Okay. So I think we are live now and I think we are recording. Today is September 23rd, 2020. This is the Amherst conservation committee meeting. So starting off with comments for me and I have none. So. Dave, do we have anything that you want to add at this point? I do not tonight. I know you've got a really tight schedule and a full agenda. So unless there are any questions from the commission, I think I will pass tonight. Okay. So hearing none, Aaron, would you like to kick off? Sure. Can you guys see my screen? Yes. Okay. So I will jump into. We have a land use application. Okay. So Dave and I reviewed this earlier today and. Our recommendation would be to allow it. It's 10 people for a. Plant and tree studies walk on October 3rd. It is on the Robert Frost trail. Between Pratt corner and Weathersfield road. 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. That seems, That's a lot of work. I think that's a lot of work. Pretty benign. And this is from a organized group. So dear paths, nature programs. So do they have insurance and all that sort of stuff there? I don't know if they have insurance. People for this. Can I jump in? I presume they are charging for this, but we could certainly check on the insurance issue. But it's one of those things that. To be honest, I'm, I'm. I'm glad they did reach out to us. I think. Events happen and on trails and conservation areas all over. Massachusetts and. People don't really check in. So this was kind of one of those borderline cases where I'm glad they took the high road and checked with us. And I think that's. It might be the type of thing if the commission is comfortable with it, you could. One option would be to approve it with the condition that they show us that they are an insured organization for this type of event. I agree. It looks benign. Looks great. And I'm going to say, yeah, this looks like the kind of thing we should be encouraging in terms of like learning about the natural spaces that we have. Yeah, I agree. I agree with Dave though. My initial thought was how, how, how courteous have been to reach out to us. Because I can just imagine this happening very easily without even our acknowledgement. So. I will say some years ago, and this is one of the reasons that I encouraged members years ago of the commission to kind of institute a more formal policy is that we found that there were groups using the trails and the conservation lands. Really, you know, in ways that we didn't even know were happening. And so it got a little bit out of control and didn't feel good when you found out about large events or. Fundraising events. You name it, we're happening all over town on conservation land. And we didn't know about it until after the fact. So I agree. I think this is a good thing. We want to encourage people to go out and learn and teach about these, these natural areas. But at the same time, as Brett said, if somebody gets hurt. We are on the hook. To some degree, but it would be nice to verify, of course, that they are insured. And most of these organizations are, but I think you could approve this contingent upon them. Demonstrating to us that they are insured. The only other thing I would add in that note to them is just, I mean, it's like the tiniest little thing, but just, they mentioned, sorry, my dog is making a racket. They mentioned making tea and just reminding them that like gas stoves are okay, but no, no open flames. So there's a lot of, you know, I think this is a good thing to do. And not only is it that we are kind of going around and just, you know, expanding along the rules of use to might be helpful. But I really like that they specified their kind of. Picking plans. Yeah. And at this point, don't we also have a policy in general, Dave, about COVID related stuff? So you might want to remind them of that as well. Yeah. and just making sure that they're taking all precautions to be socially distanced and wear masks, et cetera, et cetera. So in generally speaking, I would ordinarily invite people to attend the meeting. This application came in really late. And also I'm kind of unclear myself regarding kind of the COVID policy because I know like when it first hit, we were kind of, you know, discouraging use group meetings in public, particularly on townland, but... I think we've come a long way since then. Yeah, right. We're having baseball games and softball games now with masks, I think we've come a long way in a couple of months. Okay, so I'll just, from this point forward, if somebody submits something rather than kind of being cautious of it, I'll just invite them to attend and we can just review it as a group with where we can ask them any of these questions. And I feel bad for asking this, but that section of the Robert Frost is actually on Concomland. It doesn't feel like it is to me, but... Nothing a little... Because it's going from Pratt's corner. I mean, I'm just saying, if it's not in our land, this is a moot point. They might have a... Where in the proposal does it say which section I'm having a little trouble reading? It was down below. So from Pratt's corner to Weathersford. I don't know where Weathersford is. Yeah, Pratt's corner is definitely Schuetsbury. Yeah, they may be beyond. You're through on the trails between... Yeah. That makes it easy. Next item. Yeah, this may be a moot point. He does say somewhere in there if something about recommending other sections of the trail or something like that. But yeah, I think if this isn't on Amherst land, then he should be in touch with the Schuetsbury Concom. Okay. Well, I'll verify if there'll be an Amherst or Schuetsbury. Or Schuetsbury. So, but do we need a vote or anything? Cause I think in general, what I'm hearing, Aaron, is that we're supportive if it isn't Amherst land. We just like to check on insurance, you know, the COVID stuff and also what Anna was saying. So do you wanna vote or are we good to go? I would prefer just to have a vote because I think it's a little unclear where they wanna be. And if you're okay with the event happening with those requirements, then you could vote to authorize it if they wanna use an Amherst section. That sounds good to me. So anybody else have any questions or comments on this? Okay. So looking for a motion then. I'll make the motion. You wanna do it, Anna? Nope, it's all you. All right. I make the motion to grant the Deer Paths Nature Programs access to conservation land for an event that they're having on Saturday, October 3rd, assuming that this is in fact on Amherst conservation land, a motion to approve that event. A little botch, sorry, but that's my motion. And do you wanna add the caveats that we said before? Caveat being that prior to approvals conditional on Deer Paths Nature Program, showing evidence of insurance, covering the event itself. And practicing COVID and no open fires. Practicing COVID and no open fires. Second. Sorry, Laura. No, good. Okay. So I heard Anna has a second. So let's go ahead and vote. LaRoy. Hi. Jen. Hi. Larry. Hi. Anna. Hi. Oh man, everybody's like jumping around on my little list here. Laura. Hi. Jen, did you vote? Did everybody vote? Somebody didn't vote. Besides me, I, for me, Larry, did everybody vote? Larry. I got it. Okay. I think we got everybody. Okay. My little zoom list was like going up and down. So very confusing. Okay. Good. So we're all set with that. Okay. So Aaron, did you wanna move on to the 710 item or something else you'd like to hit? So we, did have an item on it, 710 for an informal discussion for Joe Sekowski's APR dual use solar project. But I talked with Dave in advance of this meeting and just because of the amount of business that we have on this agenda, we think it would be a good idea for us to table that for a meeting or two until we have a more quiet agenda and we can really focus in on it. That sounds great.  No. And as a matter of fact, we think that there's somebody who's representing Joe for the project and we'd like to have, maybe have him prepare a little presentation just to kind of get you guys acquainted with what they're discussing on the land. Sounds great, Aaron. Yeah. Okay. So we're still about 15 minutes before 730. So what would you like to hit next? So I will, let me see. Oh no. Most of the items on our agenda tonight are hearing related things that we can't discuss until the actual hearing occurs, but we did get a notice for aquatic vegetation treatment at the UMass pond and that was completed this past week. So just as a heads up about that, there is a lot going on sort of behind the scenes as far as open space related things. I've been meeting with Brad and where we have a site visit in the works to look at some items. We have some permitting on the horizon for some work on conservation lands and I've been kind of working behind the scenes with Dave and basically looking at some things like Jen had mentioned at the last meeting, the trails map needs revision. And so I've been working to simplify that, break it out into sections of town, recreate it because the old map was pretty obsolete and kind of bring it up to be more readable and also update it with, because the last time it was updated was 2018. So bring it up to speed with our new acquisitions or any new trails that we've created since that time we're parking areas and stuff like that. I wanna let you know that in my department over at UMass, we have a GIS class every semester and they're always looking for projects. So if there are things that you think would be appropriate for undergrads, gotta be careful what you give them. Let me know and I'd be happy to facilitate that. I'll let you know when the call comes out for the next round of proposals. Yeah, that's great. We were approached by somebody who may or may not be interested in an internship this fall. I met with them and they were gonna get back to me. I haven't heard from them yet, but that's really good to know. And what department is that, Brett? Environmental conservation. And one of the people who teaches, I don't know if Forest teaches fall or spring, but he's also in geography. Sounds good. I don't know, Dave, did you have anything you wanted to add since we have about 10 minutes before our first hearing? Filler, usually I'm quite good at filler, but I feel a little unprepared tonight. Yeah, no, Erin, you and I didn't get to chat about maps, but yes, I did have a long conversation with Mike Warner, who is one of our main GIS coordinators in the IT department today. And yeah, I think Erin has a lot of great ideas about mapping and I think we're all in agreement that the trail map that the town has been using for a long time, the trail and open space map needs a real refresher from top to bottom. So I think that's kind of in the works. In about five minutes online, I realized that I was not seeing at least five acquisitions that the town has made in the last year, year and a half that are not even on the map. So yeah, there's quite a bit of work to be done there. Dave, do you know off the top of your head which ones those are? I do. I sent them to Mike and Mike is going to update them with the assessor's office ASAP. So he will, typically the assessors have to get involved in that process just to confirm that they have that information as well. So that is in process as of about three o'clock this afternoon. This is really minor Pidley filler but just to let you know on the concom webpage, Erin, the upcoming meetings are on April 8th and April 22nd. So I'm not quite sure who updates that book. Oh, yeah. So yeah, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be updated on that page and I don't have the authority