um the parcel 4D17 where the building is currently located that is a more developed site um and is well with
outside any buffer area. Um that since it is where the um the boring will initiate, that will be the location for a receiving pit for um any um debris or
sludge that might um uh be a result of the boring processed or any water. um any sort of materials will be stockpiled on that parcel well outside of the um buffer area. Um
prior to that pit, there will be an open trench dug um that will be likely less than 175 ft from the trench from the receiving pit to the building. Um I'm happy to show a um a picture of that in
more detail. Um if I can just share screen here. >> I think you can. >> Okay. Um so this is the new agricultural building is in um this kind of magenta
color that's under construction. It's taken up approximately like the space of two tunnels that once existed on the property. Um in this first section from the building to the receiver pit that will be the
open trench area. then via directional boring um at approximately a 4 foot depth under the surface and uh GPS guided to the manhole location that is about where that um orangey yellow dot
is on Meadow Street. We think this project is pretty straightforward and avoids any unnecessary impacts to the um to the stream or wetland area. And we'll make sure to
um as I mentioned um any any materials that are developed during the process will be kept on the parcel outside of any outside of the buffer area. Thank you, Lee.
Um, with that, I'll just I'll uh turn it over to uh Aaron for the town's perspective. Erin, >> sure. So, I mean, I think this one's pretty straightforward. Um, it's this
one is is right on the cusp of the um of the natural heritage polygon. Um, I think they're the building might be within the polygon, but that's outside of Concom jurisdiction in terms of the building location, but that is a good
point of information for the applicant to be aware of. Um, the the boring location it looks like is outside of um, heritage jurisdiction. Um, I
don't have uh really much by way of concerns about this. There's no surface ground disturbance associated with this that we're uh that we are anticipating at this point based on what's been submitted to us. Um, I do understand from talking with the applicant that,
you know, if they run into trouble with the drilling, you know, there there may be a need for trenching, but that's kind of a a very unlikely um situation to have happen unless they hit some sort of underground bedrock, which in this
location, just due to the substrate, is very unlikely. Um, so I kind of worked that into the permit, but I do know that, um, Andre had a suggested additional condition. Um the other I guess condition and this is just um on
the fly based on these these maps were just sent to us this afternoon um might be that uh spoil materials and stockpile materials should be stored outside of um the natural heritage polygon for the
sake of our permit being um a little more straightforward. So that those are my comments, but I did draft the uh special conditions recommendation associated with this in the folder, >> which I think to that concern, I do
believe in in when I did look at the buffer area, the the area of the receiving pit is already outside of that um the buffer area. So that that is in align with um the the intent of the contractor.
All right. Well, thank you, Aaron. Um, I see there are we have three members uh of the public out there. If anyone has a question, please raise your hand now regarding this hearing.
And I don't see any hands up. So, we'll turn it over to uh to the rest of the commissioners. Um I'll why don't I just go ahead and start. Um that essentially if uh I know that
there's some wording uh put into um the conditions and so on that um uh that end up with as a contingency in case uh you have to surface uh up from
um from your directional drill. Um, so if that's the case, um, one of the conditions that I would like to see is that, uh, you notify, um, that that you do this, um, in coordination with Aaron and the commission, you know, with the town and the
commission. Um, in other words, that that we don't hear later on that uh that it surfaced and you had to take uh you know, you had to uh go through these that contingency, but that we hear it ahead of time uh just to make sure that uh that that
things continue on the right path. That's the only thing I had for it. Um and I did want to, if you don't mind, Lee, uh putting that map back up there. >> Oh, certainly. Just one moment. a map back up there that's going to show us
where the town line is because I uh as as I understand it, the majority of this project is out of town uh is out of the town. Is that right or >> No, it's it's all in town. >> It's all in the town. Okay. For some >> Yeah. their their their their
base of operations um their their their initial base of operations before they purchased this site is in Sunderland. So this is a new site for them. So sorry to I was trying to give some background so I apologize
if it was confusing. So no this is all all within Amherst. >> Okay great. All right. So with that then uh you can take that back off if you mind. That's all. Thank you. I appreciate it. Jason has a question or comment.
