##VIDEO ID:-hvu_N4ygjU## okay hello and welcome to the emmer Conservation Commission meeting the date is December 4th 2024 and the time is 7:02 we have all members here except Andre who has just joined us welcome Andre and Laura will not be joining us tonight um and staff Aon jock and Dave zc so we are going to pick it off the chair report I don't have anything I guess I'll just announce that in December we'll be meeting on the 4th today and the 18th through the holidays um and then in January we're resuming to our normal second and fourth Wednesday of the month Aon do you want to just give an update on the drought I see we have that on our yeah um the the designation has definitely gotten worse um I know we did get a little bit of rain but it didn't change the the drought designation because it wasn't it wasn't a lot of um um in terms of recovering it it didn't really do a whole lot um for how bad the situation is at the moment so um so we're still in a um let me think I think it's a critical drought umal critical level free drought yeah yep as of today I've been checking on it every day so and that's as of October 1 so okay I have a question about that go ahead Alex with regard to the drought one of the conditions is that Wetlands can't be identified I believe so what do we do if uh somebody has identified wetlands and we need to verify that during a drought are we able to do that yeah so it's a complicated answer um 25 words will best so right now it's also winter and we have a drought which makes it extra complicated because ordinarily if you can't use um herbaceous vegetation um you would rely on hydrologic indicators but since we're in drought conditions um you know the hydrologic indicators are less so um it it makes it more challenging and certainly you know uh in my opinion uh I don't think we should be confirming uh Wetland delineations During the period when um the drought is happening and when we're in the offseason um if it was it like last season we had a very wet winter and so we were able to delineate we were able to confirm because we had really strong hydrologic indicators which gave us the ability to to um continue doing delineations late into the season um so that's the best answer I can give you there are other issues like for example confirmation of um um Stream So So like um in the instance that um somebody's trying to override the presumption of a perennial stream being intermittent um that that cannot be done during a drought condition so that would be um an observance that a stream is not flowing for four consecutive days and during a drought that can't be that can't be done legally so so some things are for our consideration extra consideration and some are legal all right thanks for yeah um all right I think I'm gonna hand it over to you Alex for subcommittee update are you ready for that and we're looking for a vote tonight as the end goal here right so um I'll just go talk about what we're going to vote on and the rules and regulations were distributed previously and we did receive some comments which were Incorporated and tonight we're going to vote on those rules regulations however we want to take some time to make sure everybody is aware uh of some of the substantial change in there and that has to do with hunting so did everybody see that we're going to change our policy with regard to hunting on conservation land such that we will not allow hunting and I can go through um a slide to show you how our thinking proceeded uh which I'd like to do but first I just want to say is anybody not aware that that's included in in what we're going to vote on I was not aware okay so we had quite a discussion over a long period of time about the matter of safety we now have 104 I thought it was 80 miles of trails and that's been updated to 140 miles of trails and on our conservation land and they are used heavily and we believe that use increased during covid and continues um the issue of safety came up of allowing hunting on conservation land with Trails actively used wandering all through the conservation land so what we did was we took a GIS map of all trails and we took uh we made a 500t buffer on either side of each Trail and we got the 500 feet because that's what Mass fish and wildlife uses for the distance from an occupied structure that a firearm cannot be discharged including a bow so we had a basis for the 500 ft buffer what we found and Aaron could you bring up that map please what we found was that almost all of the conservation land Falls within that buffer and we can blow this up but this was the map we were using um and you you can go through the um the legend there but basically the blue is the buffer the red lines are trails the the big thick red lines are the conservation lands so um Ain could you blow up a section just in just zoom in on it so people can see what we did so as you can see for lots of the conservation land the entire or a great proportion of the property is within the 500 foot buffer on either side of a trail um so the object was to protect users of the conservation land from U accidentally getting hurt we've never had an accident on conservation land in during the hunting season we want to keep it that way hunting is allowed on other Amorous lands um water supply lands for example and hunting is allowed on on most private lands around in amist unless it's posted so the changing of the rule about hunting on conservation land does not eliminate hunting from ammer property and it certainly doesn't eliminate hunting within ammer um so that was what we were trying to deal with was an an increase in the number of trails an increase in trail use and human safety so we went through I don't know how many meetings talking about this um the entire subcommittee was involved Dave was involved Aaron was involved and just at first we were going to just eliminate um shotgun and primitive weapons during the deer season and that it got there were people who thought that from an Administration standpoint that gets very difficult to to administer um just bow hunting being allowed so the decision was made to just say hunting will be prohibited on all lots and I will say that Lawrence swamp had a lot of green as you can see Lawrence swamp is down in the lower right hand corner yep and it has a lot of green which means there's no buffer on on that property but Laurence swamp has multiple Parcels which are not individually named it's just all Lawrence swamp so again from an administrative standpoint we um we chose not to try and keep part of Lawrence swamp open to hunting um so anyways that is that that was our method that we used and um I'll just stop there and see if there's any questions I have a question yeah what made you decide to I mean uh let me just start out by saying um a lot of people depend on these lands to to hunt and there's two weeks there's very little time out of the Season that people would hunt these lands but how is it that you get 500 ft again you said from a because of the distance uh from a home that you have to have not not a home um Mass wildlife Mass wildlife has established that you cannot discharge a weapon within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling y I know that's the words but what about from a road I think it's 150 ft I think you know you know it pretty well why not 150 ft um I just I just let me just say this um I think it's a travesty that uh we're thinking to close uh the public lands and amers to hunting it's it's really got me understand that you guys uh you guys should have thought it uh thought it out better and my my bad for not having uh studied it earlier but I'm I'm adamantly opposed to that I understand yeah I mean I'll just add that we spent a lot of time thinking about it and we didn't take it lightly and we discussed the buffers and I mean maybe Alex you can recall better than I um when we discussed the 100 50 foot versus the 500 foot um it I mean the position that we're coming from is the increased use on the lands and trying to be proactive rather than reactive and limit the amount of people who go there then during the hunting season how's that why are you going to limit uh the the people who hunt there this is this is uh completely done from the point of view of people who don't hunt well Alex hunts I mean he would had a I buy a license every year Andre in New Hampshire and Massachusetts so that's not true well then you must have areas that you can go to but you these these lands uh provide access to people to go uh to different places the Lauren swamp is uh is hunted by a whole lot of people you know you guys need to consider uh consider them too you know all these years and we haven't had a single accident and now uh and now you're you're you're going to close it because you think there might be one well um I don't think that's a terrible place to come from I mean I don't want to close it when there is one that's I think a worst place to come from how many accidents have there been in this in this whole state uh over the last few years did you guys do any research on that I don't know the answer to that but I do want to add that there are other lands in am that people are hunting on so there are private lands and there are can't consider private lands uh uh as a an alternative to the to the uh public land anybody can post their land and there are more and more lands that are being posted this uh in this town and around here Jason I saw your hand up did you have something to add no I was going to uh basically ask what Andre asked is if there's never been any accidents and uh it seems that there's not that many throughout the state I do agree with what Andre is saying in that um it's seems a little unfair to the folks who hun to now close the land off to those people if probably those people have been being safe with discharging their firearms or the weapons for the last however many years um there will be a public hearing um the vote tonight doesn't actually put it into effect what it does is it moves It Forward uh it will go after December um if this remains part of the policy changes for land use it will go there will be a public hearing and the public will have an opportunity to comment be invited to comment and we can hear from them now or then and then we have to consider those public comments and then the the commission has to come back and vote on the entire package after the public has had a chance to comment so this is um there are several bites of the apple on this issue yeah I I Arin go ahead so I just wanted to just by way of background um they currently from the existing um policies of the Conservation Commission there was only a handful of properties that were open to hunting um and there was just doing the we did do the 500 foot analysis from dwellings and the OT analysis from roads and when that analysis was done it didn't leave very many left it left like maybe five Parcels um that were um you know completely outside of those buffers so I just wanted to point that out that there was I want to say like maybe five Parcels that had been historically prior to this discussion that had been open to hunting and then the other thing I just wanted to mention was we did talk about keeping Lawrence swamp open it was something that I did try to advocate for in our discussions and part of the reason why um I think the commission arrived back at not having Lawrence swamp was because uh hearkening back to the administration issue that we would be saying basically only certain portions of the property were open to hunting um and that from a enforcement standpoint gets difficult and also from uh marking the property is hunting allowed or not allowed would be complicated so I don't have a a position one way or another on Hunting um my partner was out deer hunting this Monday and Tuesday so I know that it's happening right now and I come from a family of Sportsman so certainly wanting to consider consider consider all options um just wanted to give the sort of an analytical backstory a little bit Bruce go ahead Alex would would it make any sense to table this one part of the rules and regulations ask Andre to come to our next subcommittee and discuss it in that setting and try to come up with a solution I'm going to hold off commenting on that for a minute okay I mean I think if we're gonna table one thing we should probably table the rules Al together um Alex go ahead I want to say that we asked what are other towns doing and um when you look at shury pelum they all their property is open to hunting that's publicly owned um when we look at Northampton that has also has conservation land and trails they went through the same process that we went through and they closed their public lands to hunting except one conservation land uh parcel along the Connecticut River when we looked at Lincoln Massachusetts that has a lot of conservation land and trails and heavy use they also closed the their conservation land to hunting when we looked at conquered Massachusetts that had the same um a lot of conservation land and trails increasing use they closed their public land their conservation land to hunting so the direction that that's going in Andre is uh increase use of increased Trails increased use and in the towns um departing from the traditional hunting that's always occurred when I was a kid we went hunting and deer hunting all over conquered we went duck hunting on the conquered in the subre river can't do that anymore my my my uncles have started what's now Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and the whole family hunted on that and that became impossible so it's now part of the wild service so I have seen a great deal of change myself in where I used to be able to hunt and can't do it anymore and that that is the direction that things are going in and we chose to air on the side of um Public Safety and we have we keep building Trails we keep inviting people to use them they do we've never had an accident and we don't want one okay um Dave I'm going to go to you so with regard to Bruce's comment umu is there and I and I'm there to talk too Bruce is up first yeah okay Dave hasn't spoken yet Dave do you want to just go first yeah I just um I'm not sure how much time we can you can spend on this tonight giving your full agenda but I guess I just want to point out that this is you know this is a proposal of the subcommittee the subcommittee has been bringing the full commission parts of this document for the last few months so the subcommittee has followed the process that it's set out and this is one proposal coming before you um with all respect Andre um this has been on the subcommittee's uh agenda for as Alex said a number of months we've spent lot of a number of hours on this and so it shouldn't be a surprise to any commission members um who have been watching or or paying attention to the subcommittee that we've been grappling with this so it's a proposal coming before you this a vote tonight is a vote to to move it forward as uh um as Ain said moving it Forward means holding a public hearing where we can take in more feedback you all as the commission and staff can take in more feedback and then you would you would actually take another final vote say sometime in January or early February to decide whether you want to formalize this particular um uh regulation within your whole set of rules and regulations so there's a whole process ahead of us to do that but there has been a lot of discussion a lot of research as Alex said looking at communities and this does seem to be a way that many communities in Massachusetts are going so I just want to make sure that you know we give that time to kind of SN in that this wasn't something that the subcommittee came up with in the last two weeks we've been grappling with it and talking about it and doing some analysis using GIS so just wanted to put that out there thanks Dave so okay we were looking for a vote tonight and as Dave said this is not the end of the discussion it and it would go to public comment and we'd have another chance to revisit it so um if someone wants to make a motion we can do that or you could motion to table it I guess um Rachel go ahead I I support uh Bruce's suggestion that we pull out that section if possible to discuss a little bit further um we're already doing that with the um native land acknowledgement um so I would support pulling that section out to talk about a little bit more Alex personally I just soon have a vote and um on the whole enchilada and um see where that goes and then decide what to go from there okay um I mean I'm open to hearing a motion on the floor I don't know if it's appropriate for me to put a motion forward being chair of the subcommittee I can I move that we approve the rules and regulations as presented to the commission okay we have a motion to approve do I have a second not hearing a second do I have an alternative motion Bruce Rachel you to approve it without the no hunting another motion to approve without the hunting second okay and specifically to table it I think clarify yeah and to revisit revisit table and revisit yeah thank you all right I have a motion in a second Alex I'm gonna abstain Rachel hi Bruce hi Andre hi Jason I I am fine with that okay so we have moved to approve the bulk of the rules and regulations table and reconsider the hunting um I would incourage Andre to be in contact with the subcommittee to find a time that you could join us for that conversation and we'll reach out about the um sub commity meeting dates which are there's not many left so we'll have to find one soon absolutely we meet on Tuesday at noon is