to go in and edit it. And I know that the last time I talked with Brianna about some of those items, they were in the process of launching a new website pages for the town. So I don't know what the status of that is. That was kind of, I think the end of last year. So I mean, it's been kind of a while but I realized COVID has kind of thrown everybody. So it could just be that our plan to do that had to get pushed aside for more urgent things but I've been meaning to actually talk with Dave about that as well because there are definitely some other things on there that need to be updated forms and things that still have Beth's contact information. So... Yeah, why don't you reach out to Brianna and just get an update on where we are with kind of the overall changes to the website because I think at some point it was kind of decided don't invest too much time, energy in the old website because we're going to have a pretty dramatic new site and that may go... Exactly, yeah. Without the Brianna who does a lot of that work for the IT department. No problem. And if we're looking for more filler, I just want to say thank you, Erin, for forwarding that video on Amethyst Brook. I kind of skipped through it but it was definitely cool to see that and lots of neat stuff in there. Yeah, that was really interesting. I was actually looking at an aerial image of Amethyst Brook. It was like a Esri kind of Google Earth image and I had no idea there's like a huge agricultural field or something right behind Amethyst Brook, right behind the Amethyst Brook property. It's really interesting there's a lot going on in that area. Yeah, I think that's, is that Kellogg Babe or somebody? Dr. Kellogg or I don't remember who owns that. That's Dr. Hess, it's an APR piece of property. Dr. Hess is a large animal vet and he farms to the east of Northeast Street after the Amethyst Farm and then the next farm over is Dr. Hess. It's Hess McWilliams is the practice because my friend is Rose McWilliams. One of the things that I found interesting on that, on that watching that video was that I happened to have a, or at least I gave it to my son. Now I had a fly rod that was manufactured by the Amherst Fly Rod Corporation and which no longer exists and so forth. They were talking about where it actually, but where the place was and so forth. I found that very interesting. The other thing from the video, the video was done by a friend of mine, a colleague, Brian Yellen at UMass and for those of you who watch, Brian did pose. He had kind of a mystery out there. There's a very well dug canal off the Amethyst Brook and I happened to live fairly near Brian and bumped into him yesterday or the day before and we think we might have come to a conclusion on that mystery which is there are some ice ponds back in the woods north of Pellum Road and adjacent to the Amethyst Brook and I'm thinking the canal might have fed those ice ponds. So we're gonna do a little more research on that but if you're out there hiking, check out that canal that leads from the Amethyst Brook. It's pretty amazing. It's very long. It's very well engineered. So quite astounding what was done by hand back in the day. Yeah, I've seen it for a year. It's amazing. I've seen that it was draining something. I didn't realize that that was actually being used to feed something. So it's crazy that the hydrology works that way. Yeah, we're not sure. We just, we're gonna take a hard look at that but I know where the ice ponds were and I've walked them. I've never followed that canal the whole length to see if A meets speed but we're gonna check it out. We need a lighter to float ice too in the winter. So that could be another reason, Dave, if they were trying to get ice from the ponds back towards Amherst Center. Sorry, Larry, go ahead. All I was saying is we need to light our study. Or we could just go hike in the woods. The hike is cheaper last time I checked. And more fun. Yeah, I'm a data geek but I still think that the hike is more fun too. Okay, so we still have a couple more minutes. Anybody see anything interesting lately on any of our town lands or I'm still waiting for the big overhang on Amethyst Broke to fall down but it hasn't yet. It's amazing. It's still staying there. There seems like there are more bridges at Elf Meadow. Is that something Brad and Tyler did recently? Not bridges, like plank mud crossings they're not really stream crossings. I will say I just read a report from Brad this morning. Brad and Tyler and we had a couple of seasonals, two seasonals come on late given COVID but they've been getting a lot done. And yeah, they have been replanking a lot of Bob bridging Yeah, yeah, thank you. That might be what you saw. We, as you know, we have this fairly large grant with the Castro Trust to improve the Robert Frost trail and COVID again through a monkey wrench and that but they're trying to get as much work as they can done on that grant before the snow flies because I think we have to finish it by June 30th of 21. So yeah, they just, yeah. It was rough out there in March and April. It was so muddy and people were still so determined to go outside that they were just ignoring it and wrecking it.  It looks really good. It did. So we have somebody from the public who has their hand up. So Tara, you should be able to talk now if you want. And if you want to add some filler, we have another just another couple of minutes that we're going to get going here. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to let Erin know that I was here. I was, I've never done this before and I didn't see myself. So I just wanted to make sure that you all knew I was here. Thank you. I think this is a first. I usually try to compile a lot of other business for us to talk about, but we have such an intense agenda tonight. And I figured we'd be busy talking. We can all take a really deep breath before we get into our busy agenda. All good. In general, Erin, why do we start at 7.30? Can we start earlier if we so desired or? I love that idea. Yeah. I mean, we could schedule hearings earlier. It's just, you know, typically for reporting purposes just gives us a little extra time in advance to cover things before everybody's tired, but not something I'm opposed to for sure. Brett, is anybody representing Tefino here? At least one person is. So yeah, so why don't we get them set up? So if you're here for Tefino, so Ted, I assume that you are promoting Ted, you to a panelist. So is there anybody else here for the Tefino 7.30 who's part of the applicant or representative of the applicant? No. Okay. Okay, so I have 7.30 on my clock. So why don't we go ahead and get going? And so this is a continuation of Tefino Associates construction for single family housing. We have a bunch of different ones. So a lot one, two, five, six, seven and eight. We have different pieces that have been submitted at this point. And we always knew at some point we will need to separate these. These are separate NOIs. So there's no doubt about that. Okay. And so Ted, would you like to start off by giving us an update about where you're at? I know that there's different progress depending on which parcel we're talking about as well. Yes. So lots one and two, we would like to table for the moment. I don't know what the term is. Erin used the term in the last meeting about putting those NOIs in a state that would require when we want to address them again that we would have to do a butter notification again. But one and two are clearly a little bit more challenging. So we need to think about those. But we are prepared to talk about five, six, seven and eight, which we had Berkshire design prepare plans with grading on them and with the PVP with the Pervernal Pool buffer shown and what our proposed buildings are. So I'm prepared to talk about lots five, six and seven, eight tonight. Okay. Thank you. And can you also just give us a quick update, Ted about what work has gone on on five, six, seven and eight since we last talked. And then we'll have Erin go and then we'll take a look at the plans. We have done no work on five, six, seven or eight. Oh, I mean planning work, not actual site work. Well, we have the only planning work that we've done is we've had a house plan put on to each plan. And we've shown the grading around each of the plans so that we can see that we can resolve the grading without needing to go beyond the 100 foot, without violating the 100 foot Journal Pool buffer. You've actually just, you've changed the where the houses are on the lot. You've changed from what they were. Yeah. You've moved the buildings. Yeah, we've moved the buildings. The statutory front setback is 25 feet in this zone the setbacks by covenants in the neighborhood. Front setback is 40 feet. And all of these houses are now between 25 and 40 feet from the front lot line. And the plans indicate each plan indicates how far the front of the house is from the front lot line. And Ted, can you also just remind us, I think I know the answer, but can you just remind us of how the Journal Pool was treated, how you made the buffer and how you added the, yeah, how you made the outline and how you added the buffer? So the Journal Pool was identified by Kristen McDonough from SWCA and those points were plotted and then given to Berkshire Design and Mike Liu from Berkshire Design then took those Journal Pool points and to create a buffer, you swing an arc from each of the lines. And then the intersecting arcs, hundred foot arcs from those lines form the buffer. And he then superimposed that buffer, that PVP buffer onto the plan while leaving on the BBW buffer that was already on the plan. And the BBW buffer shows a 30 no disturbed, the 50 buildings set back and the 100 foot BBW wetland buffer. Okay, thank you, Ted. Okay, so yeah, we have plans that we can definitely look at but Aaron, I know you have some stuff that you'd like to add as well before we move forward. So I guess just on lots one and two, I know Ted, you had mentioned you'd like to re-notify a Butters and republish the legal ad. Do you have some idea of how much time you might need? Just cause kind of leaving an application in a limbo is not something I like to do, but if we could kind of come up with a date or a proximate window of time, how long you might need, then that will help me to make sure that they're tracked. I will, I don't have an answer for you at the moment. I was instructed by the owners to resolve these four and then once we see how these resolve to get back to them and then they'll make a decision about how they want me to proceed on the other two. So I can give you an answer relatively quickly but I'm just not prepared to give you an answer in this meeting. Okay, but we're not continuing the hearing for those two at this point. No, we're not going to continue the hearing because I think, can you remind me of the term that you used last time? It was, you said that they need to be suspended or I just don't remember the actual goal. I was just suggesting, cause we were still continuing. I was just suggesting that if we go up to a year on continuations that we just republish and re-notify a butters because I think a lot of a butters may have, and the public may have just kind of lost track of it because it's been continued so many times. And we're happy to do that for one and two. I just don't know exactly how the owners want to proceed but I will find out and have an answer for you, Aaron quickly and for the conservation commission at the next meeting. Okay, so we won't continue for now. We'll just await when republication will be, if it happens. That makes sense. And