>> Thank you. Um Lee, what how how many linear feet of pipe is being installed and what is the anticipated time frame for this project? >> Um so it um from building to manhole
it's about 775 ft. Um, and it is, you know, as soon as uh it it will be done this summer, most likely as as soon as possible. Um, the uh the contractor has
a subcontractor lined up and is aware of, you know, the process being uh needing some additional permitting. Um, I don't have an exact timeline, but you know, the the building itself has already been permitted and is under
construction, has a foundation, has walls going up. So, it's just in the kind of the normal project management of the of the structure itself at this point. Sorry, I meant how much time do you antic like how much time is
anticipated from the start of boring of the >> That's a very quick process. Yeah, that that is probably um you know a day or two. It It's a fairly quick process from what I've seen.
>> Um >> yeah, 775 ft. I would assume it's less than a week. Yeah. Yes. It's a it's a quick time around. We're not drilling through bedrock. It's not like, you know, it's not like vertical drilling. So, it's,
you know, it's just going through loose till essentially. So, a pretty quick timer uh turnaround. >> All right. Thank you. >> Mhm. And we certainly understand. Yeah. if if
we need to daylight for any reason that you know our first call is to Aaron to let her know that we've hit a restriction point and we do need to surface um uh surface trench at some point. That would be, you know, our top
priority would be to make sure that the the commission is aware. >> Thank you. Um any other questions from the commissioners? It seems fairly straightforward. It's going to be uh done underground. Um
so all right with that then um we're looking for a motion to close a public hearing and issue a positive determination of applicability under wetlands protection town of Ammerst general bylaw article 3.31 checking box
five and a negative determination of applicability under the Mass Wetlands Protection Act checking box two with noted required conditions. So, we're looking for that motion.
>> Jason with the motion. >> Seconded. >> Sarah with a second. Sarah >> I >> Jason. >> Hi. >> Whoops. I just lost our uh
>> Hi. Did you hear me? >> Yeah. Yeah. Wait a minute. Sorry. I lost my uh my page here. I have a bunch of open pages. Um Bruce, >> hi >> Rachel. >> Hi.
>> Um Tina, >> I'm going to abstain. They got an MR grant for this project. >> All right. Uh did we get Carol >> I? >> Yeah, I'm an I. So that's uh six eyes in an abstination abstaining.
Um Lee and Manuel, thank you for joining us. Um and good luck with the project. >> Great. Thank you so much and I I give you thanks on behalf of Cat and Peter and Michael. >> All right. Have a good night. >> You too.
>> All right. We're moving to our third hearing. Oh, for some reason I thought we had three hearings tonight. That's why I said three earlier when we were doing the introduction. So, um now
it's time for us uh to to discuss the uh policies and regulations. Um, we were looking to do um looking to discuss uh why don't we start out with um let's start out with the uh the the the
items uh that Tina brought the um your uh table for um kind of an assessment of uh of applicants for um for agricultural permits.
>> Let me pull it up together there. Well, we're uh while Tina's getting that, I'm uh I sent out um three documents earlier today. I'm hoping that you all got a chance to at least receive it. Um
not a big deal if you didn't have a chance to look at it. Uh but um I think I had something on um on the mowing policy and on the beavers. Uh just something to help out with. Um
Tina, whenever you're ready, if you are. If not, we'll uh >> Do you want me to share my screen? >> Sure, please. >> I also have a lot of tabs open. Okay. U desktop share.
Oh. Um, I just got a new computer, so it's not really working with me here. Okay. Oh, it's not letting me do it right now, unfortunately. >> Um, let's see. Erin, do you think you could uh download that and just show it
for us or or I I could probably give it a shot, too. So, um I can just go through it. I at the very top, um the only thing I changed was there was a little verbiage about how all of this should add up or could
add up to 100%. I just took that out because this doesn't add up to 100%. It's just possible points. And then I put in there that cover cropping is required for all annual crops because that's something that I don't think we should score on. It should just be a
non-negotiable. Then I put um per Dave ZOMX point about residents contributing to the tax status or protection status of the land. I just say five points for resident, zero points if not. Um type of
farming fully organic or regenerative or include some organic or regenerative. Then I took a lot out of the climate um in EJ community conservation piece. Um I left the tribal subsistence use in
there and then I left the does not hinder other town conservation or recreation objectives in there. Then uh what I added was farm viability and food security based on the needs I'm seeing of farmers on the field. Um we really
need young farmers. So if a farm has, you know, is providing mentorship opportunity or if this person is a young farmer, I think they should get scored higher. If this parcel will really benefit an existing farm operation, like a dairy farm, they're losing a lot of ground. Um they'll get some extra
points. And then I popped something about um affordable food that stays within the community. I think that should get preference for people growing food. um that could be, you know, hay ultimately ends up as food if you're
raising beef cattle, for example. And then at the very end, I added something for discretionary points. So, if there's something a farm applicant does that this application didn't foresee that the commission members really like, there's an option to give them discretionary
points based on that. >> Yeah, that's great. Thanks for uh thanks for putting that together. Um I think Bruce uh Bruce has his hand up. Let's Bruce, go ahead.