our scheduled meeting um what's our next date eron I think it's the 10th 10th think so sorry I'm a little off because our meeting dates changed uh the 17th of December that's too that's the only one left then yeah that will probably dominate we meet for an hour and a half Andre the if there's a time that you'd like to meet um before then or whatever I'd be happy to join as well um and I'll uh I'll do a little research but I well deide yeah well I guess we could consider a special meeting um I don't know what's see on the agenda for the 17th but if we need to add this as a special discussion maybe we can talk about that with staff for next week and this will be posted the website for any public in attendance that wants to attend the subcommittee meeting it's at noon um on a Tuesday next one yet to be determined if it's next Tuesday or the Tuesday after okay are we fine with moving on with that yeah just comad Alex given that the objective is to be done by the end of December and I've been working really hard to try and Achieve that I think a special meeting would be an order and not dominate the last meeting the 17th with this subject but to try and find a time when we can meet in addition to the 17th okay so next week all right all right we will uh collaborate offline try and find a date next week where we can have a special meeting to discuss this and again it will be posted online okay thank you moving on um we at one minute is there anything we can do in one minute Erin um yeah I can just let you both let you all know that um both of our requests for certificate of compliance are going to be tabled tonight um because I um inspected and followed up on the orders and um one of the projects uh some of the signage wasn't installed and on the other project uh a mitigation planting wasn't installed so both those items will be table tonight thanks Aaron okay 7:30 moving on to our first hearing okay so each hearing has 20 dedicated minutes on the agenda the hearing structures five minutes comment from staff five minutes presentation by the applicant five minutes for public comment or two per person five minutes for conservation Commissioners and revisions are required to be submitted and revised um all revisions submitted by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting at close of business and for all presenters please clearly state your name the address of the project who you're representing and if you have preferred pronouns for all members of the public please clearly state your name address and preferred pronoun okay so hearing one opened um pure Sky energy for changes to the approved construction sequencing and the existing order of conditions for the solar facility which is currently under construction as well as additional proposed grading in buffer zone and land subject to flooding at 191 West comay Lane map 19d Lot 10 okay and are you pulling in our applicants Ain yeah and I sorry when I go to pull people in order changes of who I'm promoting so um if I accidentally promote you um it would be helpful if you um decline because it it just tops around um and also if if people who are here representing the project could raise their hand because we have almost yeah almost 55 attendees so I don't know um if anybody else was joining you Tom Lauren should be here if if you can put got it thank you sure hi Tom Hi how are you we're good I think we'll talk about it in a couple hours right exactly still fresh yes uh want me to hop I don't know if eron you want to take it yeah I'm gonna give eron the floor and then we'll move over to you guys thanks yeah so just to give the commission a very quick update um we are still waiting for natural heritage to render their um determination on this project um there was some discussion relative to the commission's conversation at the last hearing um specifically around herbicide application um we had a an offline conversation and I did upload the content of the email correspondence to the one drive folder so the commission could see it um the long and the short of it is um the herbicide applicator Who's involved on the project was concerned that if we didn't use um glyphosate that the alternate alternative chemical that would be used on the site actually um stays in the soil for a longer period of time and has secondary impacts um whereas glyphosate um doesn't stick around in the soil and so for plantings and stuff like that they're more successful um if glyphosate is used so really um M Dianne was looking for us to um sort of make sure we were comfortable um and and one of the things that she had suggested um when I spoke to her was limiting the application of glyphosate rather than limiting glyphosate altogether so for example um using like a cut stem treatment like a um a dabbing treatment on stems rather than a folar spray because it it really um provides much more specificity with how the how the um chemical is used um so that's just just one kind of piece of that and again we're still waiting for Heritage to confirm but they would like to have consensus from the commission um that that use of glyphosate is okay under specific application purposes um the other um just note was I did request um impacts for comp storage on the site um and uh uh for for impacts to blsf and comp storage calculations and also um I did note that there were um additional structures shown on the equipment pads which weren't shown on the original approved pad so we did receive a revision with those removed um anyways those are the additional comments we did get some um additional materials submitted in response to my comments and that's all that's outstanding on my end thanks Aaron and and so because we got those revisions submitted sort of late we haven't had um the full amount of time for all Commissioners to review it so we will be continuing this tonight but um we do have to resolve the herbicide issue um I see your hand up Alex and I'm going to move it over to Tom and then we'll um have commissioner yeah I read I read the emails from uh the state and I don't think it was as clear-cut as as um Aaron put it there was a a prioritized list that was provided I don't know if that was Naomi or somebody else but anyways there was a suggested prioritized list and glco face was cleopas was last and she didn't have any problem with that I'm not quite sure sure who she was I think it was Naomi or there was a another person involved but anyways the she didn't have any problem at all with using the other combinations and having gofas being the last resort okay well let's discuss this um in due order so I'm gonna let Tom give the update and then we'll get back to commissioner discussion sure thanks so for the record Tom Rey attorney with bacon Wilson out of ammer t on behalf of Fort River Solar 2 and its application for modification of their order of conditions for 191 West pomoy Old Hickory Ridge Golf Course uh yeah we'll get to I'm not even going to touch on the invasive we can get to that kind of in the maybe the commissions comments what I'm going to talk about is the phasing piece we're obviously still waiting for mist Anne's sign off generally on invasive she obviously wants your comment but then on on the grading changes um I don't I don't think that she has a dog in the race uh for the the phasing changes what we're looking to do for the phasing changes was to allow and I think it's in the letter that was sent I say maybe a month ago if not a couple of months ago um just to allow the installation of utility poles and and posts on the western array installation of the Eastern array and both the equipment pads and I think Lawrence you know we can talk about it but that's that's kind of the big Crux of it is doing the equipment pads because I think the the point of this is to get in and to get out as kind of as soon as possible and then uh as far as the grading goes uh if you could enable uh me to share my screen then I can show you the plans that uh Lawrence had sent over to Erin today so you can see and I can show you where thank you do this okay so hopefully you can see my screen I'm what I'm going to do this is the east e array I'm going to scroll down to the Eastern array with cut and fill on it the cut appears in red and the fill appears in green uh your 100 foot Wetland buffer is here in the I'll call it a magenta color your 50 foot no work is in the yellow just to give you some context of what we're talking about for cotton fil and I'll scroll down a little bit so you can see the entirety of the Eastern array um and I'm going to zoom in on a few of these just so you'll be able to see exactly what we're talking about for like volume how much are we cutting how much are we filling because I think that helps tell the story a little bit so just up here you know we're talking about um filling know a foot 1.7 feet 7 feet2 feet talking about cutting you know. 3 7 1.4t filling .9 ft you know so you're getting the sense and over here it's a it's a little bit steeper this is probably the the steepest uh or the most dramatic cut that we're going to have you know I think it's four feet right here um because of the mounding and I know that a lot of this is as a result of uh the tree work and the removal of the trees on the site then we go down to the southerly part of the Eastern array and again you're talking about you know a foot of fill 1.4t of fill and then cutting down here one 1.6 2.3 Etc so you know not a tremendous amount uh more than I think what we had originally talked about because I don't think there was any sense of we're just going to use the land but this is what is being required from the racking company and as a result of the impact of removal of those trees and so this is the Eastern array and I'll scroll down so you can see the Western array and again the red is cut and the green is Phill you've got your magenta line here for you know 100 foot buffer uh 50ft no work is in the yellow and so then again you've got you know areas small areas of fill and then some areas of cut and I'll again zoom in let me scroll over a little bit so you can see just the the volume you know again you've got 76.5 point8 of cut 1.3 of fill and then you know a foot foot and a half Etc of cut and then less than a foot of fill in in these areas here so those are the proposed grading changes to the site and so you know we're talking about the invasive we're talking about the phasing we're talking about the grading and then I know Lawrence had provided um to Aaron uh the The Fill inside the 100 foot boundary and I think we also provided figures showing that there was still sufficient compensatory storage as a result of I think it was like 29.5 uh cubic yards of fill inside that 100 foot sorry 100-year flood boundary um and then like Erin mentioned yeah we there was just an error in the equipment pad layout and so those have been updated accurately to reflect what we originally had thanks Tom um so the flood plane's not on the map is that something we could see for the next iteration yeah I think so Lawrence and I you know flood plane is on the map if you move up to the um that second sheet with the Eastern array yeah and then it's the area um to the right of the array if you can zoom in the one of those one of those lines is the uh right here so yeah you can see I'll go up to to the table so you can see it's like I'll call it the the tooth right here almost like a dental so you can see if you follow it okay follow my cursor yeah down comes down to here follows kind of the toe of that slope Cuts in a little bit here where there's some fill and then bounces back out so that the area that's affected it looks like it's in this area right here and then this area right here minimally but those I think combined that 29.5 cubic yards of fill in those areas okay thanks for pointing that out um so again we're going to be continuing this and I think our goal for the night is just to resolve and get some consensus on the the heride so that we can move forward with nhp approvals um I'm just going to open this for commissioner discussion Alex you already commented so um my concern is that the list of alternatives are alternatives but not necessarily better than glyphosate and I have not done that research at this point but is there any evidence to suggest that they have less impacts than glyphosate does because glyphosate comes in many different uh Solutions some of which are better for adjacent to Wetlands and I don't know about the other ones Alex is that something that you done research on and could comment on I haven't compared all the um herbicides that are listed in the emails from the state but there's a huge effort to move away from gly glyos they use it extensively in New Brunswick and it's having huge impacts up there um Mr Irving has control of du Brunswick Public forests and he's basically using to eliminate deciduous trees everything deciduous and it's having a lot of impacts the and that's a huge use what we're talking about here is not a huge use but it's still the same substance yeah I have not I have not done the homework on the others however when we did another battery storage project um they had an alternative that they were happy with using to eliminate invasives and we're happy to not use the glycophase then I would like to follow the same pattern here to be consistent um I understand that I mean glyphosate is used for Natural Area management pretty extensively and some of the scrutiny involved is because it's so widely used and it is a favored um a favored pesticide but I guess without some evidence to show that the Alternatives have less impact than it I'm not really ready to ban glyphosate outright in favor of an alternative that just is less studied so that I mean I work with a lot of pesticide applicators and they work with glyphosate um and I don't know about the Alternatives all I can say is women didn't have a vote for a long long time that took decades and everybody was happy with it it took a long time to change the same thing's happening with pesticides and in Massachusetts you can't buy certain pesticides unless you have a license in New Hampshire you can buy them um so things don't all change at the same rate so you know I just think about how long certain things take to change um and this whole stuff is is changing so I was happy with the prioritized list that um the state provided in their email um not really knowing much about the other herb Ides but they did they did say they were happy with putting gof last and um and she start talking about dab applications like Erin did yeah okay well if it's a minimization in the state the nhsp has recommending that list then that's that's fine from my standpoint it's past muster uh Bruce go ahead uh any analysis or tables that we make by for doing comparison I want to see the application technique also compared because I do think the dobbing technique does help a lot because you're not spraying it yeah yeah because there was discussion in the email of foler applications and missed versus dabbing the stem which is very local so okay so are you open I could go with okay so then is that sufficient errand to move forward with the without an outright ban of glyphosate application but with like the a strategic list and application method to minimize impacts does that get us where we need to go with nhsp yeah I mean I'd like to see a motion um made by the commission to state that they um support the um prioritized application system and that they would like to see limits on how life aate is applied um in terms of um limiting use to you know cut stem treatments rather than f airspray um I think if we had a motion to that effect that that would give uh Misty and the clear guidance she needs to approve the plan that um is under discussion and can I just clarify that this the prioritized list is from MN or is that from s swca um I don't have the email memorized of who said what I know there was a back and forth that was somewhat lengthy and um I think it was Misty Anne who recommended the the um prioritization of use and one of the chemicals that Misty had recommended over glyphosate um Naomi raised concern about that specific um chemical application because of its um staying in the soils longer and impacting um other vegetation so um it's a little confusing for me because this isn't exactly my area of expertise to try to articulate um but I do think I don't think we should um expressly forbid glyphosate if it would be less detrimental to Resource area alteration and um less impact to wildlife habitat to use glyphosate as an alternative in a controlled manner yeah so I think we should in this motion prioritize the cut and dab as as the really limiting factor and then I guess the prioritization list just to be clear that we're limiting the pesticides not just replacing one pesticide with another with less science behind it but just limiting it primarily and then having options to limit glyphosate if those are alternatives are better yeah there's like five or six emails it it does confusing but the prioritized list is in there thanks Alex Rachel I just want to clarify I remember the last hearing one of the reasons the applicant was requesting a change was that the that the the cut and dab method was labor prohibitive for for controlling some of the invasives and they were trying to get the invasives under control so I'm just wanting to clarify in the context of the discussion are we allowing some foler spray or you know what what methods are we allowing that's a great point I mean I think that we're prioritizing the cut and dab when when appropriate and then fure spraying is still on the table okay um