maybe by the next meeting you could give us an update on that or something. I'd be happy to. Okay. Okay, so just technically for tonight, Aaron what should we do with one and two? I wouldn't do anything. I would just take no action and just have Ted get back to us. And if we're not continuing those hearings then we'll have to, a butters will be re-notified and a legal ad will be reposted for those and they'll basically, we'll reopen the public hearing at that point for those. Okay, I didn't realize we could just do no action. Okay, great. I did send the plans, the revised plans that we received to the board and to town council. I just haven't had a chance to look at them because I was busy with site visits yesterday and today and meeting prep. And I was trying to issue that ever source permit, believe it or not, still trying to issue that which got out today. So I just didn't know if the commission had a chance to review the plans. If anybody wanted more time but I can pull up the plan so that we can take a look at them in case, you know, anybody wants to take action. Yeah, I know I've had a chance to look at them. I think Larry said, you said you had a chance to look at them. What about other people? Are you okay moving forward or do you want more time? I mean, I can tell you I'm not really prepared to offer orders of conditions, you know recommended conditions tonight but if the board wants to, you know take the bull by the horns on that it's totally your call. Yeah, sorry for the silence Brett. I'm just opening them up and looking to see like if I feel like I can digest enough now in real time or if I need more time. So I was looking hard. Sorry for the silence. No problem. I mean, most of them are relatively straightforward. I think the other ones are complicated. These are, these look pretty clear. So I appreciate that. I mean, some of these are very far from the from the vernal pool. So I'm not quite sure. What I find confusing about these plans is I thought that the vernal pool boundary started at the edge of the BVW that the vernal pool was in. I thought that was in our bylaw. I thought that that was brought up or something at one point. I think I'm the one who brought that up and I was corrected at the last meeting. I thought we looked it up in the bylaw and actually found it. So can you just reiterate, Ted, what you, I know you did this earlier, but exactly how the boundary was where the boundary is coming from. So somebody was out there and at one point it was just up the center of the vernal pool, but now you have a boundary around the vernal pool. No, Kristen McDonough, when she did the survey, she shot GPS points of the limits of the vernal pool those GPS points were then plotted and given to Berkshire Design, who then put, Berkshire Design did the original plan for the original overall development notice of intent so long ago. And so they have all the data. So Mike Lou then plotted the vernal pool data from Kristen McDonough onto the existing plan and then added the 100 foot vernal pool buffer around the vernal pool that Kristen McDonough plotted. Does that make sense? That makes sense to me, yeah. I'm just confused because the vernal pool looks square and the buffer looks round and we haven't really seen, I mean, I thought that we had figured at the last meeting in the bylaw that the boundary of the vernal pool was coincident with the boundary of the BBW, but I mean, I guess I'm just confused because the vernal pool looks like it's in a square shape and I've never seen, I mean, I don't know. That's only because that one point, do you have, I also sent you an overall plan, Aaron, do you have that plan? I don't think we've seen that overall plan with the vernal pool identified boundaries before. That's new for us. Yeah, I think I just got a set of four plans, but let me. No, there was one that had the overall thing with the vernal pool on it, but I had some questions about that because I mean, I wasn't sure that we had seen that before and whether it was actually valid. You saw it in the slightly different form because it was included in the report that Kristen submitted with her, that we submitted for at the last or the prior meeting. I got the impression it was primarily the wetlands rather than just identifying the boundaries of the vernal pool. If you see on this plan, if you can zoom in a little more, you can see that the vernal pool is actually separately delineated. I've seen that and I look at your plan, but I didn't realize we had seen that before. In a slightly different form, it was included in the report that Kristen McDonough, that we submitted, that Kristen McDonough prepared and we submitted at a prior meeting. It was like, there was a series of diagrams and that was one of the diagrams where she plotted the vernal pool. The vernal pool report, Ted? Yes. And if anybody wants to view that, that's under the current applications under the Conservation Commission web page, that vernal pool report. And so, Ted or Erin, which line actually demarcates the vernal pool on here? Is that that solid purple? Yes. What's large? It is large. I've never seen a vernal pool be distinguished from the BVW around it like that, like to say that only portions of that wetland are vernal pool and the other portions are not. When, I guess I'm wondering what, are we just saying that within that polygon are vernal pool characteristics and outside of that those characteristics don't exist? Or maybe the limit of standing water, is that kind of what that boundary is defining? I believe Kristen described it in the report, how she went about determining that. The southern end of the BVW is never wet. I think it's with the lineated and based upon plant and soils, but not the presence of water. I realize we might not want to read this whole thing. I just wanted to see if we could take a quick look at it. If anybody wants me to look at something else, please stop me. I just... Yeah, and I'm not trying to railroad this through Erin. I just want to see if we're ready to vote. That's cool. And if not, that's fine as well. But we've been dealing with this one for a while. So I'll give you a job. I just want to see if our exhibit's here real quick. And so what you were suggesting, Erin, was that the vernal pool is not defined by the standing water. But I mean, I would assume that's what it would be. Granted, that's hard to tell different times a year. Going down, it's still a bit lower when you're going. Yeah, I think it's... There it is. There's one. You know, one of the things I noticed about that too, it says, the subscript down there says, it's potential vernal pool. And I always had the question then about whether that was really the vernal pool or whether the whole wetlands was the vernal pool. It's not clear to me what the result was. Yeah, and that was one of the questions I had too about how we want to demarcate that. And I think that the applicant is doing that.  You know, it's being treated as a vernal pool, but it's not necessarily going to be listed as vernal pool on the plans. And so I don't know if we're comfortable with that or not. I have another concern as well about the layout and some of those, and that is that what happens when the owner comes in and builds that property in terms of his encroachment on the vernal pool boundaries. Yeah, I mean, that's what we're... I mean, they're not going to get within 100 feet of that, Larry. So I'm not quite sure what the... So the lot line, the lot line extends. So it concludes a lot of the area with the inside that vernal pool boundary. What's the lot line? Are we going to impose that they can't go into that zone? They cannot build in there, definitely, correct. Are they... You know, they could put a shed in there. So how is that going to be defined? They want to put a shed in there.  Sorry, I was reading while Larry was talking. Larry, are you talking about if the individual who buys the house wants to then put in shed or some other item in their backyard? Exactly, you know.  For example, in lot eight, over half the property is outside of what they can get into. Right. But I mean, that's not... That happens that people can't expand the parts of their land because they're protected by... Well, in the Protection Act. I realize that, but I guess this is over half the property being outside of where they could use it. That's an interesting issue. Yeah, I mean, Boulder is definitely in my mind and that kind of takes care of that. So I mean, they're not going to go past those lines that we demarcate. I think that if anybody who lives in these houses wants to do anything beyond, within that 100 foot vernal pool buffer, they're going to have to do what's required in the wetlands regulations, which are required that they file a requested determination of applicability if they want to do a fence or an outbuilding in that area. I think that if you're allowed to do things in the buffer zone, but you have to appear before you guys and have you guys check up that you don't think it's going to be doing it, having a negative effect. The following activities in the buffer zone are presumed not to alter a resource area, but still require a minimum of a filing of a requested determination in order for the commission to determine whether this presumption applies. Construction or installation of fences or structures not requiring a building permit. But when we approve this, if we do, can we make sure that those kind of limitations are indicated on the deed so that this is actually a matter of record? I don't know if we can do it on the deed. I mean, again, that's why the monumentation out in the field is my preference because I'm not even sure a lot of landowners read their deeds. I can confirm that virtually none do, but there will be a recorded order of conditions. But yeah, I mean, your issue is very valid, Larry. And yeah, something we definitely need to deal with. So, Erin, you're still hunting for the renal pool definition? I am because I think that's important. And I remember that we found it last time while we were in the hearing and presumptions where a proposed activity involves removing, filling, dredging, otherwise altering seasonal wetland. Sorry, I was just trying to find it. I thought that it was, we had defined that it was coincident if it was within a BVW, that the boundaries were coincident with the BVW that it was located within. But I mean, it's hard to put your finger on it in the middle of a hearing to locate that. So if you have a renal pool in the middle of a giant wetland and the whole wetland becomes renal pool, but Erin, it doesn't quite make sense to me. I'm just saying that that's what I recall being in the regulations. I'm not stating whether that's for sure or not. I'm just saying I think I thought that's what I recall the regulations saying. I mean, from my perspective, it's difficult to say if you have a wetland system or an identified wetland unless there's a very well-defined basin within the wetland, that it's difficult to identify the boundaries of the renal pool within that BVW. And that might be why that language was the way it was in the bylaw. But- What boundary right now has been certified as a renal pool? Well, I don't think it has been certified at all in the literal sense. Can we take action on it if it hasn't been certified?  