>> Tina, thank you for saving me from my organizational failures of the past. >> I did not see it as a failure at all. >> I have three editorial suggestions. One is in the second of the two verbiages at the top. I wonder if it should say the
substance of this form will be revisited, not maybe or should be. And then um down I didn't fully understand under farm viability the difference between the farm mentors line and the farmer has three years. They feel like
they're interrelated somehow, but I I couldn't quite figure out the math on that. And then my final one is I think that it under food security it should say affordable food that largely stays within the community um not constraining
I mean the farmer might sell stuff to a farmers market in Northampton or I don't know I just feels like it was too constricting. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um so the idea with the one so many of our farmers being an average
age of 58 um I didn't want to close. So I my thought was like that there's two different segments. The farmers with a lot of experience that I would like to see mentoring young farmers and then the farmers with you know less than 5 years of experience. I don't think they should be dinged for not having a mentorship
program when they've just themselves started. So that was sort of my thoughts. >> Understood. >> Thanks, Bruce and Tina. Jason. >> Yeah, I um I think there should be some
and well, a few things. One, who's filling this out? Is it the applicant or is it someone else? And that should be listed here is who's you know who who this form is meant for. um you know are they self-scoring or are we
>> it would be the town staff. So like we would put out an RFP the commission would decide hey we want to we want to um offer farming at the the Zala property for example. So the town would put out an RFP. RFPs
would come in and then town staff would look at the applications that come in and use these as a scoring criteria to select the farmer that was chosen to to farm there. So we're not just using an arbitrary process to select people.
>> So then we need to figure out what what's the high score, right? What's a minimum what's a minimum scoring threshold for someone to win the >> I think it would be like a
>> whomever has the highest the highest ranking would be the selected party essentially >> I agree with Jason there needs to be a minimum because if only one applicant and they get three points
>> right I see >> so we have to just we need to just and we don't have to necessarily come up with all this here tonight, but we need to have that ranking on there so that whomever is filling this out and in
theory, you know, putting two applicants against each other, those applicants need to know as well >> um how the score. >> Yeah, that's an interesting one. How how we'll do that? Um
just historically this is not the first time that this conservation land is being opened up to agriculture. So how much do we have any idea how much conservation land is currently being used for agricultural use
>> right now? There's none. There's no there's no well um I shouldn't say that there's no um agricultural licenses. There are there is I believe at least one lease a long-term lease agreement
which is a related to a I believe the horse farm on station road. Um so yeah there's there's no uh licenses that pertain to this process that we're looking at right now. >> Yeah. So, I don't I don't necessarily
want to open a whole can of worms, but given you know that Tina said the average age of the average farmer is 58 years old and would it be beneficial? Could we set aside, you know, of the of the X number
of acres that are potentially available for agricultural use, can we set aside Y amount of acres for farmers under the age of 40 and actually have a program where
we make it known to students? I mean, UMass is a land grant university that has a farming program, has a lot of stuff. Hampshire College did. Um, can we proactively try to court younger
farmers and say, "Here's some land." It's my understanding that the getting the land to farm is one of the biggest impediments to young farmers. So, history. So the the subcommittee did discuss that
briefly and we felt like the thing to do was get the rules and regulations codified first and then imagine various programs that might flow out of that and Jason's is a good example. >> Okay, that makes sense. I
>> I just want to put it out there because it's you know I've always wanted to farm land and and you know not for that I have no idea what I would be doing like just the idea that you would have to buy land
first or some lease it like it's it's it's a non-starter for most people. >> I agree with you Jason. I think the secondary issue that the commission would need to be prepared to support is infrastructure on said properties because if you've got a young farmer
being able to access land cheaply is huge. Farmland is going for $15,000 an acre in Hadley. Not many established farmers can afford that. So I think this is a huge opportunity for young farmers, but I think we really need to be prepared to fully support them with
infrastructure needs if that's the program we want to build. And I think that would be great. >> Yeah. And you know, so if that's something that everybody thinks I agree. I I get Bruce what you were saying as far as get these things down first. Um
I'd be more than happy to volunteer to like try to work with some sort of young farmers program through conservation land. I think it would be a really worthwhile venture. where um where could we
get some pointers, Tina, on um on programs like that, similar programs that uh Jason might be able to work off of. >> Uh MDAR has a land licensing program that focuses on young young bipok
underserved communities. Um, >> I think farmers are just scratching and clawing for whatever they can get. So, I think there's a young farmers part of Farm Bureau. Um,
yeah, but I I do think it would be helpful to know first how many acres are on the table before I reach out to anyone and ask any of these questions because it it was kind of hard putting this together knowing like are we talking 2 acres or are we talking 500 acres? I think there's a big difference.