but unless you want to specify an emotion [Music] somebody I think the realistic outcome for controlling invasives is to have all those tools available can you bring up the email yes it's just going to take me a second to to track it down I don't have my hand on right now up I have one other issue too okay I'm G to go to Lawrence go ahead Lawrence yeah so the um it wasn't that the cut stem uh wasn't effective it it was the some some of the invasives were very much like little seedlings um and and pulling those out were not effective um just to correct um or or just clarify um that previous comment um but we're not wed it to glyphosate it it's it's just that that was the the one that was in the CMP and noted and subject to the previous discussion and inclusion in the order of conditions um that we that we stick to it but we we're happy to kind of go with the punches to um to to minimize its use um and use it only when it's necessary and in a in a method that is uh appropriate thanks Lawrence um I'm going to go to public comment well Aon is getting this up and everybody is mulling over motion if you have any comment um raise your hand Arin so I just wanted to point out that we did receive um one written comment and I know um just from speaking recently with staff um and we're we're trying to make sure we're doing this right that because this wasn't posted on our website that it should be read um so I don't know if you want me to read that at the beginning before um people from the public might speak why don't you do that in case it okay covers some other comments okay so um I'm gonna do my best to read this as quickly as possible um the emails from um Michael Linsky um please distribute this email to all Conservation Commission members before the December 4th 2004 2024 meeting good morning I want to bring attention to previous Fort River solar Wetlands protection act special condition created by the concom over a year ago this condition was created to protect the extremely sensitive environmental conditions on the solar facility site and the protected areas that surround it from an unsafe Bess um which is an acronym for battery storage system I believe that permitting any site work related to a at this time would be a violation of these conditions um he goes on to site um the special condition two which she highlights um a formal amendment to this notice of intent SL order of conditions is expected for future review of the battery storage proposal and any Associated site work only after that proposed battery storage system has been approved by the amorist fire department in writing and set approval is included the order of conditions D number 0897 uh 0728 clearly states that no site work related to the battery storage system can take place before the best has been approved by the Amis fire department once this approval has been obtained pure sky can submit a formal Amendment for the system to the associate and the associated site work no formal detailed Amendment involving the best has been submitted to the concom at a recent Conservation Commission meeting P Sky indicated that they wanted to begin and complete construction of two equipment pads located on the east and west solar arrays at Hickory Ridge they are also they have also submitted an Amendment to the order of conditions that would change the phasing of construction at Hickory Ridge stating that they intend to install the equipment pads as soon as possible the plans for the equipment pads at Hickory Ridge clearly indicate that the pads are designed to Anchor ass sorted electrical gear and a b in fact the best gear uses more space on the equipment pad than all other electrical system components combined in earlier plans the equipment pads were carefully designed with the containment system intended to capture any leakage from the battery fire from Battery fire related events the equipment pads were designed for pound centipede batteries that may not be permitted it is clear that the work on the equipment pads would be would be site work related to the best maps recently submitted by pure sky for the proposed phasing changes at Hickory Ridge show the proposed electrical equipment pads Best Equipment featuring Po and batteries are clearly shown on both pads I've attached a small portion of one of these maps that show the battery pad the batteries on the pad excuse me I've also attached a photo taken at another pure Sky solar facility under construction in wilb Bram Mass earlier this year the photo is meant to illustrate that these are not simple concrete pads extensive careful located conduit grounding rods and grounding cables are all prepositioned well before the concrete arrives on site the pad in wil Bram is somewhat different in that is not a single large concrete pad but several smaller pads grouped together I am assuming that the Soggy plastic soil conditions at Hickory Ridge make more substantial unified make a more substantial unified pad more uh necessary according to the agreed upon special conditions for this project any work Associated any Associated site work related to the B is not allowed until the ammer fire department approves a b in writing and pure Sky submits the approval to the Conservation Commission only then can the Conservation Commission act on any formal Amendment concerning best work at Hickory Ridge I would expect that the Conservation Commission will follow the special conditions that they created last year the ammer fire department needs to approve any best before the construction of the equipment SLB pad is allowed and the pure Sky should submit a formal best Amendment thank you thank you Erin okay I see a public comment um Brook Gabe I'm gonna allow you to speak two minutes please Erin I guess I don't have permissions so do you mind um hi I uh recently relocated here from Florida where I was a nature guide in Big Cypress National Preserve and I know a little thing a little bit about wetlands and herbicide use I suffered a chemical burn to my right eye because of glyos Spate in a wetland and I am telling you I am listening to you talking and I have learned a lot since that happened and I think you all are you don't seem to know what you're talking about and you do not understand you are dealing with very dangerous chemicals and the Alternatives that they propose to using are usually even more dangerous and the binders that they use to apply to the plants are more dangerous than glycos Spate itself if you pour glycosade on grass it doesn't die it needs a binder the binders are the most dangerous part you need to consult an independent expert before you make this decision because you are this meeting is scaring the out of me honestly I thought Massachusetts would be a safe place to live because you have laws in place about keeping these chemicals at least 100 feet away from a wetland thank you Brooke uh so Brooke by binders was talking about the surfactant which we've discussed at previous meetings are part of the solutions that go with cipate and change whether or not it's used in aquatic environments or terrestrial environments Just for concom information okay I'm seeing no more hands raised so I'm going to Commissioners um I see one more hand raised um Aon do I have yes Lenor please go ahead two minutes please I think you're on mute Lenor sorry thought I was unmuted hi thanks everybody um I the can you hear me now yeah could you just please State your address for the record Sor Lenor brick 255 Strong Street so um I wasn't gonna comment on this because I'm always looking at the big picture of these projects but since you're talking about glyphosate I do know a couple of scientific researchers that I can send your way I don't know who's still around in the valley but um regardless in case you don't I mean glyphosate is a very toxic bio bioside it's carcinogenic it does bind strongly um to the soil it does contaminate groundwater um so it is it is something to really know more about before you consider you have to consider the soil type and the and the slope and the groundwater depth it's a whole big thing and if we're really trying to control invasives the best way to control invasive is to protect the ecosystem in general because the minute you start messing with it and and and removing things and making uh and taking taking a land that's already compromised and compromising it even more you're just inviting um invasives and and just one last thing to not be fooled by the legislation we have in the state because the last four legislative sessions there have been um proposals and bills about glyphosate about pesticide use about herbicide use it doesn't seem to pass it's very complicated why that is but there's been a lot of research um about the dangers of that so there have been bills they just haven't passed if anybody knows working with the state is very difficult to pass any um bill into law so don't let it fool you that just because something's legal it's safe thank you um and just for everybody's information whoever is applying pesticides is doing so with an applicator license and they do so under very specific guidelines and they need to go through training to do it um I don't think any of us want to be using glyphosate but that is how we restore lands from invasives Alex yeah is um I know we've got a whole lot of people who seem to have disappeared but um I I wanted to comment about the pad so I I hope Tom and Lawrence can hear me anyways when we approved the the conditions a while ago I work pretty hard to remove batteries from any consideration and we got a letter from uh pure Sky saying that they had removed the battery storage system from the project plans and Aaron tells me that the pad that would allow batteries was remained in the document that we approved and I think that was an error because it was agreed in writing by pure sky that we had modified the project so that it was a solar project producing electricity that could be put into the grid but not with the but not battery storage system so um and I work pretty hard for that special condition that the public commenter referenced um that there wouldn't be any work on the site related to battery storage so I think with regard to the pad if the pad goes forward is to take care of the electrical work that is necessary to make the solar project um operable but the pad should be reduced in size and and only the size necessary for that equipment go forward and not uh extend the pad for battery storage and it occurred to me that all those B the the infrastructure is put in place prior to the for Batteries the infrastructure is put in place before the concrete is is poured and I would suspect that the placement of that infrastructure is battery specific but we don't have batteries approved yet so I would move that uh piure Sky go forward with installing the pad minus the surface to store batteries is that a motion Alex I know I said that way didn't I yeah that's that is that is where I'm headed because way back when when we were when we took batteries out of this project it was it was a solar project that was going to produce electricity put it into the grid but it was a battery free project and so the pad should not be built to store batteries until we have a battery that's approved and they come forward with with their application for batteries and then their extension of the pad would be included in that that formal Amendment thank you Alex any other commissioner comments is my hand down now yes is I don't see your hand it's down go ahead Rachel I just had two questions um I appreciate the cut fill calculations um you know where is the 573 net cut going I just want to clarify is that going off site is that getting redistributed and then the second question is um you know it's a little bit out of I wasn't there for the original application but the the filling that's happening in the flood plane is there an correlating compensatory storage cut happening on site just want to clarify that Tom or Lawrence is there anyone that can answer that tonight yeah the um the the 29 and a half is kind of a worth case scenario in terms of the cut fill um so the compensatory storage will be adjusted um uh with what the uh total encroachment is if it's 29 and a half which is the worst case then it will be done for that if if not if it's lower then it will be lower and then where's the cut going that you uh we would uh look to get that either taken off site because uh we wouldn't want to spread it around at this stage either that or was stockpile it and uh spread it around in the spring um but we can kind of go with the uh the concom on that one that's about three inches over 1.3 Acres that's the amount of that's the amount of that's a L of cut Alex is my is your screen Frozen mine is not Frozen no my screen is frozen I'm not quite sure how to unfreeze it I may have to depart and then come back Alex if you try turning off your camera and then turning it back on Andor just try to go with without your camera for a short time it might help okay and close all of your other web applications in case it's a connectivity issue okay thank you is my hand down now your hand is down Jason's is up go ahead Jason yeah sorry Lawrence did you just did you say that with the cut they'll be cut and then you're just gonna spread it around the site in the springtime if if that would be preferable to us taking it from site but as far as the concom is concerned so I'm a little so you're cutting it and then you're using it it's net cut it's a net cut site Jason and so we had originally anticipated to export it offsite but I think what Lawrence is saying is but if the commission says we don't want you to do that keep it on site then we'll keep it on site but the plan was to export it from the site and how many cubic feet total are we talking here 573 net I think that's what it is yeah I I just I bring this up because when it's left on site it can really change the flow of water and hydrology and have unexpected results and I just want us to know what we're approving so and again we're not approving it tonight but you're hearing questions from the Commissioners that will hopefully be addressed at our continuance my preference would be to have it removed okay and I think it's 465 because we've got from the plans I think you originally saw in the ones today I think it's like 465 cubic yards not that it's a tremendous difference Point Still Remains export from site and so maybe you know Madam chair at some point just understanding we are going to get continued it seems like we do need something on invasive I don't know if Erin still wants motion and then it seems like it's a it's on us to go to mist Dianne to get her to sign off on these revised plans to come back to you at your hopefully next meeting to get your approval after we get nhsp approval and I just want to make sure we're understanding our tasks the right way yeah so we're going to get to that motion Commissioners we're gonna have to do that so I'll be looking for a motion and um you've heard commissioner comments tonight so miss dian's going to have to see revised plans hopefully taking into account what's been discussed and Alex are you still with us okay I'm not seeing Alex and he certainly has had um some input but does anybody want to make a motion regarding the uh pesticide applications on site and Erin exactly what was the key piece of information that missan needed whether or not we were going to allow glyphosate or do we really have to be specific about this prioritization list and the methodologies for use I mean isn't that going to be part of like the omm or like I I thought that she just needed to know that we were willing to um allow some extent of Life State use sorry I'm reading emails and switching around screens um so yeah there there's an email from I after our last meeting I notified um Misty Anne and Naomi about the concerns that were raised about uh glyphosate at the meeting um after that point um uh Misty Anne responded and um basically asked for additional information um Naomi responded and and was talking about Alternatives and expressed some concern about um the alternative to glyphosate um then there was there was some discussion about um time of year um restrictions for use of herbicides um that was when turtles were active yes yeah and and you know part of this plan may be implemented when turtles are active um so just to keep that in mind that this is an ongoing um treatment um and I uh I'm doing my best to sort of uh I guess sum this up but um the I did have a conversation with Misty Anne about it following the email chain because I wanted to get some clarification about where NH nhp was coming from um and Misty an was I think just wanting to make sure that the the commission was okay with sort of the protocol that had been discussed and we can certainly you know attach the email protocol that has been discussed um as part of the record of the approval um it's mostly to say that uh from her perspective she was completely comfortable with us limiting the use of glyphosate and also limiting the application type for the glyphosate and um you know if it was more advantageous to use glyphosate over this other um alternative that was more harmful then you know that would be their preference to to allow that um so that's my standing um but there is an approved um you know there's an approved CMP where herbicide application is part of the overall restoration project and removal of invasives on the site and M Deanne did remind me that um we really in the state of Massachusetts is actually um a different a different state agency that that regulates use of herbicides so