We can assume that it's a renal pool, whether it's certified or not. Yeah, I don't mean to put words into your mouth, Larry. I don't think whether or not it's certified is a thing, except that's another level, but just whether or not it's demarcated on the map and listed, the boundaries are approved. I think it's a bigger issue. So I think certified is something that the state actually has to do. Yeah, I agree on that. Because the piece that I remember last time about the BVW was related to what you guys were doing, Ted, where you were just gonna presume that that outer boundary was the same. That's right, I think I suggested that and I think I was corrected. And I'm looking at page 29, 2D, and it says the boundary of a seasonal wetland, which contains, which is renal pool falls under that category, is defined as one of the following. And I, Kristen identified the borders as being, from the presence of water stain leave, which is the third criterion, page 29. Sorry, I'm just looking because we have a whole section on it. 2D, like in Delta. That seems fairly straightforward, not easy, but. So it sounds like it's one of those, one of the following. So it could be defined by the hydric soil on the site. If there's a vernal pool, you could say the limit of the vernal pool is where you're finding hydric soils or 100 year flood extent or the presence of water stain leaves or ponding, presence of ponding. Once again, it's really difficult for us to confirm this. I mean, I went out there and took pictures with Ted late in the season, took a lot of pictures right around the time that we got the report from Kristen or, you know, from Ted through Kristen. But I didn't necessarily feel like we were verifying the boundary of the vernal pool at that time. So I think it's really up to the commission whether they're comfortable taking that report and the extent of the vernal pool within the BBW as they've defined it based on the definition that we have here. So just to be clear, who was Kristen working for, the applicant? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I mean, so we have a fairly easy solution to this. I mean, if we have any doubt, I don't see why we don't just do third party review. Yeah, I mean, certainly we could. It's difficult to do that in the fall for a vernal pool habitat, but as noted in our bylaw, there's other things like the hydric soils that could be used. I mean, I think this is a pretty liberal definition. So I would defer to the commission on, you know, what you're feeling on. I don't really feel prepared to, you know, to offer a recommendation on this tonight without having a little more time to review it. Yeah, but I mean, if we want to do third party, it'd be good for us. Yeah, that's easy for us to, I think, vote on tonight or move forward on. I agree with Brett. So how are other commissioners feeling at this point? I mean, so we have a couple of options. One, we can definitely keep on talking through this. One, we can simply continue, so be able to have more time. Third is that we can ask for additional information. Personally, you know, a third party review seems to make perfect sense to me, but I said that too strongly. Third party review makes sense to me. And again, I agree. And so a third party review is gonna help us decide how we interpret this boundary of a seasonal wetland. I think they would help us confirm where that boundary is. I don't know how they're gonna do it, Jen. I don't know how we're gonna do it any better, but, you know, they're wetland scientists, and I mean, that's what they do. Yeah. So I would, even if they... But if we go out and confirm the border of the vernal pool, which and the, you know, surrounding wetland, which is great, don't we still have to decide like which of these ways we're gonna decide the bound, like determine the boundary of the seasonal wetland slash, you know, vernal pool in this case? I think we're legally bound by what's in there. Yeah.  Granted, Jen, you're having an unfair advantage. You understand this much better than the rest of us. And teach us, just all the things. Oh, yeah, no, no, I... I think you get it. Yeah. I just, I think that a third party, kind of a third and independent opinion on the boundary of the vernal pool makes a lot of sense. I don't know how we're gonna do that in the middle of a severe drought in the fall. So we're talking about a long delay in order to achieve that goal. And at the end of it, you know, chance, you know, there might be some discrepancies between this third party review of the vernal pool boundary and the one that we already have, but we're still gonna have to decide as a commission if we're gonna, how we're gonna interpret this by law definition of a seasonal well end. So, I guess I would say, if we do a third party review, we should also do our homework on how we wanna define this. Have we decided that vernal pool boundary is what we're agreeing on? Well, I'm hoping, Larry, that that's what the third party review would help us do. I agree with you. That's what I'm saying. I don't think we've decided that that's really what the boundary of the vernal pool is yet. Correct. And part of that's related to what Jen is saying.  Right. Yeah, our definition is very different than like the state definition. Yeah. I was just looking at the state definition and it makes it a little easier for us. Well, if you go further up on page 29 in one C, it says, vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that can find water for a minimum of two continuous spring months, but lack vertebrate predators such as adult fish, et cetera, which would suggest that the vernal pool in the middle of a BVW, then the border, the limit of the vernal pool doesn't automatically extend out to the edge of the BVW. Right. And that it has to contain water for a minimum of two continuous spring months. Now, in this case, the reason that we got to the vernal pool discussion in the first place was because there was the presence of albic species. Right. So we kind of, we were kind of backing into the vernal pool discussion from a different cause. But now that we have identified that there's a habitat here that is supporting these albic species, what is the resource that we're trying to protect? We're trying to protect the habitat for these albic species, which is by the definition of the local bylaw, a vernal pool, or are we trying to protect the vernal pool, which is a state? There's also a definition by a wider authority. And that's, I think that's where the rub is here. Yeah, we're legally bound to enforce both of those. Right. So I mean, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, please go ahead. I was just saying, like, for example, lot six is almost entirely out of the 100 foot wetlands buffer, with the exception of creating. Both five and six are that way. Well, five is a little more in the 100 foot buffer. I was just thinking, like, let's say we assumed that the edge, if we assumed that the edge of the BVW was the edge of the potential vernal pool, then that would mean house five was partially within that 100 foot boundary, but like lot six is almost entirely out with the exception of the patio. I agree. Lot seven is almost completely out with the exception of the patio. Yeah. Lot eight is almost completely out with the exception of the patio in the garage and a small sliver of the house. Yeah, so even if we did a very conservative, you know, definition of the vernal pool. Right, even if we assumed. Then, right, then we're still talking about, you know, there's, the issue is patios for most of the properties. Yeah, I agree. That's super, super conservative. I don't think that's what a vernal pool is. Yeah, that's the other thing is like, yeah, I agree with Brett. Yeah, that being said, I mean, yeah, if we wanted to take a super conservative approach, we can definitely move forward with that. That'd be, it's one way to move forward. But, you know, I mean, apart from that, I would, I'm leaning towards third party. And we did have that wetland boundary, that bigger boundary that was, that was approved a while ago. Right, and that was continued in the spring of 2019. That boundary was continued, I believe, for three years, the Welland boundary. Well, so should we, since these are independent, you know, individual, excuse me, NOIs, could we hold, could we try to figure out lot five? Like, I'm trying to think if, if we want to do a third party review, could we apply that to like, mostly lot five? Or is there any way we can move any of these forward if we're gonna hold some of them for a third party review? Because we really are talking about the spring. Right, that's exactly what I was kind of getting at with the- Yeah, I'm with you, Erin. Yeah. Well, I would also like to, it's not that I disagree at all with you, Jen, but I would also like to get a third party person on board and just get their opinion on that as well. So like on the definition, essentially. Yeah, is this something that they can do now? I assume they're gonna say no, but it would just be good to, yeah. I would just feel a little better. So we'd have them lined up, we'd get their input now and then they'd be able to do their stuff whenever it is they can do that. So, and just so that I'm clear, the third party would be a field-based review as well, or would it mostly be reviewing the plans and the bylaw? No. That's another thing, Brett, is we could do like a review of the plans and the bylaw as the primary role of the third party review. And then if they felt that a field, a additional field verification was necessary, then we could hold it to the spring. What if we put a decision point in there that gives us the option to decide whether we need to do a field verification or not? Did I make one other suggestion? Please. That in addition to reviewing the bylaw and the plan, that they also review Kristen's report to see if the science that she's using to arrive at her delineation is sound. Okay. And yeah, I just want to note that different people in the public have raised their hand or put down their hand, and we definitely will get to you. So keep your hand up, please. So, okay. Yeah, so we have a bunch of different options on the table at this point. Yeah, and again, each one of these is individual. Okay, so obviously we're going to keep talking, but is there anybody, any commissioners want to say anything over before you open up to the public? Then I'll come back to the commission. Okay, so, okay, Blake, you should be able to speak now. Hi, good evening, Blake Spirko, 53 Concord Way. I put my hand up before you guys mentioned the third-party review. I just wanted to remind the group we said in the spring when the butters wanted the third-party review, we were saying we really didn't need it at that time because they're already determining it was a vernal pool and you're going to use the wetland border as a vernal pool border. And this is a big change to us listening into this that we're trying to change the borders. And that's why my hand went up. So I agree with someone who's not, yes, a third-party who's more independent. That's what I needed to say. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Blake. And that definitely rings true in my mind too. That's what I was trying to say before where there was something about that wetland boundary, but we're just kind of being conservative as a way to move forward. So thank you. And so, John, you should be able to speak at this point as well. I'm coming in late. I was actually here for a 7.40 p.m. meeting and I was having a lot of trouble getting into the Zoom Bridge. I couldn't get to the town website and then eventually I did not receive any more errors and I was able to access it. So I'm late to the game but better late than never potentially. So I wasn't sure if I would be able to have my couple of minutes maybe towards the end. Okay, so you have nothing. So you're not related to this talk here, but to a separate issue. A later hearing. He's this 7.00. Oh, okay, 7.40. We have a quick on there, John. Yeah, we're still on our 7.30. So I'll just hang out until you kind of. Yes, please. So we will definitely get to it. So I'm not sure when, but we will. Yeah, we do have four additional hearings after the Tafino hearings just to kind of put in perspective. There's a lot of people that are on the call. Okay, and yeah, and I know that we're losing at least one commissioner at nine. So we're okay as long as nobody has to recuse themselves. And this one, Laura, you have to recuse. Could I make a recommendation to the board? Back when we were discussing this in the spring, I had been in touch with a colleague, Art Allen. He works for Echo Tech in Worcester, extremely experienced with vernal pools. And I feel like he would be an excellent peer reviewer to review the bylaw, the plans and the report and give the commission some guidance with regard to if field, additional field verification is necessary to further define the vernal pool boundary within the BBW. I just feel like that would put a lot of people's minds at ease and also just give us a second opinion on how we're approaching this. So that sounds great to me, Erin, with the only caveat being, assuming that there is something still within the 100-foot BBW boundary. If everything is outside the 100-foot BBW boundary, I'm good, but if we're, but if those boundaries start to get crossed with the new lines that we're talking about, that's where, yeah, I would definitely want to. And are you talking about grading as well? Cause I mean, the plans show the houses outside the 100-foot, but grading within 100-foot for all of them, portions of all of them.  There's 100-foot no disturb around vernal pools in the town of Amherst. Yeah, so I would want to be with that, so. Okay. Okay, so Ted, are any of these that you are proposing at this point, are any of them 100% no touch outside the 100-foot wetland BBW buffer? No, they're all, they're all 100-foot no touch outside the vernal pool buffer as defined by Kristen. Okay. Okay, in that case, yeah. I would say I would be much more comfortable moving forward with third-party review as you were suggesting, Erin. I don't have preference on any individuals. I fully trust you, but basically a desk review. I think would be very helpful in us moving forward and they would help determine whether or not we need to do a field, some field work as well. So other commissioners thoughts? I would concur with that. I'd feel comfortable with the third-party desk review and then possible follow-up field, depending. Okay. So our next meeting isn't until October 14th, am I right about that? So do you think that, I don't know, if there's any shot at having that result by then by the next meeting, I think that would be really great. I mean, everyone's really busy, but. Yeah, I mean, I can definitely do my best. The biggest hold-up will really be the funding. So we'll have to set up a contract with a peer reviewer and in order for that contract to begin, we'd have to have funds to pay that individual. So really be, I'd get a quote, the applicant would provide the funds to me so I could set up the contract and then as soon as we had that check deposited, the individual could start the work. So it's really based on the procurement process as to how fast we can move. But if we can move, if the applicant, I can get a quote before Friday and the applicant can get us to check early next week, we can try to make it go as quickly as we can. And as part of the contract, the third party will present in front of us. Whatever you want, but yeah, certainly we could have that be a condition of the peer review. I'd prefer a written and verbal report would be perfect. And so, yeah. Anything else that we would want as direction for our third party review? I would just recommend that we make a motion and I recommend that we do that while Jen is in the room because right now we have four people on the commission who can vote on this and as soon as we lose one of them, we don't have a quorum anymore on this item. So this predates LaRoy? Yes. Oh man. This has been going on for a year. LaRoy just started, I think in the spring, right, LaRoy? Yeah. So the only further, I'm like racking my brain for any other kind of guidelines for a peer reviewer and the only other thing is I haven't checked recently, Erin, but have there been any additional state guidelines with whether or not we can even do these delineations during the drought conditions? Do you know? I haven't seen anything. As far as I know, it's pertaining to overcoming the presumption of if a stream is perennial is the only. Yeah, that's what I saw too. I wasn't sure. I mean, that was maybe a month ago and it's only gotten worse. So I didn't know if they'd made any more stringent changes, but yeah, that's the only other thing I can think of as if it's... Well, I mean, I think a peer review this time would not be appropriate anyway, right? Yeah, of course. If the peer reviewer came back and said, we need to field verify this boundary, or that's my recommendation, we would have to wait. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so that's gonna impact the desk review though, so we should be good. Okay, okay, yeah, just racking my brain. Thank you. Yeah, and so we'll ask Fletcher to review this, the notes from today, so I'm sure he'll love that. And then he can be fully up to speed as well. Okay, yeah, so we can... Since we need to continue one, we can just continue all of these so that hopefully the applicant can come back to us next time for a date for the one and two. Or I guess, oh, we can just do no action. So I guess that doesn't really matter on that one. But basically, we're continuing all of these till next time. So... Yeah, do you have a preference on that? I'd say we just continue all of them. So... Oh, sorry, I didn't know who you were asking. I have no preference. Okay, so looking for a motion for continuation, I'm just gonna say for all of these, with the recommendation that we have a third part of your review with those guidelines on it. Do you want to restate those or have... Yeah. I can attempt it. Erin, what time on October 14th should I say? Oh, you're muted. Just saying one second. I would suggest 7.40 on October 14th. Okay, so let me give this a try. I move that we continue the notice of intense for Tafino Associates for Construction of Single Family Homes and Associated Driveways Utility Landscaping within Bucca Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands at Lot 1 Concordway, Lot 2 Concordway, Lot 5 Concordway, Lot 6 Concordway, Lot 7 Concordway, and Lot number 8 Concordway with the condition that we initiate a peer review on the existing vernal pool delineation and associated report and the town, Amherst town bylaw definition of a vernal pool, especially relative to the surrounding wetlands and guidance on how that should be interpreted in the context of the formerly mentioned lots on Concordway and Amherst mass. And I move that we continue these hearings to October 14th at 7.40 p.m. Second, that was a champion. That was fantastic. I think it was great. Amazing. Okay. So voice vote, Larry. Oh, wait. What's seconded? I seconded and then I went right into like gold stars. Yes. Okay. Yes. Hi, Jen. Hi. So I for me and just for the record, LaRoy. Oh, no, you can't. So, and then Laura, you were cues as well. That's right. Okay. So Ted, I assume you and Aaron will be in communication. So obviously the sooner that we can get all of that paperwork set up, the quicker we can move forward. We'll do look forward to hearing from your Aaron. And I look forward to seeing you all in the middle of October. Take care. And for those from the public, just remember, yeah, you can always check in with Erin about how things are progressing. Hopefully things are done in time and we can move forward on this on the 14th. Okay, so now we are moving on to our 7.40, oh wait, nope, our 7.35, I'm sorry. And this is a request for determination and I am just pulling up my script here. So one second, the icon is still bouncing. Okay, I got it now. This public hearing is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by provisions of chapter 131 section 40. The general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst protection by law. This is again a request for determination, for Tara Acker for construction of in-ground pool and patio over 50 feet from bordering vegetated wetland at 36 weaver circle. This project is only jurisdictional under the town of Amherst wetland protection by law. And this is map 8B, parcel 132.  And Tara, is there anybody else here with you that should be a panelist? Hello Tara. Hello. Okay, so if you would mind, if you wanna give a introduction to the project and then we'll turn it over to Erin for some additional information. Sure, happy to thank you. So I am interested in installing an in-ground pool in a developed backyard at 36 weaver circle. I contracted Erica Cross to do a delineation per Erin's guidance. She did the delineation for us and showed us the 50-foot no-work line. And then I contracted a landscape architect to see what we could do in terms of utilizing the rest of the yard to do a possible in-ground pool. The landscape architect did a rough sketch of where we could put an in-ground pool that's approximately 75 feet from an intermittent stream away from the delineation that Erica Cross had identified. And so I'm here tonight to see if the conservation commission would allow me to move forward with an in-ground pool.  So that's my motivation. Understood. Oh, I would also add that the landscape architect is very familiar with projects like these. I'm working with Rick Miller from RJ Miller Construction. And he would put in, if granted permission, he would put in all the erosion controls, straw wattles and a silt fence at the line where there's no work permitted. Okay, sounds good. Erin. Yes, so I went out and did a site visit today. So this is basically coming in from the driveway and looking back at the driveway. This fence would come out and the contractor would be accessing through this area to come into the backyard. And then you can kind of see the steps coming up to this deck. That deck is on the left here in this picture and the pool is, you can not really see it but they had it staked out in the middle of the lawn here in this area where the pool would be located. They also had an area strung to identify where the 50 foot boundary was located. And as part of the application, there are three trees. This one, this one and this one, which are, if you're looking at their fire pit, sort of to the far right of the fire pit. So again, about 50 feet from the wetland. And then there is, this photo here in the middle is standing in the same location but turned around facing the wetland. And there is one tree, one or two trees there that were identified as hazard trees that are within 50 feet that they like to take down. So under the Wetland Protection Act, deck sheds, patios and pools are exempt from the Wetland Protection Act as long as they're located over 50 feet from the mean annual high water line of an intermittent stream or bordering vegetated wetlands. So the project is exempt under state law just applicable under our local bylaw because we don't have that exemption under our bylaw. I would recommend as far as conditions that erosion controls be installed at the limit of work and that there be an erosion control inspection prior to the start of work and an erosion control inspection. Once the site is stable prior to removing controls