I would it would be nice to know what the parcels are, how big they are. Um, and then I think that would give us a little something to go on when like if it's even worth having these conversations with organizations like that. >> Well, it's it's kind of a hard thing to
uh to get too deep into right now because we uh currently there there are no um farmed properties uh within uh conservation. So, Um,
so yeah, it's we're kind of uh we're kind of working off hypotheticals or or or working off of a a hope that in the future we'll have some uh some property. Um I think >> one last
>> one last history which is the subcommittee did this in part because we understood there were properties that plausibly could be used and the idea was codify what we would do before we put those out there. Mhm.
>> So, yeah. I mean, I think I think getting the um Jason, I think that it'd be uh it'd be great if you can uh find some of this information out for us to use as as we move forward.
Um but I also uh see the importance of uh getting this block moved through um without uh getting in the weeds on things. is especially something that uh that we don't have available just yet.
>> I mean um I >> I think we're updating every year. Um we could just maybe find a score sheet we'd like and then you know year two or year three see you see see what interest we
get in these lands to begin with. >> Yeah. I think I think right now we we move on what we've got. Um, and Jason, um, if you would like to be working on um on something that we can include into
the uh um into our finished product or put it in uh as it's uh getting finalized, that's great. Um, >> yeah, I mean I think I think this is a good start and we have to have something. We got to find out
like the acreage like Tina said and everything. I think my point here is that we need to have a minimum score and like a maximum score, right? Which is we can just go through and add it up right now to get a maximum. But um also one other thing to consider and I don't know
if this is jumping the gun at all, but like there's potential for hundreds of acres of farmland now with Hampshire College coming online that may end up in conservation. So this is pretty timely.
>> Yeah. Yep. And they have and there's already livestock there. There is some livestock. >> Mhm. >> I do one more point I want to make. Um and I don't because none of this land is being farmed. But I think that we should endeavor not to displace an existing
farmer when we start leasing lands out because I know Hampshire College is used by a local farm and like you know should and you know the town of Ammeris take over that land kicking them off I think would be to find you know to go through this process I I would not be very
supportive of that. >> Sure. Um >> so then sorry. So then is that a is that a criteria that you want to add? Like is the land currently formed? Yeah, I didn't add that in there because
it wasn't the current scenario, but I can put it in there. You know, maybe rather than put it into a uh an assessment uh of of individual farmers, let's put it into the um into the general wording of the uh excuse me, of
the agricultural um section uh where we just state that if uh land is being uh already being farmed, we're not that we we don't we will not displace those farmers uh kind of thing. >> Perfect.