um she said she wouldn't prohibit use of herbicides or specific herbicides but more prohibit how they're applied or be restrictive about how they're applied is any GSP offering a a protocol for this or I guess I'm not I'm unclear about what she needs from us because I don't think we're in a position to like determine the best application for Turtles and time periods especially right now given that we are kind of unclear on information is needed natural heritage would spell out the protocols relative to the to the um rare and endangered species on the site natural heritage is the one that says during these months you know these are the restrictions for the herbicide application so that would be in the nhp determination letter um when that's issued um I I wish that Naomi had come to the meeting uh because that would have helped this a lot I think but well can we just defer to any HP recommendations I mean they have expertise in this and they are most conservative when it comes to um you know Wetland setbacks and sensitive species use relative to the sites where there's proposed spraying yeah absolutely okay well that makes most sense to me because I don't think we're working with enough information as the commission to determine what's going to happen but I am looking for a motion to at least move this forward and is am I right that we need to do that right now and not put this on with the continuance for this hearing no because they can't it's like they they can't issue their determination letter until we say we're in agreement with the protocols okay Alex I may have missed some I had to log off and log back in in order to uh fix things so while I was gone did Aaron actually bring up and share the prioritized list that we were talking about we did not look at the prioritized list um she gave us sort of a recounting of the email string yeah so she could perhaps bring that up so people can see what we're talking about which is in the folder by the way yeah and there's multiple emails so forgive me because I'm bumping around between like three screens to try to find um I think it's fairly close to the top yeah there was a list and I feel like I'm skipping over it yeah I don't think I grabbed the right email sorry well what you have in the folder was that a complete list of emails yes I mean Alex what I was suggesting is that we defer to any GSP recommendations for method and type of application as well as timing and let them establish the Protocol no I understand that but there was and I don't know who PRI who proposed the prior priority list with whether that was the consultant or whether that was the state um yeah I mean it sounded like it was a starting place there's there's so many emails in here I'm flipping through them trying to locate it and it's um what do we need to know Alex if we see a list none of us is going to be able to say that looks good because I know that chemical is better than that one like I mean if we know if we know it's from s swca then I would say I'd prefer to defer to nhsp um if we know it's from nhsp I'd say that's fine so that's what I'm already suggesting is we make we defer to nhsp recommendations rather than S swca if s swca is just coming up with the list because we said no glyphosate that doesn't really bring us to a balance of that's better than what was we had before I understand I I think go ahead Andre I think we have I've found an email that might be the one we're looking for okay it's email nv11 92024 92024 and it's from who Naomi Valentine okay so that's s swca to M Misan uh merold and Aaron okay so that's consultant um thank you Andre Michelle I have a question on natural heritage do they have expertise in herbicides or are they simply going to say what season they can't be applied I would think and I don't know that they have a more comprehensive approach I mean their business is the protection of endangered species and their habitats um and setting regulations around that the answer is yes just okay the answer is yes and at least they're far more um qualified to do it than we are especially at this point in time yeah so this is the content of the email I can't really I can't really read that eron do you mind just okay I I can't get the whole content on the screen um if I that's not the prioritize list she's just saying she doesn't and this is a dialogue would would the would the list have um come in as a as a um as an attachment or just no it was it was part of the email string and it it um if if the if the prioritized list came from the consultant then um I agree with Michelle you scroll up one one more I think I saw something from Maryann saying that paragraph of that email that you've just gone past there yeah so the plan could have a prioritization of manual MZ appear Trio Pier direct methods Etc fog Miss glyphosate direct and would leave it as an option but provide to Alternative active ingredients to prioritize first that was Misty an's recommendation and then and then Naomi responded that she was concerned with one of the suggestions because it persists and travels in the soil more than other so frankly I don't think we have enough information to make a really a determination on this and I would just prefer to defer to nhp but um Commissioners this was raised the last meeting and I wasn't there so however you feel you need to resolve this we we need to move on with this hearing go ahead Jason I would like to move that we um leave the decision to nhp and the consultant or at least not leave the decision but defer defer to them they're experts that you know I'm not an expert I don't think many of us are experts so I would move that we we defer or we we look to nhp and the the consultant for guidance on this okay we have a motion in a second Erin I'm just going to confirm with you that this is going to be sufficient information to get this move forward with nhp so just if I could ask a clarifying question about the motion is this motion stating that what the nhp and the applicants representative come up with you're you're okay with them moving forward with finalizing that in terms of the um herbicide application on the site so that they can move forward with issuing their determination letter they're not going to be coming back to us with a with a plan again to review but they're actually going to finalize the plan and move forward at that point um yeah I would like I would like to defer to them as as the experts and okay you know I think we we I think we stated that we would like um to potentially prioritize the dab approach as opposed to broadcasting yeah so I guess I could amend my motion to add that we uh we defer to nhp and the consultant um for the the use of to make the determination for use of herbicides and that the Conservation Commission would like to see the dab approach prioritized over any broadcast spray all right thank you Jason second that okay so we have amended motion Andre secondy amended motion Rachel hi Bruce hi Jason I Andre hi Alex hi and I'm and I okay worked out eventually in the end okay thank you Tom thank you Lawrence thank you uh continue to next thank you we forgot about that I gota wait a minute I gotta I want to come back to the pad well we're gonna continue that're I come back I want to come back to the pad and because I I want to change ask them to change their drawings to not consider batteries that would be in keeping with our order and there was a correspondence that was attached to the order that basically took batteries out of the project and we now have a pad which originally when it was filed had batteries on it and it shouldn't and that pad should only be big enough to hold the equipment necessary for the solar project now that has been authorized to operate and nothing more and that pad should not be expanded for battery storage until they file an amendment to the notice and we have the fire department agreeing and writing to certain batteries that would be in keeping with the order that we approved what's proposed is not in keeping with the order we approved so I would like to make a motion that their drawings be changed such that the pad is only big enough to hold the electrical equipment necessary to make the solar project as as approved operate and nothing more may there's a motion on the floor so I have a second on the motion I'm not hearing a second um you've heard commissioner comments Tom and Lawrence so please consider that for continuation thank you okay and now I'm looking for a motion to continue this public hearing to December 18 2024 at 7:35 PM so moved Jason on a motion second Rachel on a second Rachel hi Bruce hi Jason Hi Alex hey Andre hi okay thank you Tom thank you Lawrence we will see you later okay two this public hearing is now called to order the hearing is being held as required by by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of the wetlands is most recently amended in article 3.31 Wetlands protection on the town of ammer General bylaws this is a notice of intent bylaw only for tetr on behalf of ASD shsb Mass solar LLC for the construction of a 9.3 megawatt DC ground mounted solar volic facility and battery storage system and a pertinent components of three Parcels totaling 102.4 Acres within with 39.6 Acres of anticipated Disturbed area this project proposal includes tree clearing installation of associated access roads storm water infrastructure and fencing at zero sh spray road map 9B lot 11 and 12 and map 90 Lot 27 proposed work will alter bank and buffer zone to locally regulated resource areas okay we're going to start this with um Erin can you please give us Madam chair I have to step away for take a personal moment for a very brief period I'll be right back okay thank you Alex Erin can you please all right do we have people to bring in please raise your hand if you're in the audience I see Corey I see Matt I'll bring in Matt Steve do you want me to start first Michelle sure let's make sure we've got everybody okay hi Matt Cory do we have Steve Tom sticking with us okay ready for me to jump in Michelle yes please okay so um I think I've discussed with the applicants representative that um I think that the logical first step or first phase in review of this project is for the commission to um discuss the 100 foot work no excuse me 100 foot no work zone or 100 foot no work area that's associated with isolated V ated wetlands and vernal pools um under our local Wetland bylaw um regulations um there is a a portion of this project which um has an access road which goes through um it's proposed to go through 100 foot no work Zone and so really uh I think the first discussion that the commission needs to have is whether they are willing to reduce that buffer in order to um permit the access road um I think before we start sort of a a larger scale review of the project and discussion of the project that that is a a critical um discussion that the commission needs to have because it's sort of at the Crux of the project thank eron um I'm gonna hand it to you guys if you can pick someone to speak we'll give you five minutes then I'm going to go to public comment and then we'll go to Commissioners Matt go ahead it looks like you're queued up second I'm sharing my screen here y all right can everyone see it now yep all right for the record Matt Mo with tetr here on behalf of ASD shsb Mass solar the applicant for the project here with me tonight I've got Cory mandis from the applicant Tom Rey from bacon Wilson and Steve rerie with Goddard Consulting as Aaron just mentioned tonight's presentation is primarily going to be focused on proposed activities within areas subject to jurisdiction the plan you see here on the screen most folks are likely familiar with at this point but to help Orient everyone top left hand portion of the screen of the plan is shb Road the right hand side is the town line between Amherst and pelum and North is facing up the resource areas you see on this plan are based on the oad mass d Wetland data layers and field observations by our team for those of you who are not familiar with the project it's located at zero shsb Road it's a three lot assemblage of roughly 103 acres and the project site is approximately 40 acres uh the major components of the ground mounted tracker systems the electrical equipment and V perimeter security fencing gravel access drive and storm warning Management areas avoid minimiz and mitigate efforts pretty substantial efforts have been made have been incorporated into the design and the project conforms with local bank and buffer zone performance standards complies with Massachusetts storm water management standards and is consistent with d Wetlands policy in terms of project activities as I mentioned there's a there's a thoughtful effort to avoid Wetland resource areas on site so the project avoids State Bank bvw ivw vernal pools bordering and isolated land subject to flooding Riverfront area and state regulated buffer zones the focus on that is to try to be consistent with with both the state regulations and the local bylaw where avoidance should be the first measure for our project where we couldn't avoid impacts to Resource areas we minimized those impacts and mitigated them the impacts are related to local bank and the town of Amur buffer zone we're here in front of the commission primarily to request a couple of couple of areas of work the first one is temporary alteration to local bank about 10 linear feet for the replacement of an existing 15inch corrugated metal pipe covert near shsb road so what you see on your screen here snippet from the overall plan shsb Road this is the bend in the road where the proposed Gravel Drive shown in Gray here generally coincide with the existing logging route the red line is the 50ft buffer the green is the 75 and the gold is the 100 we have a photo here of that delineated bank and you can see kind of on the bottom left portion of the photo that's the end of the corrugated metal pipe as it exists today so we're we're proposing to replace that corrugated metal pipe with a reinforced concrete pipe and a head wall and ultimately maintain the remainder of the bank so overall it conforms with the performance standards the other element of the project that we're seeking approval for is alteration to the town of amher buffer zone there are two areas the one we were just referring to by shb Road and the second area as Aaron referred to earlier is this internal Site Area where we need to cross through the buffer zone to gain access to the Eastern portion of the site overall the project devoids more than 17.7 Acres of buffer zone all impacts conform with the performance standards as written in the local regulation for the shutesbury road area we've minimized those alterations to to only those required to provide safe and secure access to the project site and to meet the storm water management standards the road itself coincides with the existing Logging Road which is slightly narrower than the 15ft wide proposed road so there'll be some additional impacts to that footprint and and the curb cut to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site as we move to the internal Site Area we've avoided vernal pools here to the left with associated with isolated Wetland eye and the areas within 100 feet of them where we aren't able to avoid is the crossing to gain access to the eastern half of the site we've minimized those alterations primarily to those required to to gain access uh We've located the vegetated maintenance access path at the narrowest Crossing line of the buffer zone so you can see here in the red that 50 foot buffer that's the pinch point where these two kind of pointy areas of the buffer zone are closest we've intentionally located that path to minimize our impacts as best as possible the other impacts within the buffer zone are selective clearing limited to that required for installation of the improvements the fence the vegetated path underground electric and to eleviate critical shading impact so this dark cross-hatching represents selective tree removal from basically there's a handful of trees that are are really casting some substantial Shadows on the arrays the unstore you're at five minutes if you could just y I'm like 10 seconds away from being done got it yeah the undestroyed growth will in this area and to mitigate for those impacts we're proposing some amphibian enhancement areas around the isolated vegetated Wetland that's it all right thanks Matt um we're going to go to public comment um andon is there a written comment that you need to read why don't you start us off that if there's any public with comments uh please raise your hand I'll get to you and keep it to two minutes please go ahead Arin um Matt could you just stop sharing your screen briefly so that we can see one another uh thank you so much sorry I don't know why that drives me not okay um so the Conservation Commission once again received a um a public comment on this project I'm going to try to read it as quickly as I can um date November 26 2024 to the amoris Conservation Commission re public comment regarding Sho bear road solar project notice of intent and request for determination of applicability please consider this public comment from residents of ammer we have followed the careful work of the Conservation Commission in protecting the wetlands and waterways in the town of amrest in the associated interests of the wetlands protection act and the town of ammer wetland bylaw and regulations recognizing the commission's expertise we respectfully offer our response to the notice of intent and request for determination of applicability posted on the shutesbury