and that I would have the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance. And then one additional condition that didn't make it on here that I would recommend is that we not allow the pool to be drained on site that water would have to be pumped out of the pool into a truck to be taken off site. Other than that, I have no issues with the project and would recommend a positive determination checking box B5, which just acknowledges that the work is jurisdictional under our local bylaw and then a negative determination under B5 which defines that the project is exempt as a minor activity under the Wetlands Protection Act. Okay, thank you very much, Aaron. So commissioners, any thoughts? Seems fairly straightforward. Yeah, just one minor thing that I had was from the map that was shown just to make sure that the silt fence doesn't necessarily need to go through the middle of the woods but yeah, just the wherever the extent of the work is. So nothing, that is good. So going to the public, if anybody in the public has any comments or thoughts on this, you can use a little hand-raising tool. Okay, so I am not hearing anything. So at that point, we are looking for a motion and Aaron, again, can you prompt us on the specific negatives and that sort of stuff? Yeah, there we go. Yes, yeah. Thank you. Do you want me to do it? You did so well last time, Jen. No one can compare. I don't think so. I think we all have, we all add something special to the questions. Some of us are more special than others though, Jen. I don't know, I don't think so. Okay, so where are we? I move that we make a positive determination checking box B5 and a negative determination under B5 exemption. Yeah, for the construction of an ingrown pool and patio over 50 feet from BVW at 36 weaver circle. Yeah, it's my motion. And the conditions? Oh, and the conditions, sorry, on the motion are, oh, they're up there. Thanks, Aaron. That erosion controls are installed with the limits of work. There's an erosion control inspection by the town of wetlands administrator prior to the start of work as well as an erosion control inspection. Once the site is stable prior to removing the erosion controls that the wetlands administrator has the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance and that if the pool needs to be emptied for some reason that it should be pumped dry and water chopped offsite rather than released on site. Thank you, Jen. Looking for a second? Second. Sorry, that was Larry? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, so going through on a vote. So Larry? Yes. Anna? Aye. Jen? Aye. Roy? Aye. Laura? Aye. And I, for me as, Anna, did we get you? So Anna? I was like second, you got me. Okay, hi, hi, hi. I'm off my game tonight, sorry. So, okay, and I for me as well. So Tara, we are in good shape here and Aaron will be in communications about paperwork and moving forward. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, so moving on down the road. So we are now on our 740 agenda item and I'm just pulling up my sheet again. This public meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. This is for requests for termination from Jonathan Anderson for placement of a eight foot by eight foot prefab shed over 50 feet from bordering vegetated wetland on existing lawn at 30 Paley Village Place, map 21B, parcel 88. This project is only jurisdictional in the town of Amherst Wetland Protection bylaw and regulations. And so, John, I am, you should be able to speak at this point, John. And if you would introduce yourself and give us a little introduction to the project, I'd be much appreciated. I can go, I'm gonna, I think we're playing the unmute game here. Yeah, John, you're muted at this point. There we go. Can you hear me now? Okay. So thanks for hearing me this evening. My name is Jonathan Anderson. I recently moved back to Amherst with my wife and two kids towards the middle of the summer. I have a snow blower and lawn mower and that kind of stuff. And my wife was looking, hoping that I could get some stuff out of the garage to make more room for the kids and their stuff, so on and so forth. So I reached out to the building department, the Amherst building department to see if there were any laws that I should be aware of, permits that were necessary, found that there were not. I went ahead and ordered the shed, the prefab shed that you had laid out earlier on in your kind of introduction to today's meeting or this evening's meeting with myself. Shortly thereafter, I don't remember his name off the top of my head, but the building inspector had emailed me back and said, hey, I think maybe you should talk to Aaron Jock and the wetlands department or with the wetlands commission with regards to seeing if, even though you're exempt from state law to have the dimensions for which the shed that you want to put in place, there might be some town bylaws or ordinance or whatnot that you need to adhere to. The shed was already purchased at that point, but Aaron was obviously quite knowledgeable. She worked with me very closely to make sure that I was outside of that 50 foot buffer from the wetlands. And in addition, I hadn't disturbed any earth. There's nothing that would kind of seep into the ground or whatnot, no concrete tonnage or anything like that. So it's about it. I'm just looking to see if I can get approval for the shed, even though it's kind of a little backwards in the process, but again, Aaron can probably shed some light on that as well. Better late than never. So that's what I think. Aaron? Yeah, so I mean, I think John's accounting is pretty accurate. I got the call, let him know that it is exempt under state law because he's over 50 feet away, but it's not exempt under a local bylaw and that he would need to get approval from the Conservation Commission through a request for determination. I've been working with John to get through this process and luckily he had a survey and the delineation already for his property. So that piece was already done. There was no ground disturbance, no excavation. He's putting it on existing lawn. He put down some piece stone and as you can see some cinder blocks and it was constructed on top of that. So I went out today, there wasn't even any disturbance to the lawn as part of the construction. So the site's fully stable. And at this point, I don't even have any conditions for the permit because everything has basically been constructed already and the site is stable. I would basically just recommend that the commission issue a positive determination checking box B5 to acknowledge the jurisdiction under the local bylaw and a negative determination under B5 stating the exemption that the work is exempt under the Wetlands Protection Act. Fantastic. So commissioners, thoughts, ideas on this one, even more straightforward. It seems very clear. Just open up to the public real quick. If there's anybody from the public who'd like to comment on this one? Okay. So I'm not hearing anything from the public, nothing from any additional commissioners, looking for a motion. I'm just so scared to do it, Ron. All right. Jump in. Okay, it's gonna happen. All right. I motion to find a positive determination checking box B5, indicating that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw and a negative determination under the B5 exemption that the work is in an exempt minor activity under the Wetlands Protection Act. I second that. Like a silver star, please. Excellent. Just to reiterate, this is for 30 Village Place. Yes. 30 Paley, Paley. Oh, awesome. 30 Paley Village Place, correct. The jury is still out on the pronunciation. We're trying to figure that out. I mean it's Paley. So I'm just gonna. Paley? Paley. Yeah, like I said, I'm gonna be late for supper. You live there, so we'll go with yours. Okay, so looking for a vote on this one, Laura? Aye. Anna? Aye. Larry? Aye. Ben? Aye. LaRoy? Aye. And I for me as well. So John, thank you very much and you are good to go and any paperwork will be coming your way from Erin. All right, thank you all very much and have a good rest of the night. Okay, so let's keep on trucking here. Okay, so that was our 740. So we are moving on to our 745. This public meeting is now in order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions chapter 131, section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. This is a request for determination for Margaret Nulli, the owner for reconstruction of existing barn and 24 foot by 20 foot shed addition. The chicken coop will also be relocated to the west end of the addition of the shed addition. All work is proposed to be over 40 feet from the boarding vegetated wetland at 657 South Pleasant Street. So Margaret, I see you and I am promoting you to panelists. And it seems like it takes a second. Can you hear me? We can. Can you see me? We can. Wonderful. Here, let me get my stuff back. I am Margaret Nulli and I'm ready to give you my spiel. We are ready for your spiel, spiel. Okay. I own and reside at 657 South Pleasant Street and out there in the ether someplace, I think my husband John is also here and we are proposing a barn renovation and I see the drawing from our application is on the screen, which is excellent. We submitted our application on September 2nd and it shows the rebuilding of an existing barn to kind of improve the efficiency of our garage space and to convert some of the barn into guest accommodations. The drawing also shows the addition of a 20 by 24 foot storage shed on the west side of the barn. Our property is across the street from the Fort River and our property also has wetlands. The river, high water delineation in the wetlands were flagged on July 13th by Ward Smith of Wendell Wetland Service and the flags were surveyed by Eton Associates on July 13th and the drawings from that survey are marked on the drawing. All construction for our project is further than 50 feet from the wetland and all construction work can remain further than 50 feet from the wetland. The entire barn is outside the 200 foot Fort River high water line. During her site visit yesterday, Aaron and I discussed the placement of a sediment barrier and it too will be beyond that 50 foot line. And yeah, at that place, that's all lawn and grass filtering stuff there. So that's our application as it's written and I'll pause for you to talk and discuss but there are two other issues that have come up since our application. So I don't know if you'd like me to address that now or kind of get through the application first and then put the caveats on. If they're relevant to the application, please go ahead now. Okay, so during the process of construction, we might have to do two temporary things. You can see in the photograph that's in the upper right, that's our chicken coop in our little chicken yard. We have a very small flock, but we're hoping to pick up that chicken coop and move it to the west side of our farm road that you can see in the photograph and on the drawing. And that would be right about at that 50 foot. Yes, Aaron just drew a little circle where we're talking about temporarily putting that during the construction itself. The other temporary thing that we might have to do is get a storage pod that we would put, yeah, probably there maybe between the two trees that are drawn there, yeah. And again, we're not even sure we need that storage pod but that's it. So two temporary things during construction and the other issue is we've been working with our architect and our builder on all of our plans and we are kind of prepared to do this within the exact existing footprint of our existing barn. But