Um so we should make a note then on the um on the general uh policy in the agricultural section. Just a note
that we need to add add uh add some verbiage to the effect that um that uh lands currently being um farmed uh cannot be uh repurposed for other
farmers kind of I don't know what wording to use but uh that that's a start. Um so it's 8:51. Um, I did make a promise to you guys uh that uh we'll be
uh looking to aiming to finish uh before 9. So, um can we just do a quick raise of h uh a hand show of hands on um uh whether we're satisfied with the uh table um
that uh Tina provided. All right, cool. So, we're good with the table. Tina, thanks for all your work on that. >> You're welcome. >> Uh, I I think with this I I think we're out of time. Um, I don't want to start diving into anything else. Uh, I could
stay, you know, we could be here all all night and still be spinning our wheels. Bruce has a >> just I think we need to do the emergency certifications. >> Yep. We're going to Yep. So, back on our um back back on our agenda,
we have got we're going to skip the open space and recreation uh plan uh letter of review. We can take a look at it uh uh next week. I do have a couple comments. um uh would you mind then um Aaron
um bringing us through walking us through the emer emergency certification and uh ratification again I I I I want to say this one uh one more time I think this is a big huge win on uh everyone's part here that fact
how um how the rail trail beaver uh issue uh uh came up and was resolved. I think that was uh that's exactly what uh what we're looking for for the uh um commission and uh town to um to work uh
side by side on uh on this kind of an issue and it was uh uh the it was DCR who had applied. Anyway, go ahead uh Erin and if you don't mind uh um bringing us up to date real quick. We
don't a whole lot of time. We don't >> Sure. I think uh a picture is worth a thousand words. So, um these are these areas here are holes that are being patched along the bike path. Sink holes.
That was a little goose that was hanging out and I said hello to. Um, but you can see that they've been adding stone to fill these sink holes along the um edge of the bike path as a result of the beavers and um little beaver friend was
right out and working while I was out there on my site visit. Um this is the area where the beaver dam was constructed and it's a existing um box cover with flared ends and there was beaver debris being piled on the outlet
end of the culvert and the problem was there was an existing flow control structure on the upstream side that discharges into the box culvert. And so with the water being backed up inside
the covert, um there was a northern water snake that was sunning on the on the um dam itself on the beaver dam. But anyway, the the beaver deceiver wasn't functioning because the water wasn't flowing through
the um outlet end because it was blocked by water. So this is why it became an emergency because it was backing up the water all along the bike path. Um so this is the upstream side where the deceiver was and it just the water level
was not regulating. So that was the urgent need and and this is definitely an issue where the um the the beaver dam is or the excuse me the bike path is being undermined by the the water constantly. It's basically serving as a
dam. Um, so >> uh Erin, can you put that last picture up that you showed us? >> Sure. >> I'd imagine uh many of us here are familiar with that. Uh it's on it's on the bike path uh section between um Mill
Lane or um or Southeast Street and uh uh Station Road um where the ponds are there. And there's a uh there's a little bit of a bridge um as you're going by the first big huge pond that uh you go
through from u from uh uh station road. As you're getting down to the end of that pond, there's a little bridge. And on the right hand side of that uh bridge is where that last picture uh that Aaron had. Can you put that up, please? And
that picture is of the dam itself that the beavers um uh made on the pond. And down below it is what would be running uh through the culvert um to the stream um that's on the other side of the uh
bike path. Anyway, it's uh it's pretty straightforward. It uh it just needs they just anyway. And so, um, with that, we I I gave the okay, uh, for in on behalf of the commission for them
to, uh, uh, go ahead and, uh, return the flow to the lower end of it. And Erin, is there anything else that uh, >> I think that's that about covers it. We did go through, we did communicate with
the board of health um, as well. they were involved in the decision- making. >> Okay. Any questions on that on how how it happened or um so I got a phone call uh from uh Aaron and Dave or messages from Aaron
and Dave. We ended up uh on a phone call. What was that? Uh like on a Friday night or something like that. It was >> Yeah. And uh and um luckily I think we were all familiar with that spot and um went
ahead and uh since the it had been approved by uh Department of Health um I went and gave it a gave it a thumbs up. So I think things worked out um worked out pretty well for that.
So uh now we need to vote on whether to ratify So we have a motion there. Um that's the second motion v visible there on the screen. >> Move to ratify the emergency
certification issued to DCR at the Norwad Rail Trail for removal of beaver debris from Culvert. >> Second. Oh, >> all right. That that was uh That was Jason with a motion. Was it Rachel?
>> Yeah, >> sir. >> Yeah, >> Bruce and Rachel said it exactly the same time, but yeah. >> Oh, all right. Well, I guess you got it now, Rachel. >> Okay. Thanks, Bruce. >> Hi. >> You're welcome. Tina, >> hi, >> Rose.