road solar project we request the Commissioners consider taking the following actions in response to the submitted noi and RDA number one deny the notice of intent as by tetratech number two make a positive finding with respect to the request for determination of applicability RDA as to whether the boundaries of resource areas depicted on the plans Andor Maps referenced above are accurately delineated and three require an noi because current environmental conditions late fall and drought do not allow for an accurate determination of the boundaries of the resource areas noi submission concerns the noi submitted by tetratech 5th of November 2024 on behalf of pure sky was submitted exclusively under the amoris Wetland protection bylaw this submission disregarded the request of the Conservation Commission at the conclusion of the RDA hearing on May 8th 2024 to submit an noi under both the ammer Wetland protection bylaw and the Massachusetts Wetland protection act mgl chapter 131 section 40 and its regulations 310 CMR 10.00 Etc consequently approval of the currently proposed noi could create dangerous precedent such that future applicants would disregard the conservation commission's guidance and its attempts to uphold the regulations that protect resource areas in amers this outcome does not appear to align with the commission's deliberate efforts to avoid setting problematic precedence conservation the Conservation Commission emphasized to the applicant last May that numerous additional jurisdictional resource areas protected both under the Massachusetts Wetland protection act and the Amis Wetland protection bylaw had not been submitted reviewed or approved under the orad those areas are listed in the finding of fact attachment to the orad 520 2025 at the um at shsb Road C appendix one which is an attachment to this correspondence RDA submission concerns regarding the advice of the Conservation Commission to submit an noi under both local and state regulations tetratech on November 19th 2024 instead submitted a request for determination of applicability RDA to determine a whether the area depicted on the plans Andor Maps referenced above is an area subject to jurisdiction of the wetlands protection act there may be additional State jurisdictional resource areas in the project area and insu insufficient information has been submitted to make a determination as a result approval of the currently proposed noi has the potential to result in a project that would violate state laws pertaining to Wetland protection B whether the boundaries of the resource areas depicted on the plan Andor Maps referenced above are accurately delineated the or ad issued on 54 2024 cannot confirm the request for boundaries an accurate delineation is essential to the town's ability to assess the Project's environmental impacts and impose appropriate mitigation measures the Conservation Commission urged the applicant to undertake the delineation this past spring including features such as land subject to flooding which neighbors have directly observed prior to the owners no trespassing order current conditions that uh current conditions given that it's late fall and a state declared drought make it impossible to review resource areas at this time therefore we ask the commission to delay the determination until spring when environmental conditions are appropriate for making that determination although beyond the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission we note the following additional concerns regarding the proposed solar project on shutesbury road as detailed in pure sky application to the ammer zoning board of appeals one removal of 41 Acres of contiguous forest for 10 acres of solar panels two clear cut over 6,000 trees three damage to critical natural landscape and core habitat as designated by biomap four cited in a residential Zone Ro and environmental justice area and five installation of lithium batteries a known fire hazard adjacent to Forest and a densely settled residential neighborhood with no Town water thank you in advance to the commission for considering our submission we greatly appreciate your diligence in protecting the amrest resource areas signed by the following ammer residents and forg forgive me if I mispronounce your name Bea Addis Ira Addis Jennifer Allen Eric Bach rock Thomas Baker Eggbert Baker Chris benrey Robert bazooka Kathleen Bridgewater Ira brick Lenor brick Tara Flippo Barbara Ford Arley Gould Amy Hirsch Jack hirs Mary Hawkin Britney Hudson Hudson Carl Hudson Jenny cck Mike lapinsky Renee Moss Melissa Mueller Arthur uh Paladino Rick wrath bun Bill Rich that's it um okay going to live public comment I see a hand up um Judy I'm goingon to bring you in two minutes please you're muted so please unmute yourself to talk yes I'm Judy Eisman I chair the town of pelum planning board previously chaired the Conservation Commission in pelum for a number of years and was president of the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commission so I have some background in Wetlands protection um I generally agree with most of the comments made by the ammer group that you just read and while this project may have technically avoided um I feel it remains a shockingly incentive proposal toward the environment and fails completely to actually protect Wetland resources and habitat continuity and uh particularly for larger animals among the three communities um the mitigation proposed is utterly insufficient and frankly it is simply a bad location for this project from the perspective all the three communities that are involved excuse me um uh and relative and uh to all three communities revolved as well as the critical habitat and biomap issues that have been mentioned I believe I sent several letters from the planning board to the zoning board of appeals and I believe you were copied on some of those previously um I won't go on at this point I think you should have uh it well in hand at this point and understand that uh there are some major environmental issues year and this is flaunting the entire purpose of protecting Wetlands thank you you Judy um Scott cashen thank you Scott cashen wildlife biologist at 21 hot Brook Road and I want to just briefly speak about the town's bylaw which discusses the importance of habitat connectivity for amphibians among wetlands and the importance of Upland Habitat to the ecological Integrity of vernal pools and isolated Wetlands the bylaw further states that buffers larger than 100 feet may be needed quote where wildlife habitat in such areas is critical to success of the underlying resource area or where alteration in such area is likely to result in Alteration of the isolated vegetated Wetland or Vernal pool therefore compliance with the bylaw requires an analysis of connectivity and the importance of Upland habitats as I'm sure you know different amphibians exhibit different life history traits there was a discussion at a zba meeting uh several months ago about doing amphibian surveys at the site um but I don't I I don't believe that those surveys were ever conducted and until those surveys have been condu conducted the Conservation Commission does not have the data needed to analyze compliance with the bylaw with respect to whether the project is likely to result in Alteration to the wetlands as the applicant mentioned there would be tree removal and road construction 50 ft from some of the wetlands and if you look at the maps a lot of the wetlands would be completely surrounded by Industrial development there's no ambiguity in the scientific literature that land conversion surrounding Wetlands will negatively alter their ecological values the applicant mentioned amphibian enhancements as mitigation I don't know what those enhancements would be but I can't Envision any habitat enhancements that would mitigate the Project's landscape level impacts to amphibian habitat thank Youk you Scot Renee Moss two minutes please hi Renee Moss 277 shuberry Road um I I just have one one quick thing to say um that uh there were many more names for that letter but uh we had to submit it a week in advance and therefore some many names got left out and I will be sending an addendum to you with the additional names of people who wanted to sign the letter so thank you for the work you're doing thank you Renee um that was the last hand I see up um I'm gonna go to commissioner questions and comment oh I see one more Eric Bach Rock two minutes please thank you uh thank you so much for the uh real diligence with which you're approaching uh this project my name is Eric backrack I live at 277 shutesbury Road and one I'm I was also a signatur of the letter that eron read earlier um uh regarding this project one concern that um uh was not mentioned of uh is that um a project of this size um likely will increase the ambient temperature of the um of the area and not only the area of the of the solar array but of the surrounding um um um area around the uh the solar project and I'm concerned that the wetlands that are being skirted and avoided and trying to mini minimize impact how can we be assured that the um the Ambient Air Temperature around the project is not going to be increased substantially there's a lot of research um currently going on uh one paper I read um earlier today indicated that up up to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit is a potential warming of the wildlands near large um um large solar arrays so I'm wondering if um even if the wetlands are skirted how can they how how can the in dramatic increase um in the ambient temperature of the area not deeply affect the wetlands and the biodiversity of the the the um the area around the project thank you thanks Eric um Jacob hi there's one thing I would like you to consider address oh can you hear me yes we're getting a lot of feedback so if you potentially have two audio sources last name and address got rid of that sorry Jacob can we have your address as well sorry uh Jacob hirs 400 flath Hills Road um one thing I'd like you to consider is that in um building the road through the buffer zone between the wet lands is a single um intrusion on the wetlands but every time a truck or construction vehicle moves through there is another intrusion and during the construction phase of this there'll probably be thousands of them and one thing I wonder if you could ask is for the engineer for Pure Sky to Cal calculate the volume of the removal material and how many truckloads it will take to remove that material material that's information that will be important for the town of ammer when they assess damage to the roads as well as damage to the resource areas um so I hope that's something you'll consider thank you very much thank you Jake uh Sharon go ahead please hi this is Sharon weisen pal I'm at 86 Henry Street in ammer um I just want to thank the conservation commission for all your work and encourage you to stick with the wetlands protection bylaw as the town of ammer determined it um I know many many people that um are hoping that you are able to stand firm with that um you know it it sounds like you know well we just need a few little variances to be able to make you know to have access to the eastern part of the site and um but it it's not little the variances are actually quite dramatic and even if they were small a little bit here a little bit there has an overall huge impact especially when you take into account that this is just one site of six sites that are basically all one project that include the five sites in shutesbury so a little bit here a little bit there ends up radically dramatically affecting the ecosystems of this um contiguous uh Forest so thank you thank you Sharon okay it's seeing no more hands up I'm going to go to commissioner discussion um I'd like to really focus this on the primary procedural part which we should consider I just want to mention that um three of us went out on a site visit for this hearing we were accompanied by Aaron and Dave and we spent about two hours if not more out there it was fairly comprehensive thank you Matt for guiding us um on the ground so I know we have a lot of questions about the project but yes I do want to as Ain said Focus maybe the bulk of our discussion right now on the deter ation of granting the 100 foot waiver so with that in mind um Commissioners questions and comments Alex go ahead please um aerin's comments uh are we in the folder and I'm not sure that other Commissioners um were able to read all of them but she did write she did write about the crossing of the 100 foot buffer and I wonder if it might be useful for eron to reiterate to the Commissioners that were not on site and the rest of us what she had to say yeah eron's um that was a very extensive staff comment uh bundle um with exhibits is that what you're referring to I think yeah or actually Aon that was for the RDA so um I'm gonna just go to the other Commissioners first and then if there are still questions that Aaron can answer maybe we'll do that uh Jason go ahead yeah um the the exhibit that was shown showing the road going through the 100 foot buffer um I can't find it necessarily in our packets I was not able to find it in our pack packets I don't know if that plan is included in any of the submittals that were in our packets but um as it goes right between two Wetlands isolated Wetlands I I tend to agree that access road is going to see a lot of traffic there's going to be a ton of material going in and going out um those all of those Wetlands there are at the bottom of some very steep hills with trees being removed and uh an access road going in or potentially an existing Access Road being enlarged um I'm very very concerned about the impacts to those Wetlands there there is going to be a ton of sediment um going down flowing down down downhill into those wetlands as well as just a lot of dust and dirt from vehicular traffic on those on that road and that stuff can really add up um quickly and fill in Wetlands like this so I am at this point in time I don't without seeing any kind of real plan um I I am I'm very concerned that there's going to be a very large impact to to those uh Wetlands there from this road thanks Jason and just for further clarification is it Aon is it I or X that is the Vernal pool or am I um is it one of those I the veral pool um we do have pictures of um spotted salender egg masses and there's wood frog uh chorus observations from that so that those are two facultative species I mean obligate species um indicating that that is a wetland it's not certified it hasn't gone through that process yet um so that's the I series on the far left of what we're looking at could I also just say something really quickly Michelle um sure relative to Jason's comment the the plans are in the packet that was provided to you Jason um the packet is 650 pages long so that might be why you didn't get to the plan because it's a very big packet the end uh Andre go ahead I I don't have an actual comment um or I mean a question but uh I will say uh upfront that I've seen I haven't seen anything or enough that to convince me uh to wave the 100 foot buffer I'm just putting that out okay thank you Andre any other commissioner comments okay um um because a lot of this hinges on that waiver I'm going to take a pull um so please raise your hand if you are in favor of the waiver of the 100 foot no work area associated with isolated vegetated wetlands and vernal pools so in favor of the waiver please raise your hand okay if we're not in favor of granting that waiver um we are moving to either continue deny or we can request from the applicant that they withdraw if we choose to continue I'm suggesting that we set a date certain for resubmission of the plans um to keep due process and the public informed um we can discuss what that would that timeline would look like I think staff have suggested something like 60 days um and if it's not submitted by that time we could osed to deny based on failure to comply with performance standards um and then the third would be request withdrawal Andre go ahead um I'm a little confused I thought we had 21 days to uh to um to make uh uh to make a determination so we're getting confused this is the noi the RDA is up next so they're two separate hearings okay thank you Matt do you have something quickly to add to the conversation that yes I'll I'll be brief but as it relates to access to the eastern half of the project site the the proposed Crossing at the narrowest buffer zone point is the only feasible access to the eastern half of the site without Crossing through a resource area or a buffer zone so I'd like the commission to keep that in mind as they consider whether or not to provide some relief for work within the buffer zone Alex I move that we deny the waiver of the 100 foot buffer motion on the floor do I have a second okay I have Alex on the motion Andre on the second Alex hi Rachel hi Jason Hi Andre hi Bruce hi I'm I okay um so that I guess is that for noi Aon is is there any kind of followup or background are we moving right on to the RDA from here you're muted Ain Alex's motion was to deny the waiver um so at this point I think we have an open hearing we have to decide um to your point earlier Michelle um what the next step is uh a continuation for a period of time to a you know and you know I'm sure the applicant is going to want to weigh in on that um uh and Andor um you know the other options that you listed so uh we have to decide what to do with the open hearing um and I'm sure the applicant's going to want to comment on that yeah I see Tom's hand up go ahead Tom thank you uh yeah