we really would like to go two more feet to the south. So the south side of the barn at the bottom of the drawing there, moving it two feet further to the south and giving us some additional space just for structural reasons on the inside. So those are my two copyats that were not on the application. Okay, and so that extra two feet is not on the plan at this point, correct? Correct. Okay, okay. So Aaron. Sorry, can I just ask one question? So is that if it extends two more feet to the south, is it then inside the 200 foot Fort River buffer? No, because you can see the arc of the 200. Yep, so I just don't know the scale. So it wouldn't be, it still wouldn't be within 200 feet. Correct. Okay, thanks. Yes, so this was one of those that was kind of on the cusp as far as being, because she's doing a shed addition and it's chicken coop and they're over 50 feet away. At the time the application came through, they weren't proposing any modifications to the barn footprint. But I'm really glad at this point that we filed it with the state anyways. And so it's being reviewed under wetland protection and under the local by-law. From visiting the site, the site's very flat. There is as you, if you're looking at the top right hand photo looking, there's a slight elevation increase as the farm road goes around that corner. So my recommendation was just to put erosion controls along the edge of that farm road until it gets past that. I forget the technical name for it. I always call it burning bush, that bush right there. Ewanimus. Yeah, if winged Ewanimus, there you go. Thank you. And then my recommendation is for the placement of the chicken coop and the chicken run that they do temporary, well that's only being placed temporarily, but that they also put an erosion control barrier around that during construction, if they're moving it and then relocating it to the new location that that site where the chicken coop is temporarily needs to be stabilized before that erosion control is taken up. But there was no vegetation removal really proposed as part of the plan. It's kind of existing lawn or existing infrastructures kind of located in that area already. So I didn't really have any major concerns with what's being proposed. I just would recommend that if for allowing the items that are not shown on the plan, that those items be conditioned in and also that we may wanna request just a revised plan that shows those items, even if they're hand drawn in just where they're located and that there's erosion controls around them. Yeah, I like the idea of having those on a revised plan there. Okay, great, thank you. So commissioners, again, fairly straightforward one, I think. Any comments or questions? So two additional people from the public, they're probably hearing or something else, but if they have any comments or questions, then that's the time. Not hearing any, looking for a motion. I can do it. I move that we issue a positive determination, checking box B5 to acknowledge that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw and negative determination under B3, the wetlands, Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act with the conditions that a revised plan, oh boy, is provided to the wetland administrator that shows the larger footprint of their proposed renovation renovated structure and the temporary location of the chicken coop and potential storage pod during construction. Further conditions are that we recommend that erosion controls be installed at the limit of work. Erosion controls should be installed around the chicken coop and the pod if you end up doing a pod. There should be an erosion control inspection by our wetlands administrator prior to the start of work. And once the site is stable prior to removing controls and the town of Amherst Wetlands administrator has the right to monitor the site during construction to ensure compliance. And this is all for reconstruction of an existing barn and a 24-foot-by-20-foot shed addition in over 50 feet from the BVW, BVW at 657 South Pleasant Street in Amherst, Mass. Yes, I second that, Jen. Okay, looking for a vote. LaRoy. Hi. Jen. Hi. Laura. Hannah. Hi. Larry. Hi. And I for me as well. So thank you very much, Margaret. You are basically all set, a couple of things, and Erin will be in touch in regards to paperwork. So thank you. Wonderful. Okay, bye-bye. Hey guys, I gotta go. I think I'm just missing the last one, right? All right, Jen. You'll be okay. Well, I'll get through the motions. Thanks. I'll see you guys October. Okay, just making sure the, okay, that looks updated. Okay, so we are moving on to our eight o'clock agenda item. This public meeting is now called the order. This meeting is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40, the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protections of wetlands as most recently amended in the town of Amherst Wetlands Protection bylaw. With this request for determination, Kestrel Land Trust for removal of existing shed and steps, removal of dead trees and creation of handicapped accessible entrance within 100 feet of pond. Also proposed a fire department turnaround within 200 feet of Plum Brook and within 100 feet of pond at 37 Bay Road. And so if you are here for this, if you could just raise your hand. Okay, Tom. Okay, Tom, so you should, let's, if we can unmute you here. Yeah, so Tom, can you unmute yourself? There we go. You are good at this point. And so Tom, if you could introduce yourself and give us a little bit of background, that'd be much appreciated. Sure, hi. My name's Tom Hartman, principal here at Coldman Hartman Architects in Amherst, representing Kestrel Land Trust. Kristen DeBoer, the executive director is my wife. So this has to go well. So the land trust is changing the use of this property, which is currently a single family house at 37 Bay Road. It was acquired by the Epstein family a couple of years ago. And as you may know, there was a deal done with the town of Amherst to put the pond and the dam into conservation. Okay, so this is the site that resulted from that acquisition. There's 200 feet of frontage, a long driveway that comes up, and we determined, my office determined this boundary from the survey that was prepared by Eiser, which showed the boundary of the pond, the culvert location, and Plum Brook we put together from GIS. So of note is that this change of use to a business use is permitted by right through site plan review. So I need to go to the planning board. There's some demolition on a building over 50 feet. I have to go to the historic commission. And then as you can see, some of the work that we're doing is within the boundaries, within 100 feet of the pond and 200 feet of Plum Brook. So Erin was out with me yesterday and we looked at the particular situation where there's a shed, which is probably 30 or 40 feet from the pond, which is in bad shape to be removed. There are steps that go from the house down to the pond that are a hazard that frankly should be rebuilt with handrails, but we're proposing to remove them entirely and then place wood chips, which were gonna come from some of the trees being removed to make an unpaved walkable path down to the pond. We also may put in the future an additional path that comes down around on the gentler slope around the site. And the steps may be rebuilt in the future as well. But as you can imagine, we have some constrained budgets and are deciding what we need to spend the available funding on, but we're getting all the permanec set up to do that. There are several dead trees around the house on the south side of the house. I think six or seven, some fairly large that are hazard trees, which are gonna be removed. And then working with the building commissioner in the fire department, I think it's important to know, and Aaron, if you could go back to that site plan real quick, that when this building changes from a single family to a business use, NFPA one comes into jurisdiction, which is fire department access. It requires a 20 foot wide driveway to the building, given the length of this driveway. We only have 14 feet at the moment. And so we've been able to negotiate with the fire department and the building commissioner having a notified fire alarm as a compliance alternative because this would be a substantial amount of work to widen the driveway given the grading that's there. Within 200 feet of the brook and it would be a substantial amount of work. So that's very, very helpful to have that compliance alternative. Additionally, the change of use requires an accessible entrance, which you can see is on that little curve there, which is going to come in on the north side of the building just barely within the 100 foot buffer of the pond. It's currently a Goshen walkway, which is going to be replaced with an asphalt impervious pathway, but no significant change of area to that. And then additionally, outside the buffer, there's some parking areas that are being striped on existing paving, a couple of extra sheds that are coming down and the potential to remove the garage in the future. But that's again, outside your jurisdiction. Any questions? Erin, do you want to kick us off? Sure. So the photo all the way to the left is the dam that contains the pond and then Plumb Brook actually exits out of the dam there. So this is the area where the fire department turnaround would be placed. And my understanding is that's going to be gravel. There are a couple of trees that are needing to come down. They were flagged in this general area just to allow the turning radius of the fire truck. This is the photo to the right is the Goshen stone walkway that they're replacing and making handicap accessible. And then there's a fence that runs along that Goshen stone and there's a better picture of it all the way to the left here from what I understand that fence is coming out. These are the photos of some of the hazard trees. There's a lot of large oaks that hang over the house that are completely dead, that they're proposing to remove and reuse some of the wood chips on site. This is a photo of the staircase that's got to come out. And I had just recommended when they pull the logs that they spread wood chips from the cut trees in this area to stabilize it. This is the shed that's closest to the water that needs to come out that's within our jurisdiction. And then there's a small garden area that's also coming out and that's on the plateau beside the pond. Okay, sounds good. So commissioners, thoughts, ideas, questions?  