>> Hi, >> Jason. >> Hi, >> Sarah. >> Hi, >> Daryl. >> I am an eye. ratified. Um one uh 52 Elf Hill Road,
Erin. >> Yes. So um the situation with 52 Elf Hill was that there was a backup of sewage into somebody's house. um they worked really quickly to put a
plan together because it it's the way that the regulations are under Title 5 versus Wetlands Protection Act is that they still had to have a hearing with the board of health. Um so they were able to get a hearing with the board of health within a week to get before the
board of health. Um the distance from the uh from the wetland on Elf Hill was um 95 to 100 feet approximately. So they were like right on the cusp of whether or not it was jurisdictional. But I did
ask them to file an emergency certification just so that we could have it be an above board process and um make sure there was sort of a checks and balances as far as the commission's involvement. Um, I'll just do a quick screen share to
show you what the site looks like. So, um, this is the area where the septic system is, um, being replaced. This is Elfhill Road to the left. And then the house, um, that it was having the sewage backup is to the right. And then this is
looking, um, toward the wetland. The wetland is over behind that black car. And then this is another so the the wetland is is in the behind the tree line basically. Um so
the applicant submitted their request to me and um I think it was a little bit different of a process. I mean I think we we looped in Andre on the approval. Um I think that was just not a sort of collective decision-making process
maybe. Um, so but it was, you know, that was the that was essentially the process that we went through. I I sent the request to Dave. Dave gave the approval. Um, queued in Andre on the basically the issuance of it. Um, so that was kind of
how that one rolled out. >> Okay. Now, normally do does do towns notify the uh commission beforehand and all that as well or is that >> Yeah. So, um
other communities that I have worked with um you know the the commission I think can have they can you can develop a policy of how you want to handle these situations. Um and absolutely if you know you want to
have and it can be a range of of options, right? Like um a a verification with the chair prior to issuance for example or a verification with the vice chair prior to issuance could also be that you know you actually want a
commissioner signature on the permit before it goes out. I mean, there's there's various sort of layers of oversight that the commission could um could request. Um I mean, I think in a real a real emergency where when I say a
real emergency, there's there's situations where a tornado blows through, right? And there's no calling a chair person to get an approval. Like, it's just you go out and have to move a a tree off a house or something, right? um
>> phone lines would be down anyway, >> right? Exactly. So, I think that it's it's kind of like when you can get permission, you get permission. Um andor you, you know, get that that signature or you make that phone call. And in
other cases, um >> I think it worked out well >> the way it worked out. I just uh was I'm asking >> again out of lack of knowledge. Yeah, I have like in some cases the the
commission has appointed me as an as their agent. Um, you know, where they said that they're they made a vote to appoint me as their agent to be able to have sign off. It's it's been interesting with Ammerst because it's
like other commissions I've worked for, the commissioners have been on the on the commission for 30 years. like people have been long-term serving on a commission and so they make a vote and that vote just sticks for a long period of time. With Ammerst, we've had so much
turnover on the board. We've had three three complete turnovers of commissions um commission members membership. So it's been a little more challenging like keeping policies intact like where you know it may have been one policy with
our initial seven members and then now we've gone through multiple iterations of turnover it's like well wait a second what's our policy so you know I think it's important to revisit these discussions so that we're all on the same page.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. I I can see how that can happen uh how it can be so much more stable with a long uh long term. Well, okay. Uh so with that then uh any questions from uh from uh commissioners
on 52 road. All right. Uh we need a um a motion then um to uh ratify the if you don't mind putting that up because
>> Oh, I I move to ratify the emergency certification issued to Daniel and Adelia Pope at 52 Elf Hill Road for replacement of a failed septic system. >> Second. Jason with the motion and Sarah Sarah
with a second. Sarah >> I >> Jason >> I >> Carol >> I >> Bruce >> I >> Rachel >> I >> Tina >> I >> and I'm an I.
So 52 road uh emergency certification is ratified and um I think at this point uh uh I'll see what if there's anybody of the public who uh has any comments uh or questions,
please raise your hand. And um I see no hands and so I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn unless there's anything else that uh folks uh wanted to discuss at this point.
>> I move we adjourn. >> I'll second that. Bruce. >> All right. Bruce the motion Jason with a second. Tina, >> hi >> Sarah. >> Hi, >> Carol. >> I >> Rachel. >> Hi,
>> Jason. >> Hi, >> Bruce. >> Bruce raised his hand and said I, but I can hear >> and I'm an I. So, thanks a lot everybody for uh >> thank you >> another productive uh evening and we'll
see you all in uh two weeks or a little more. >> Thanks everybody. >> Have a good night, guys. center matter in the