so that's exactly the point I'd suggest the continuation If you deny our hands are a bit tied to have to make a decision if we appeal or not I mean frankly would prefer not to even go down that route um withdrawing and then resubmitting gets us to the same place as a continuation but maybe with a little bit more baggage associated with it so I'd say if it's a 60-day and I'll turn to Matt and to Corey but really to Matt about timing to turn around a revised plan um eliminating that internal uh access way um just to see if 60 days would would be enough but that'd be our suggestion noted Cory do you have a comment on the time frame yeah well not necessarily on the time frame but thank you for uh allowing me to speak um I just want to thank everybody for being here tonight um and I will just note that we have been very mindful about avoiding all resource areas including the buffer zones to the extent that we possibly could we can go around them we would re honestly would really prefer not to um but if if there's any way that we can get this to move forward we would implore the board to consider that thanks Corey um I mean we are upholding our bylaw and you just for the the gravity of it is would be setting a precedent where we waiver our bylaw for that 100 foot so I think that is what the Commissioners have considered tonight um Commissioners Tom um we're looking for our next step which would be their motion to continue and I guess we haven't gotten any more feedback on that 60 to 90 Matt looks like you have a comment maybe on that one um yeah hold on one second I just want to finish that we're either going to continue or deny or request from withdrawal Tom's already uh weighed in on what the reference for them would be so Matt do you want to comment on a time frame that' be realistic for you guys yeah we'll need to Circle back with the engineering firm but as an engineer myself I suspect we're going to be looking at like a 60-day turnaround to update plans and submit um amended information to the commission for consideration thanks Matt commissioners comments or a motion please I'm proceeding from here ory still has her hand up Cory no my apologies I can lower it now okay all in favor of continuing raise your hand please okay I see two hands is there hand for deny okay I see some undecided um they've already expressed that they prefer not to withdraw Jason comment yeah Ain can you give us just a rundown as far as what the ramifications are of our potential decisions here of uh denying extending so um right so uh if you so I I'm assuming that you're asking about ramifications of a denial is that what you're asking or are you talking about ramifications of continuation or um well we've denied we're denying the exemption for the 100 foot buffer correct so what then we're we're asking for if they're asking for a continuation yes where does that get us if we're denying if we've already denied the 100 foot buffer what is it then that we are also denying so if you so if you continue what you're doing is you're offering the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project to avoid um the impacts that are um currently proposed um and so that 60 days would give them an opportunity to explore alternative um essentially doing like an Alternatives analysis to determine what additional um opportunities there would be for them to complete the project in an alternative configuration um so that would be if you continue and uh so I would anticipate that within a 60-day period the applicant would come back with a revised plan concept and essentially run that by the commission to see if that revised concept um is is more in keeping with uh uh abiding by the bylaw um does that does that help because all that we've all that you the motion that Alex made did was basically say that we're not going to Grant um a waiver or a variance so to speak of the 100 foot no disturb buffer that the road um goes is currently proposed to go through so um that that is you know an option the the continuation part associated with that would give them an opportunity to spend some time to revise okay and then if we deny What specifically is it that we are denying then and what are the ramifications we'd be denying the application so they could come back with a brand new application they'd have to go through the whole process of what are notification and all all of that so um if it may be a similar process a lot more difficult um in between right and if if you were RDA sorry the RDA conversation that we're going to be having that's that's next so yeah and is that tied to that denial then or is that a separate no it's separate so this is just under our local bylaw um the upcoming RDA is only under State regulation so they're they're separated out okay um so relative to to issuing a denial um um I think if the commission is is considering that they want to go that route I would my my guidance to the commission would be not to issue a motion to deny tonight my guidance would be to just close the public hearing so that I can come up with a recommendation with language that would be appropriate to include in such a denial which would basically be um and outlining how the project doesn't comply with the local bylaw um as Tom alluded to if if the commission goes that route There's an opportunity for the applicant to appeal um the decision in Superior Court um which is very likely I would presume um and so then you know it would basically become a um uh a court um decision between the commission's denial and the applicants appeal Aaron do you have a staff recommendation for whether believe we ought to what the most prudent thing would be to do I don't think we should put her in that position to I agree um I mean my up go ahead Andre yeah um I don't see any problem with uh with uh giving 60 days uh for them to uh regroup and figure out uh what they can do to prevent the impacts uh that they had proposed and um that would give them an opportunity to do their part and uh uh then we would um we' uh address whatever uh changes that they're looking to do I think it makes sense thanks Andre do you want to put forth a motion I uh move to uh continue this hearing uh for 60 days until um February 12th is that uh is yeah is that good with you guys Tom and uh and Matt and Corey one one quick request of the commission before we move on that motion um so there was a vote to to deny the issuance of the waiver I think the project team would appreciate input from the commission on whether or not they're comfortable with the 100 foot no disturb as written in the bylaw and regulations or there's intent to extend that so that the project team understands where the commission stands relative to those buffer zones that's a fair question made a motion sorry okay we have it right um I think that might come up in our next hearing Matt um um I don't know that we can answer that right now um if yeah what does Michelle if that's the case can we request a continuance to December 18th because my concern is if we go through the effort of updating the plans to move that access road in some way shape or form and we come back to months from now only to find out the commission has a desire to extend that buffer zone we're just in the same position again well I guess we could take a show of hands of who feels inclined but I mean I guess that's the inclination of the commission right now and some of this will also um maybe come to light in our discussion of where the resource areas are and what's being acknowledged in the resource areas so what is it that Matt so he's referring to our bylaws um our in our bylaws we have we're able to consider extending the 100 foot buffer greater than 100 foot buffer under consideration of wetland complexes Vernal pool complexes so if we feel that there is um ecological impacts um to a wetland complex that need to have greater than 100 foot buffer we have the ability to extend it as well as reduce it does that answer your question Andre it does I'm not ready to answer that yeah um I imagine probably most people aren't ready to answer that um unless there's comment about that please raise your hand but go ahead eron yeah um relative to to Matt's question I guess I just have a question and um this is for the the project team have have extensive wildlife habitat evaluations and and um amphibian surveys already been conducted where there is data that can be readily shared with the Conservation Commission right now um that would allow them on December 18th to have an opportunity to have something to review where information has already been gathered in the field that might um give them some information from which to base a decision uh regarding extending the buffer on Erin would that be beyond the natural resource inventory that we've already provided to the commission yes that would be a an in-depth on-site wildlife habitat evaluation of the wetlands to determine their um their presence or absence in the ponds in the pools in the wetlands what what species exist there um what their um what their uh the extent of their um presence is on the site so that then the commission can use that to determine um you know that they that information is is typically with a project like this you would collect that information and then that would be the basis for making a decision like this um so I I just we don't have that information and there's no way we're going to get get it in December and until March so I think that's like something we have to keep in mind what we have to work with right now but they haven't done that um we know a little bit about the Burnal pools but there's no way we're going to have that sufficient information in the time frame that we're talking about so yeah I don't I don't know the answer to your question Matt I don't think the Commissioners can can give you an answer to that so I hear that you in light of that are requesting a December 18th earring yeah because I think it's really important to at least have a sense of of whether or not the commission intends to extend that before we do a redesign so we don't want to waste everyone's time and efforts doing a redesign just to come back and find out the buffer wants to get extended to 120 feet 125 ft yeah I mean I don't see why we'd no any differently than versus 60 days um Rachel I see your hand up go ahead just noticed there was a ra hand raised in the public want to check if public comment is still open I'm already in this discussion so I'm just gonna try and wrap this up Ain go ahead I was just gonna ask um has the applicant um already um put together some type of Alternatives analysis that would have various configurations of the access road and the and the setup so that that would be readily shared with the commission on December 18th uh there are no specific Alternatives that I'm aware of that are that were considered reasonable when this design was developed by the engineering team the proposed alternative or really the proposed path was the the one reasonable access to the Eastern site in their opinion okay well I think we're we've heard from the project applicant that they are requesting an earlier date do we have space in our agenda for that Erin um uh yes but I I just want to remind that there was a there was a motion made by Andre which is still um sitting there um for the the 60 days so that that motion was made I don't know if that motion was seconded um but that motion was made so I just want to make sure if we're considering an alternative option um that we acknowledge that that motion was made and figure out what to do about it because it's it's um resting there before we move on Okay so we've come around full circle with that motion Andre would you like to amend the motion having now heard heard from the project applicant so the idea then is that uh the um is that uh the applicants are looking to uh have a chance to talk to us again on the 18th in order to uh determine whether or not uh we're going to um extend the buffer zone is that is that what this is that is my understanding of what Matt was requesting yes so so then um we need to make our minds up uh on the 18th whether or not will extend the buffer zone appears to be Matt do you do you have any more comments on your date I think we're really needing to move this on and you know we're open to what you're you guys are reques for how much time you want but I'll before we move on with that motion go ahead I was just gonna answer Andre's question okay we're just looking for some some feedback from the commission on the 18th not necessarily that we expect the commission to be in a position to make a a final decision one way or the other does that help Andre um yeah somewhat I but uh I mean we need uh they they need 60 days right he's actually asking for December 18th now so but once once December 18th comes around we're going to need another 60 days aren't we I guess that depends on the outcome of thate I mean uh you know we've already made that uh we've already denied the uh uh dened the wave the waiver right so you're still you you're still stuck with your your 60-day uh your need to redesign your um the the access road right so you still need 60 days that's correct we need time to design the access road what I'm looking for is feedback from the commission on a desire or lack thereof to implement the option that the commission has to extend the buffer zone around the vernal pools and the isolated vegetated wildlands so that the project team is informed about the area the commission intends to take jurisdiction over before we go through the 60-day effort of redesigning the project I mean frankly We're not gonna have any more information then than we do today I'm just going to withdraw my uh my motion and uh let's see where it goes okay my hands up oh thank you I can't see it in your background go ahead Alex I understand that we probably can't decide whether we would extend the buffer around vernal pools tonight and that you want some decision in the middle of December and then apparently you would start your 60 days in the middle of December so absent a decision if we made an assumption that we might extend the buffer would that help you there there is guidance for gral pools um according to what species is there on what buffers are useful for the various life stages and without us making a definitive decision tonight if we took a conservative approach use that Loosely and say um for your planning purposes if you assumed that we would would that necess would that do away with the need for the December meeting and let you proceed starting now with your 60 days if if the Assumption came with a a number right you know whe if it's 2011 feet is very different from if it's 125 fet I don't think we're you know we're we're not in a position to to come up with a a definitive buffer extension number except that we do have we do have some documents that have different buffers for different species beyond the H 100 foot but I I thought maybe okay I'm I won't talk about it anymore sorry I thought maybe we could find a way forward appreciate it I mean looking at the map I'm not sure extending it 120 versus 100 is the access road isn't available either way right so it's edging in on some of those panels but it's is that a significant design change for you if it's the difference of 20 feet Madam chair yeah go ahead Alex um in the documents that I've read some of those extended buffers go out 400 feet yeah that just depends on the species and those are species that are present so part of the bylaw what it talks about is when there's a Vernal pool complex that have connectivity and that's to support the Ecology of the species and allow you know healthy genetic movement and uh boom bust ear dry ear wet years to allow it to function as a metapopulation and that's the point of this and I mean I don't see what 20 difference on a buffer is going to make a difference in this population of salamanders but again they're resilient species so um I mean frankly Matt I feel like maybe 60 days and why don't you use 120 foot buffer and we go from there we're not going to be telling you anything different on December 18th than we can tell you tonight that's just my it's an honest response and we appreciate it I think that works yeah thank you okay does any Commissioners have any last comments on this one I agree with Michelle's approach I reinstate my uh uh my motion to allow 60 days until February was it 12 um February 12th at 7:30 pm at 7:30 p.m second Andre on a motion Bruce on the second Rachel hi Jason Hi Alex I Andre I have a question we're going to get through this motion first or is it a okay um am I Jason did I get you I'm an I did I get everyone okay all right thank you Tom Corey thank you I have a question go ahead Alex what happens if they don't finish the work and provide us something within 60 days should we have something in the motion about what happens if they if they don't come in at 60 days we deny or that's a good point um I had suggested you know half an hour ago that we deny on the basis of not meeting performance standards but that didn't make it into the motion that we just approved so I don't actually know procedurally what that triggers um I would hope we don't have to discuss that guys but Erin do you have a comment on that one well I think it's up to the commission um if you you want to make another motion with that associated with it you can and then um you know vote to eliminate the you could vote to get rid of the emotion that was just made and make a new motion um that replaces the motion that was made so that's an option I propose that we uh cross that bridge when we get