So betterment as far as wetlands are concerned. So that's all great. Yeah, it won't flood out. No, no concerns from me. Can I bring up one more thing? On my way up here after dinner, I was asked to make one more request which I just remembered. As Plumb Brook enters the pond, there's a path that comes from the house that connects to the trail system and it's currently very, very muddy even in a drought that we're in now. And the question is do we need to work with you to permit little bog boards to go across that muddy section? Basically some logs from the site with some planks. Should we include that in this or is that something we can do? Yeah, I mean, I think we can just condition that in and we should be fine. Okay, thank you. I'm not quite sure, you held up a card but I couldn't read it so I'm not sure what that was. That was a little sketch. Oh, gotcha. Oh, okay. That's my reminder. So DEP has a funky policy about bog bridging. DEP Western Region considers footing for bog bridging to be fill in wetlands. So I would just recommend that the board condition that the footings for the bog bridging should not be located in a wetland. If at all avoidable, they should be they should be spanning the wetland so that you're not putting fill in the wetland and also it should be as elevated as possible up off the ground to allow light to get underneath it. And when you say footing, I mean, all I'm talking about is a couple of logs. I understand. I mean, I've seen, I've permitted throughout the state and never seen or heard of such a policy on bog bridging but just kind of some recommendations based on DEP, dealing with the DEP Western Region on this issue. I think we'd come back to you then given what I just heard. So, could I chime in, Brett? Please. Yeah, I wanted to start by saying just in the area near the dam, the turnaround area, one of the things that Tom may or may not be aware but I did speak with Kestrel Trust about potentially getting an easement to access that area, an easement over the driveway because I'm not sure we legally have the right to pass and repass over the driveway to get to the dam. So that might be something Tom just to, I actually forgot to mention to Kristen but it might be good to take that back to her. I just wanna make sure that that turnaround doesn't in any way interfere with access to the dam but there wouldn't be any significant elevation change there so that I don't know an emergency vehicle couldn't get over the dam in ATV if there was an issue with the dam or some sort of health or EMS situation up there. Yes, there will be nothing blocking someone going past the turnaround onto the dam. There'll be signage that says fire department turnaround, no parking, the turnaround will be plowed along with the driveway as well. And so it's essentially placing trap rock gravel on the existing grading that's there just so that it doesn't get dug up so much. Sure, that sounds great. And we can talk, I can talk with Kristen about the easement issue. I'd raise that with her former staff person Paul Gagney. I did just wanna comment on the trail issue and I'm a little bit, honestly, I'm a little bit challenged by that. I'm not sure how the commission can make a ruling on that if there hasn't been a delineation. Right. Well, let's just put that on the table and we'll come back if we want something. I think that would, you know, we, the department comes before the commission whenever we're permitting new bridging of any kind. So it would seem from a consistency standpoint that if Kestrel wanted to come back, which I know exactly where that area is because I worked on this project with Kristen and staff at Kestrel. But it would seem to me the logical thing would be to come back with a separate filing for that trail work. I agree. Okay. So we will not add that to what we're talking about here. So thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay, we have nobody left from the public. So that means we are looking for a motion. Okay. I'll try it. Moving to recommend a positive determination. Box B five that acknowledges that the work is jurisdictional under the local wetlands bylaw for 37 Bay Road and a negative termination under B two and three of the under the wetlands protection act with conditions. These conditions are that all disturbed areas must be stabilized with mulch, straw and seed or wood chips or stone to notify the wetlands administrator at the start of work and when it was complete to notify the wetlands administrator. Well, no, to acknowledge that the wetlands administrator has the right to monitor the site to ensure compliance and that any changes to the plan in jurisdictional areas require the board's approval. There was one additional condition. What was that? That we just verbally discussed. We were talking about bog bridging, but we rescinded that. Okay, great. This is all for 37 Bay Road. Second. Second.  Okay, looking for a vote. LaRoy. Aye. Larry. Aye. Laura. Aye. Anna. Aye. And aye for me as well. So thank you, Tom. Erin will be in touch. Thank you all. Have a great evening. You too. Okay. So at this point, we are through our agenda. Erin, are there any other nuggets that are sitting out there waiting for us? Or are we done? No, the only thing I'll just mention as far as monitoring reports is we've been having some problems receiving Applewood monitoring reports from Alan Weiss. So I've requested that he start sending them hard copy. He's been sending them electronically and they've been going to my spam box, I think, not being delivered. And so anyways, that's the only other thing regarding monitoring reports. I think we've covered all other business. Excellent. So with that, looking for a motion for adjournment. I move. Yes. So I can just. Second. Okay. Third. Anna. Aye. I heard aye from Larry already. Laura. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. And aye as well. So we are done. So thank you, everyone. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night. Thank you, guys. Actually, thank you to Erin. So great as always. Thanks, Erin. Be safe and have a good weekend. And Erin, I'll stop the recording at this point. Thank you.


The Ram on the Mountain, a symbol of sacrifice. In today's video we climb Mount Moriah with Abraham and Isaac, discovering a profound moment that points directly to Jesus Christ. Genesis 22 recounts the story of Abraham's test of faith being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac. At the moment of sacrifice, a ram caught by its horns in the thicket is provided as a substitute. This ram represents Jesus, the Lamb of God, who later becomes the ultimate sacrifice for humanity's Abraham looked up and there, in a thicket, he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. Genesis 22-13 Every step on that mountain, every heart-wrenching moment, echoes the future act of God's own sacrifice for us. Stay tuned as we explore more connections in the next video.


And an online media has reported that hackers that had gained access into the server of the National Identity Management Commission, NIMC, installed three million national identity numbers of Nigerians. However, in a press release circulated and signed by the head corporate communications, NIMC, Kayodea Deguke, NIMC insisted its servers are the most secure and were never breached. The director general of the NIMC engineer Leo Aziz said the commission and its infrastructure are certified to the ISO 2701 2013 information security management system standard, which are revalidated annually. The commission assured the public to uphold the highest ethical standards in data security on behalf of the federal government and ensure compliance with data protection and privacy regulations. Do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


what's going on everyone welcome to a brand new movie review today I might be discussing my favorite film of this year and that film is called the favorite no pun intended I really was looking forward to this film one of the reasons being you have Olivia Coleman you have Rachel Weiss you have Emma Stone and it's directed by your ghost Len Themos I'm probably pronouncing that completely wrong but I do have to mention the guy if you don't know who this guy is he's directed to the lobster and killing of a sacred deer two films that most notably I loved and I really loved each and every directorial effort that the guy has done every time the guy makes something I have to be their first day just one of the reasons being is he is a very talented director and he just gets these films perfectly he's so creative and imaginative when it comes to making the films and the favorite is no different the favorite again it might be my favorite film of this year in fact it is my favorite film of this year and I really do mean that with no pun intended I love this film I just just mesmerized and captivated by every single scene and layer that your ghost put in to this film and a lot of it is elevated by the elegant but bombarding score one of the big questions is what is the favorite about well the favorite it takes place in early 18th century England where frail queen Anne play by Coleman occupies the throne in her close friend lady Sarah play by wise governs the country in her stead when a new servant Abigail played by Emma Stone arm and deers her to Sarah now this was a film that I didn't know much going into I stayed away from the trailers I really just knew the synopsis I knew who was in it I knew who was directing it I didn't want to know anything about it so I am going to stay a little bit vague on this review because I want you guys to go into this film not knowing anything and just kind of feel the same way that I felt I seriously when I say the word mesmerizing that is like there's so many words I could go about but that is the easiest way to describe this film as I was just mesmerized not just by the cinematography that is just outstanding in every single scene in here just seems like it's painted onto a canvas we are just sitting there owing and eyeing at all the beautiful lights and the way that he just moves the camera in here is so elegant and so unique and different this is really his stamp his style of directing that you feel within the favorite really the great performances in here are all just wonderful one of the reasons being Olivia Coleman steals the show a lot of the time due to the fact of just a strong script that she got and the way that she was able to chew the dialogue out and just spit it out onto the screen and just portray it perfectly but really Rachel Weiss and Emma Stone are really both competitive for best supporting actresses here she's both superb everyone really in here does such a great job in here doing the character that they're supposed to play and really transforming into these characters this is one of the first roles where I didn't just see Emma Stone I saw the character that she was playing same goes to Rachel Weiss and Olivia as course you just see their characters you don't you forget that they're actors and that's something again that Yorgos does so well with the film is that making you feel like you're there and again that goes to his camera angles that goes to the unique way that he shoots the film and it goes to the unique dialogue and the script and story that is being told there's not one point in time where I felt like the story was predictable I didn't know where it was going my jaw dropped my jaw was on the floor my eyes were big and wide and when certain things came to revelation and that is what this film does so well adding in the bombarded but most elegant and superb score into here that is what makes the favorite my favorite film of this year I love this film it's going to be so hard to bump this from the top my list now I really had expectations set super high for this film and it just exceeded them by so many revelations I'm going to be thinking about this film for so long and I definitely am going to go see this in theaters the second it comes out so with all that said I'm going to give the favorite and a plus absolutely love this film this is Yorgos's best film to date I seriously mean that like overly tops any film the guy's done before strong script great score great directing great performances everything in here was just my favorite let me guys what do you guys thoughts on the favorite do you guys like this film did not do you like these two films let's talk about it down below in the comments of course if you guys are new here make sure to hit up sandwich on films also down below because right down there you guys can get into advanced movie scenes you can check out some movie news and even some movie reviews but guys of course until next time stay classy