to it okay so is that a motion no I no it's not a motion um all right so a non motion um Alex would propose that we accept Andre's motion but add on to it that if they fail to come in in 60 days then we deny okay if you'd like to do that maybe put the motion on the table as a separate motion can I make a comment on that we don't want to get lo I don't want us to get locked into uh uh doing one thing or another once we get there just like I didn't want to get locked into uh you know how but I'm trying to avoid a whole series of continuations that we do this in 60 days and not get into months and months and months of continuations okay we have two deferring opinions from Commissioners does any other commissioner want to put forth a comment on this or does someone want to Alex did you make a motion I make a motion that we um Grant a continuation of 60 days to if I get the the date I think it's February 12 at 7:30 for the um applicant to come back with additional information and if they failed to do that then we deny the the we deny okay motion on the table do I have a second I'm doing pretty good tonight okay we don't have a second so it looks like that motion does not pass Jason yeah sorry I'm still not necessarily comfortable with what is that we're making motions for and asking them to bring it back to us we've denied the 100 foot waiver they're coming back with a redes site yes but so so all they have to do is change one or two things and then that's acceptable like what are we saying they don't bring to us in 60 days that we're going to deny like if all they do is make one or two small changes you know ask to change everything only what is in that 100 foot buffer we asking them to change only the access road C could I make a recommendation here um this is just sort of off the record I guess not off the Record but not in an official motion but just some some advice to the applicant to take the next 60 days to devise what I would call an Alternatives analysis come up with like three separate options for potential designs bring that to the commission at the next meeting so that you can you can um present here are some options that we've come up with and then we've got you've got something to work on and we have something to expect uh I don't think that it's likely that you're going to be able to redesign and redo the entire project um I think you you have to kind of do some um uh some edits come up with some conceptual ideas for consideration than and Andre yeah um you know I think in uh in 60 days when um when the 60 days are up on February 12th um we'll have an opportunity to uh look at this uh a new and uh look at whatever uh whatever changes in The Proposal um the applicants are are going to bring to us um we'll have an opportunity at that point uh to determine what we want to do um if they don't bring us uh any of that if they don't uh redesign uh we have the option also to uh either deny or to um or to add extra time like uh Alex was saying but we'll have all those options in our hands and we're not we won't be uh locked into anything and um uh the applicant will have an opportunity to uh to resubmit which I think is fair I guess I'm just repeating what I said before I'm sorry I'm done okay Rachel say I appreciate everyone's comments here um and to the applicant I would encourage you to look at the rare species the and the species that are in the habitat and not take a number that you pull out of the air or someone tells you but really dig into the needs of that species and look at your plans and think about what is a fair protective zone for the species and then come back to us I think that would be a good place to start all right I think we're ready to move on to the next one um so we have our motion to continue there was some discussion and I think we'll see you guys or at least Matt and Corey in 60 days Tom's oh we'll see you next next hearing okay am I missing anything can I move on Von please okay okay hearing three 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 protections of the wetlands and most recently amended and article 3.31 Wetlands protection under town of emeris General bylaws this is a request for determination state only tetr on behalf of ASD shutesbury Mass solar LLC request to determine whether the area depicted on the plan slmap is an area subject to protection under the wetlands protection act and whether the boundaries of the Source area depicted on the plan map are accurately delineated at zero shsb road map 9B lot 11 and 12 and map 90 Lot 27 okay Erin want to give us a five minute update here or introduction yeah um so I I sent um some concerns to Matt um a list of of out standing concerns um shared those outstanding concerns with the Commission in a for in the form of findings essentially um here here is where I stand on this um I and I think I'm I'm not going to be able to go over batim and I can certainly you know share rebate and what my comments are if I need to um I think there are some issues with this RDA um starting with the fact that the commission requested an noi um back in in May um I think there was logical um rationale behind the request for the noi and I think that this um RDA has teased apart um why that rationale was necessary back in May which is there was a number of resource areas which were not included in the orad which um are still not adequately in my opinion included on this application um I think there's there's issues with us confirming um potential res SCE area boundaries um that are off property that could potentially cast buffers onto this site and considering that we are during a winter season and we are in a critical drought that it makes it almost impossible for this commission within a 21-day period to turn around um confirming that there are no buffer zones from offsite that are going to be impacting this work area that's just one um of a number of comments but there there were um calculations that were requested for flood um for bordering land subject to flooding which were not included in this application um there was documenting flooding D documented flooding that I observed that our Consultants observed on site which we still don't have mapped or boundaries of we have Burnal pools that were requested to have boundaries mapped in the previous iteration which still have not been mapped we have a intermittent stream with banks which still have not been mapped um and you know just out on site there's there's one Riverfront flag on the plan which delineates over 300 foot of Riverfront um delineation I observed at least one offsite Wetland that is within the outer riparian zone um so I have concerns and I've expressed those concerns to D and also our town attorney and the advice that I received was to issue positive on both so that the applicant could come back with a notice of intent um I think relative to the conversation we just had this is probably a good plan for the applicant to have a positive determination on because you might be coming back with a state noi anyways um if you're going to be coming back with a proposal that's potentially impacting State um buffers or resource areas so that's my staff recommendation and I'm happy to go into more sort of verbatim detail on my rationale for that if you need me to thanks aarin um that or not do you want to give us the five minutes I'm going to give you about 10 seconds uh we would request that the the application for an RDA be withdrawn without prejudice at this time okay thank you Matt okay well there we have it um do we need to close this public hearing okay so it's withdrawn right thank you Matt I think that's it for you tonight that's it for me thank you everybody for your time we appreciate it good night we'll see you in 60 February thank you for the site visit too my pleasure it was a it was a nice day to walk around in the woods so yeah good to get out of the office every once in a while yeah all right Tom you're sticking with us again all right start having to call on you um anyone else joining us okay bye Steve are you here for this one too okay he's here maybe Phil Henry Aon if you wna have him join are we moving to hearing four we are okay got everyone assembled so this is hearing four G Consulting LLC on behalf of univers UD Drive Amity LLC for the demolition of two exist structures and Associated infrastructure and construction of a proposed mix use development consisting of two buildings with Associated parking landscaping and storm water improvements at 25 to 35 University Drive and 422 Amity Street M 13B Lots 18 27 28 and 54 okay eron do you want to give us an update on this one you're muted Aon sorry uh there's updated materials in your um uh your folders uh for one drive but just to give you a little bit of background after the last meeting um I did meet with the applicants and their engineer um I made a series of pretty substantive um recommendations uh which all of which were basically incorporated into the plan as I requested I'm very happy with the um with the revisions to those documents um there yesterday sort of just some last minute or the day before maybe some last minute adjustments were some adjustments to erosion controls um I'm already sort of formulating orders of conditions uh for this for some things that I want to be included but I'm not fully prepared tonight with a fully drafted order of conditions for the commission um but just in the the we have 30,000 some odd square feet of buffer zone um enhancement that have been proposed as part of this project we went from a 30in um corrugated uh CT to a 15 foot by 2 foot open bottom box Culvert for the for the entrance which I'm very very happy with um so I think that there there have been quite a few um improvements they also added bio retention area and a water quality sale um in lie of the previous um uh bmps that had been proposed on the site um the one place where we were sort of doing some last minute um discussions was relative to an inl fee payment because we still have about 9,000 square feet and um you know just in talking with Michelle while you know this is these areas we would consider to be enhancements of the existing site I think you know a lot of the enhancements are within existing storm water systems and so not really considering them onetoone mitigation so that additional 9,000 square feet came into discussion um Michelle and I did spend quite a bit of time um in the last few days going through the mitigation calculator and um using that plugging in alternate values for this site based on the um uh outstanding mitigation numbers and I do have a dollar value which I articulated to um Tom Rey really late this afternoon um which was about $21,000 um going towards our in luy um account so that that is just a very brief synopsis of sort of where things stand thanks sarin um Tom Phillip and Steve do one of you want to take five minutes give us an update yeah uh and I'll probably be less than five minutes given the the time I think Erin um hit the nail on ahead after last meeting U met with Aaron really great feedback went out did test pits Bill updated the storm water design um really redesigned it so we've got a water quality swell and what I'll do is I'll just share my screen quickly so I can kind of show you where those items are so once you can see uh my screen so we've got this area which was a detention maybe infiltration is now a water quality sale we've got bio retention here we've got bio retention here and we've got another Swale over here along Amity um the open bottom covert it's two feet high 15 feet wide by 35 feet long that's going in this area and then I will scroll down to the landscape plan because we've updated the mitigation we talked to our landscape architect we made sure that all the plants um were climate resilient for the area that they're in uh High Wildlife value pollinator um Native and so that's what we we've got here is just an updated uh planting mitigation plan you see in the S we've got some check dams here with uh Native rounded Stone this is that Culvert area these are the one of the bio retention areas here's that other bio retention area and you can see just the volume of planting that um the the proposal has at this point we're not taking any credit for anything within here based on the the chair's discussion last time but we're taking credit for kind of the balance of the plan things restoration or or try to take credit for in the buffer zone uh the only comment I would have to the pay and L calculation was um not taking into consideration any of the existing disturbance within buffer zone on site currently it's like you took as if it was 100% new um existing there's 29,000 rough number square feet of disturbance within buffer zones we are increasing that by about 10,000 ft to 39,000 ft and I know that you use the 39,000 sare ft and as that at that first number we're proposing about 30,000 feet of mitigation so that's where that 9,000 square foot number comes in that formed the basis for the pay andl that's really my only comment on the pay andl and I you know if the commission says this is what we're going to do Tom that's what you do uh that's my only comment of it uh happy to get into more detail but um we really appreciate Erin's work uh to get us to this point so thanks thanks Tom um yeah so we used that nine for the pay andl that that's what was understood and you're that was the difference between already I'm just trying to clarify we're on the same page with that we didn't use 39 we used N9 but the difference between because just if I so the way that we looked at it was okay there's existing disturbance on the site of about 29,000 ft within the buffer post development there will be 39,000 square feet of impact within the buffer and so the Delta between those because there's no mitigation for any of that stuff the Delta is 9,000 and we're saying we're proposing 30,000 square feet of mitigation so in fact we're doing like 3 to one where I think the commission looked at forget about what exists let's just take 39,000 Square ft of um buffer zone impact what are you proposing for mitigation 30,000 so 39,000 minus a 30,000 gets to that nine instead of giving any credit for like new like what what are we doing over what exists like what is our impact over what exists now okay we can get into that um Bruce go ahead based on that discussion about square footage mine seems small but it's a very large tree if you look at the word Basin bottom right in there I was at the side visit there is a gigantic tree that may or may not be entirely on within the property boundary but we spent a lot of time talking about how to protect it and I just wonder that all survived there you go so and I should have called that out but yes that was that 48 inch Willow is going to remain we called that out okay and so it's protected as as best you can under the plan correct that's all I wanted thank you sure great thank you Arin so I just relative to Tom's comment because I think that this is a you know we want to be fair and we we definitely don't want this to appear that we're being um uh arbitrary in any way with like sort of how we're designing this so just to by comparison with a recently approved project where there was encroachment on the 50 Foot no touch Zone where which this project does go into and we've got encroachment here up to 12 feet away from the Wetland we had a four to one at Emily Dickinson so Emily Dickinson carriage house project so this is three to one which I I think you guys have done a fantastic job with what you have just saying like com trying to compare project to project which we do try to do on a the you know the best basis that we can I think what we have before us is a very permittable very um well articulated project that would give the commission the ability to approve this as a Redevelopment project and consistently with other projects where we've required substantial mitigation um for those encroachments yeah and I I hope I'm on the same page with this accounting but what we what we how we worked with this was that the mitigation on site um was we considered that to be more of like an ecological lift and we took the monetary credit for the cost of that and subtracted it from the total inl fee cost for that 9,000 plus so the 9,000 plus inl fee cost was something like $58,000 so then we subtracted your contributions for the um restoration on site from that so that was our rationale and I get it it's just so I guess my point is if we were coming in and this site was there was nothing and and maybe this is aon's point about the 4 to one but if we if we were coming in and we disturb 39,000 square feet and then we were proposing 30,000 ft of mitigation I can see that as okay now there's 9,000 ft how do we solve for that now maybe that's one: one and that's what Erin's saying is one: one would not be sufficient and so what we're doing here and if I see her ning youre so I can stop if that's the rationale behind it because just like in my mind I'm saying well we've already Disturbed 29,000 square feet we're only disturbing 10,000 extra square feet why are you counting like 100% of that new disturbance and now we're paying you know $55,000 minus all this other stuff that that was where I was coming from versus like a brand new project but if you're looking at it to say if it was brand new we'd be talking 3 to1 four: one I can buy that so I see ER nodding her head which might be enough okay that's ex that's that's pretty much exactly is that it okay then I'm okay thank you okay if there's any public comment please raise your hand I'll go to Alex next yeah the last time we met I brought up the idea of off-site mitigation and the feedback I got from Tom and others was that we could talk about that and uh I don't know if you did but I think there's property up around tan Brook that uh we'd like to see protected and um um is I'd like to put on the table the idea of uh forgoing the money and protecting that property up on tan Brook and so we talked if I could through the chair we talked about it uh there's likely to be a proposed project on that site where we'll look to preserve tan Brook as probably mitigation and offset right so we're using that for something else so I don't want to use it for this if you will but the intent is big picture to preserve that area just not through this project I got it okay when when when excuse me when will that other project come along is that like in the next year or I I think so we'd probably be through permitting or we'll try to be through permitting um I'd say in 2025 okay thank you right any other commissioner comments questions I see no public comment okay so we are looking eron I think you're bringing up our motion so there it is looking for a motion to uh close the public hearing tonight I move to close I move to close the public hearing for 25-35 University Drive and 422 Amity Street Prince d p number 89-74 Clos Prince second Alex on the motion Bruce on the second Jason I Rachel obain Alex hi Bruce hi Andre I and I'm I okay thank you all good out there thanks for taking all the comments into consideration we really appreciate that happy to do it thank you yes all right you good night good night are you saying good night to all of us not yet I'm sorry we're hopeful we go really fast we can yeah so unfortunately these folks had to wait till the end um all right so this is n engineering an noi for Niche engineering on behalf of wayfinders Inc for the demolition of two existing residential dwellings and construction of a new proposed residential building with Associated site and utility improvements including parking and storm water management at 7280 belter toown road map 15c Lots 58 59 and 60 okay Ain staff update please yes um I did pull in the um applicants representative on this and I think we can go really quickly on this one um so to give you um a little bit of um background I uh did request revisions on this one uh the revisions did come back um I am satisfied with the um revisions that have been made uh there were some again some very last minute updates to the operation and maintenance plan but we were able to get those in order um for the meeting tonight so I have all the documents that I need in order to issue the order of conditions I did um share a draft with the applicant and we um did some iterations of conditions which I think everybody's happy with at this point so at this point I am um ready to close the public hearing and issue the order of conditions um and that's where things stand everything's drafted and in your folders sarin Joshua James do you wna comment um I probably unnecessary at this time um as Aaron stated we we last met you know it was October 9th I believe our previous meeting we had um requested a continuent so that way we could make some updates as we were progressing through the zba um comments as well um I think the biggest hicup was incorporating the invasive species management plan into our um operation and maintenance manual which we worked closely with Aaron and our environmental subc consultant as as well to get that hashed out um but otherwise yeah I think we had provided a comprehensive update a couple months ago and it was just a matter of getting back on on the meeting agenda than Jos there's any public comment please raise your hand Commissioners any questions or comments before we move to close and issue order conditions okay I'm seeing none from either room so I'm looking for a motion it's a lot of words I move to close the public hearing and issue order of conditions for 72-80 btown Road De number 089-099-6182 [Music] with the noted additional conditions second that Alex on the motion Jason on the second Rachel Jason hi Alex hi Bruce hi Andre hi I'm I okay well that was nice and short thank you Josh and James thanks for hanging in there all that you look out there you appreciate it have a great night all right next up a notice of intent for SLR international corporation on behalf of the town of ammer for the improvements of the ammer Regional High School track and field facilities associate site work at 21 maton street map 11d lot 81 270 and 2115 okay Madam chair yes I'm going to um not participate in this in this hearing okay thank you Alex uh you just put your hand up so I I sorry okay Erin do you wna please give us a step update yes so um the applicant has submitted uh revisions to me um based on my previous comments um and there was one outstanding comment which came from Rachel um pertaining to a test pit which is proposed in um one of the storm water systems um I guess there had been some previous um uh averaging of test pit um depth to groundwater um distances uh that had been um used to to account for the groundwater depth at the location of the specific storm water system um my understanding is the project has been designed based on the averages at this point but the town is proposing to do a test pit later this week at which point um be able to finalize uh to to know you know more more accurately that groundwater depth and if a redesign is necessary they would come back to us to um uh address or adjust the the plan accordingly um but my understanding is that they they are prepared to move forward tonight with us issuing an order of conditions I do have an order of conditions drafted I've shared it with the applicant they've reviewed it and given me feedback and I've made um edits accordingly so you guys have the final version of the order of conditions in your folder and it's um I'm ready with a a motion to approve this tonight if you're um ready to do that thanks sarin uh hi Mike and Heather one of you like to give an update and if there's any public comment please raise your hand now yeah um first of all thank you very much and I I will be very brief um you know we've been working diligently uh to address your comments and we wholly intend to conduct test pits uh they were actually scheduled for tomorrow morning but because of our impending snowstorm uh that's on the way um those are going to be undertaken probably early next week um at this point uh so we're actually proposing two test pits at the site of the uh infiltration system Mike okay uh commissioner as I see Bruce's hand up go ahead pruce um I'm looking at the comment from the fire department and I wondered if I didn't see that in the order of conditions maybe because it's not our job to do that [Music] um yeah just said okay so a good point um and that comment did come in um like very pretty much just in the last day or so so the comment was um from the police or from the fire department that they use the um the parking lot that's adjacent to the school um between the field and the school for fire response and they basically stated that during construction um that that would need to be accessible to the fire department and that was a condition that they stated that they would need um during construction of the of the field um I don't know if they've communicated that to you or not Bob go ahead certainly thank you Erin um the very same comment was submitted to the planning board and you may know we met with the planning board this evening um and received approval from the planning board this evening that was acknowledged and we have committed to complying with the requirements of the fire department okay okay any other Commission comments questions okay I see no public comment so which case I'm looking for a motion I I'll do it um I move to close the public hearing and issue order of conditions for 21 M Street e number 089742 of amorous General bylaws article 3.31 and regulations with the noted additional conditions I have a second second that Jason okay Bruce on the motion Jason on the second Rachel hi Jason Hi Bruce hi uh um Andre hi I'm and I did I get everybody that's voting yep I think Andre may have been the second but I'm not sure not Jason Jason were you the second or was Andre the second I think we were tied but okay whatever you already have WR worries no worries second per yelling at the same time okay all right thanks for hanging in there guys and um looking forward to seeing that track out there thank you so much right good night good night okay Commissioners other business um we need to issue an order of conditions yes so we do that first so this is the um Southeast Street it's actually the the um East Street school project um that the hearing was closed I want to say two meetings ago now but at the last meeting we didn't have a form to be able to issue it um this the order of conditions is drafted it's been in your folders now for I think three meetings um and it's it's ready to go um the standard boiler plate with some additional special [Music] conditions they looking for a motion I will move to issue order of conditions for 31 Southeast Street D number 89- 0741 with the standard Bo plate conditions under both the mass Wetlands protection act with the noted additional conditions Second Jason on the motion Andre on the second Rachel Jason hi Bruce hi Andre hi [Music] Alex Alex are you back with us all right do we have our Quorum without Alex yes we do all right um so Michelle I just like to check in with you really quickly um the the certificates of compliance are tabled for tonight um because we are all done with those now we have three emergency certifications on the on the docket for tonight if we're if the commission has has had enough and we want to push those to the next meeting that is completely fine um um I just want to offer that as an option because I know that everybody's fatigued at this point I'm up for just getting this done unless you anticipate it taking more than 15 minutes but if anybody would like to move to a journ that's up to you let's do it okay okay um so I'm just going to give you a quick synopsis on each of these and then um we can approve them together collect l or individually however you want to move it um so there's two two there were two Beaver related flooding issues um one on West pal Roy Lane and one on Sunderland Road uh the West Palm Roy Lane situation uh both of these requests came from DPW West Palm Roy Lane um there is a beaver dam which is about um 20 feet south of the um West palro Lane Culvert and water was being backed up pretty significantly and um so an emergency certification was issued to breach that Dam um so that water could flow and and release some of the pressure that was building up behind the dam um Sunderland Road is a little bit more of an unusual situation um this in this situation um there had been a previous Upstream Beaver Dam which had breached um I think naturally at some point in time and basically clogged the culvert under um Sunderland Road and also washed through and and deposited a large amount of debris um at the outlet point of Sunderland the um Eastman Brook going under Sunderland Road um I know that beavers are very active in that location and I'm sure that they had had rebuilt um you know following that situation but the pts were blocked to the point they weren't flowing and water coming out of the culverts on the outlet side was um restricted and it was really starting to cause a problem so um DPW um we going to proceed with this work as as um uh just maintenance work and just in an overabundance of caution we issued an emergency certification to make sure that um everything was okay with them um doing the clean out of the the beaver debris from the cul and at the outlet point of the culvert so those are the two Beaver um flooding issues um and then 133 Bay Road has been an ongoing issue with the resident um and uh flooding issues have happened um in the resident's basement and um some issues related to high groundwater pertaining to their septic um these are this is one of our commissioners so I you know it's not really all the information is in your folder there was um a directional drilling um situation that needed to be done because the existing drainage situation was failing and they needed to get the water under the road to the other side of the road to basically get the system functioning again so th those are very brief um uh explanations but I'm happy to answer questions thank you R um Alex with regard to the Sunland Road um they did remove all the debris on the downstream side of the road except for what was about um 25 ft Downstream from there maybe the equipment couldn't reach but they left the Beaver Dam on the Upstream side and the Beavers had damned the Culvert I didn't know why they left the Beaver Dam on the Upstream side of the culbert is that a question yeah do Aon Dave do you know um my understanding was that it was dpw's goal to make the CT flow again to basically just be able to get water flowing through the CT I don't know if they opened it up and then the Beavers rebuilt or if um this was just they just did what they had to do to get the moving again the Beaver Dam it's not it's hard to call it a dam it's a pile of sticks that does raise the water level um it doesn't block the Culvert there's still water flowing out of the Culvert but they left it alone and they just removed the stuff on the downstream side I actually thought that was good because it's a hard time of year to remove a beaver dam because beavers can't go someplace else at this time of year so I thought it was great that they left the Beaver Dam on the Upstream side but I was just curious if there was an explanation why I don't I don't think either one of us has that explanation but kudos to DPW for doing what they asked us to do on the downstream side and they didn't do on anything on the upstreet stream side they might come back who knows yeah so I looked at it prior to their work and um there was a lot of stuff piled up but the Culvert was actually running so it seemed like what they doing was just removing Beaver debris and I didn't which is great I just but anyway that's enough I got I don't know why they did what they did um or I don't know why they didn't remove the Beaver Dam on the Upstream side but I thought it was good of them it's the bad time of year to be removing a beaver Dame glad that worked out yeah potentially or not Bruce um I want to thank our colleague for her extensive memo that makes sure that things are documented as to why a commissioner uh needed this emergency and it was pretty clear and I I just want to thank you okay thanks do we have any further questions on either West Pomroy Road or 133 Bay Road um Bruce is your hand up again no sorry well you have the floor if you want to make a motion uh let's see I moved to ratify the emergency certification for West paloy Lane Sunderland Road and 133 Bay Road as a group second okay Bruce on the motion was that Andre on the second yeah Bruce hi Andre hi Jason hi Alex hi Rachel I would advise that Rachel recuse herself on this yeah I was just getting it on the record so Bruce knows that abstain am yes do I see recuse or abstain is that is that the same either one I think is fine okay I got it I'm I okay we did it um I just want to say okay if there's any public comment please raise your hand um I just want to know from Commissioners because I never know exactly how to gauge everybody's familiarity with some of the ecology stuff that we deal with and thank you Rachel for sending out the Vernal pool information that was a really good resource that specific organization but since we are talking about vernal pools increasingly I was just wondering with show of hands is there anybody that could use sort of more information about how to think about um pool's Ecology of the species and a complex like in relation to interpreting our bylaw or is what Rachel sent out pretty good I think it was pretty good but um if if people would like more information about some of the ecologically based stuff relevant to our bylaw I'm happy to find some resources and I'm sure everybody has their own resources too I see lots of hands are they comments Jason no I just I would love more any information is always helpful okay great Bruce basically the same except that we have the virtue of having different people have different types of expertise we don't all have to be experts about everything right Alex yeah anything anything you want to share would love to learn I'm learning a lot from you all yeah I just realized during this meeting that a lot of information was coming from public comment and I I don't particularly find my role is to you know educating about the background during a meeting so I'd rather at the Forefront sort of just give you guys basis of knowledge for these kinds of things but I don't know what you already know so I've heard a bit so enough that I can start thinking about some easy ways to communicate some of that information relative to interpreting our bylaws Alex did you have a comment matter what our background more information is always useful yeah it's just we have a lot in our folder sometimes and I don't want to be overwhelming but yeah okay well heard you thank you for the feedback and for sticking with this really difficult uh agenda so thanks for the good work everyone and I see no further public comment Rachel I I found that to be really helpful thank you okay Jason put a motion on the table to adjourn Second Jason on the motion oning the second Rachel hi Jason Hi Bruce hi Alex hi Andre hi all right good night everyone great job guys hold on oh